- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
Employee A is full time for 18 months
Small correction Employee D started April 2017 and Continuing.
Hi,marcnath wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:28 pmSo unfortunately you filled in the application incorrectly.
Job 2 should have been only employee B
Job 3 should have been employee C and D, which together would have been more than 12 months
Then you should have indicated that you are combining Job 2 and Job 3 in your application.
You can try for an AR explaining that error in the application. If that gets rejected you should be able to do a fresh successful application.
Ensure you have your maintenance funds
I have cleared mentioned in the application
I have cleared mentioned in the applicationind8889 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:58 pmHi,marcnath wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:28 pmSo unfortunately you filled in the application incorrectly.
Job 2 should have been only employee B
Job 3 should have been employee C and D, which together would have been more than 12 months
Then you should have indicated that you are combining Job 2 and Job 3 in your application.
You can try for an AR explaining that error in the application. If that gets rejected you should be able to do a fresh successful application.
Ensure you have your maintenance funds
I have clearly mention in application form and created new excel sheet and explained clearly in that Excel sheet. How many works , roles and claiming months and hours.
An we clearly told you it should have been:
To reiterate for the purposes of your fresh application and for the benefit of other readers, let me try to explain.ind8889 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:01 pm
Hi,
I have clearly mention in application form and created new excel sheet and explained clearly in that Excel sheet. How many works , roles and claiming months and hours.
I have cleared mentioned in the application
Job 1 : Employee A
Job 2: Employee B, C and D
marcnath wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:05 pmTo reiterate for the purposes of your fresh application and for the benefit of other readers, let me try to explain.ind8889 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:01 pm
Hi,
I have clearly mention in application form and created new excel sheet and explained clearly in that Excel sheet. How many works , roles and claiming months and hours.
I have cleared mentioned in the application
Job 1 : Employee A
Job 2: Employee B, C and D
1. You are expected to create the equivalent of TWO full time jobs, each of 12 months.
2. You are allowed to combine MULTIPLE part time jobs to equal one FT job, but each of the part time jobs should last 12 months.
3. VERY IMPORTANT - you need to clearly tell the CW in your application which jobs are to be combined to make up ONE full time job ==> This is the part you missed.
4. A full time equivalent job (NOT Employee) has to have minimum of 30 hrs/week. The job can have more than 30 hrs/week, but the additional hours is ignored for job creation calculation.
Now to your specific case:
While the easiest to address the above is the way I mentioned earlier, looking at this again, there is something I think you can argue for your AR.
You can try arguing that you Job 2 is a Full time JOB (defined as greater than 30 hrs/week) but is filled by two employees.
So, HO should take into account that between Nov 2015 and July 2016, the Job had 221 hours/month (so > 30 hrs/week) for 8 months and between April 2017 and July 2017, the job had about 164 hrs/month.
You have to look at the exact documents you submitted. If the periods above cover 52 weeks, then I think you have a good chance to win your AR. It is something new, but I can't see anything why a Job cannot have more than one employee at the same time. (This only works because your employee C and D did not work at the same time)
Why do you want to raise this in your AR ? This criteria had nothing to do with your rejection, HO has not disputed that at allind8889 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:57 amHi,
Thank you it makes lot of sense and i have one more quick question
In policy guidance it clearly mention
A single job need not consist of 12 consecutive months (for example it could exist for 6
months in one year and 6 months the following year) providing it is the same job
(different jobs that have existed for less than 12 months cannot be combined together
to make up a 12 month period), and the jobs need not exist at the date of application,
provided they have existed for 12 months.
Can i raise this point when i go for AR?
Hi,marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:38 amWhy do you want to raise this in your AR ? This criteria had nothing to do with your rejection, HO has not disputed that at allind8889 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:57 amHi,
Thank you it makes lot of sense and i have one more quick question
In policy guidance it clearly mention
A single job need not consist of 12 consecutive months (for example it could exist for 6
months in one year and 6 months the following year) providing it is the same job
(different jobs that have existed for less than 12 months cannot be combined together
to make up a 12 month period), and the jobs need not exist at the date of application,
provided they have existed for 12 months.
Can i raise this point when i go for AR?
Hi ,
Thank you for the information.marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.
You heard wrong - it is the other way around. You can combine jobs, not employees.
marcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.
When i applied i showed only 2 jobs
Which is why I said you should make both arguments.ind8889 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:48 pmmarcnath wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pmThe problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.When i applied i showed only 2 jobs
For Admin review if i show there is 3 jobs. How he will consider it?
And he may query it why initially 2 jobs and now 3 job roles??
Well explained Zimba .zimba88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:08 pmAn we clearly told you it should have been:
Job 1 : Employee A
Job 2: Employee B
Job 3 : Employee C and D
Where you mark JOB 2 and JOB 3 are being combined![]()
Again you do not understand a JOB/POSITION is not an employee or set of employees. You must have created THREE jobs/positions in order to qualify for award of points as we demonstarted