I am a CoG. My HT has suggested that it might be a better way forward for us to have an agency clerk rather than the clerk directly employed by school on a zero hours contract. HT feels that this would be easier in terms of performance management and administration involved in processing hours claimed by current clerk. I disagree, especially as the burden of PM of the clerk isn't the HT's (it's mine and really it's minimal!). As a paper exercise. I've started looking into the comparable costs (although don't have all the figures yet). The HT & I also disagree about who employed the clerk (and by extension who can make this decision): I maintain it was a GB appointment (2 former governors did the interviews and selection); they say it an operational school matter and not under GB juristiction. I VEHEMENTLY do not want to lose the clerk we have, they are worth every penny in my mind, even if they cost slightly more than an agency clerk, which I doubt it will be. I suspect we are under-paying them and frankly they've had a raw deal over the years. This has come about because the clerk has said during the PM discussion, extremely tactfully, that they think probably they should be allowed more holiday days pay as they've been working at the school now 7 or 8 years and, if this is the case could it be looked into and amended. My question: If the HT gets their way would this mean making the current clerk effectively redundant (and associated costs of that) and secondly: if the role is made redundant, isn't there a law to the effect that you can't fill recently-redundant roles with contract staff (as otherwise technically the role is actually not redundant!)? Looking for help please with HR law and any financial reasons to convince HT this is not a move we want to make. Genuinely, we would be a poorer GB for their loss. Unrelated: how on earth do I put paragraphs in this message?