Most teachers when they sign a contract probably don't even notice many of the legal features of their contracts. Understandably, they're usually more concerned about their salaries and benefits, etc., and assume that there won't be any glitches in their employment. And usually they're right. Nevertheless, it's always unwise as a point of principle not to read any contract fully and properly before signing it.
One of the most interesting features of British Council contracts for teachers is that they almost all are subject to the law of the country the teaching centre is in rather than UK law. What this means is that if you do have a dispute with the British Council for any reason, it will have to be done in the local courts of the country you are or were employed in. In my opinion, this is a clever device the BC use to avoid taking responsibility. I'll explain below.
Firstly, there's simply the awkwardness and complexity of contesting in a foreign court or tribunal system. Initially, there's the obvious problem of language, not to mention possibly completely different cultural values, as in Muslim states for example. But, even more importantly, what if you have already left the country, as was my case? Yet another point is what if your case spans two different centres, again exactly as it was in my case (Bahrain and Malaysia)? Which court do you go to? The sheer impracticality of bringing a sustained case against the BC leaves most potential complainants completely frustrated.
I feel this is particularly hypocritical of the BC, because anyone who works for them knows that there is almost complete uniformity across all centres with regard to values, standards, procedures and practices. To all intents and purposes one teaching centre is pretty much like another, with exactly the same forms, procedures, structures and positions. Even the contracts are worded the same. Often even the same people. The BC is clearly one organisation spanning several countries with the basic blueprint ultimately coming from London. You can argue legal technicalities till you're blue in the face, but it won't change that basic truth at ground level.
In my opinion, this truth should be reflected in any contract's jurisdiction, which should include London as well as the local courts. This would enable anyone who felt they had a genuine grievance to choose and continue at their leisure, knowing they have the support of the home legal system to fall back on. Ironically, it would also make it easier for the BC in the unlikely event that they themselves wanted to bring a case.
While on the subject of the BC as a global organisation, the BC now only recruits through their regional HQ. For example, if you wanted to work in Thailand you would have to apply through Singapore. They've been doing this for several years now. To me this is more confirmation that the BC is one organisation and is becoming increasingly centralised, which again should be reflected in the contract's jurisdiction. It's an incredibly grey area, and to me a contradictory one, in that the BC say they want local centres to be more autonomous, yet are shackling them with further centralisation.
Anyway, I certainly hope none of you readers will ever have occasion to be involved in a dispute, but if you are, do be warned how complex it will be.
One of the most interesting features of British Council contracts for teachers is that they almost all are subject to the law of the country the teaching centre is in rather than UK law. What this means is that if you do have a dispute with the British Council for any reason, it will have to be done in the local courts of the country you are or were employed in. In my opinion, this is a clever device the BC use to avoid taking responsibility. I'll explain below.
Firstly, there's simply the awkwardness and complexity of contesting in a foreign court or tribunal system. Initially, there's the obvious problem of language, not to mention possibly completely different cultural values, as in Muslim states for example. But, even more importantly, what if you have already left the country, as was my case? Yet another point is what if your case spans two different centres, again exactly as it was in my case (Bahrain and Malaysia)? Which court do you go to? The sheer impracticality of bringing a sustained case against the BC leaves most potential complainants completely frustrated.
I feel this is particularly hypocritical of the BC, because anyone who works for them knows that there is almost complete uniformity across all centres with regard to values, standards, procedures and practices. To all intents and purposes one teaching centre is pretty much like another, with exactly the same forms, procedures, structures and positions. Even the contracts are worded the same. Often even the same people. The BC is clearly one organisation spanning several countries with the basic blueprint ultimately coming from London. You can argue legal technicalities till you're blue in the face, but it won't change that basic truth at ground level.
In my opinion, this truth should be reflected in any contract's jurisdiction, which should include London as well as the local courts. This would enable anyone who felt they had a genuine grievance to choose and continue at their leisure, knowing they have the support of the home legal system to fall back on. Ironically, it would also make it easier for the BC in the unlikely event that they themselves wanted to bring a case.
While on the subject of the BC as a global organisation, the BC now only recruits through their regional HQ. For example, if you wanted to work in Thailand you would have to apply through Singapore. They've been doing this for several years now. To me this is more confirmation that the BC is one organisation and is becoming increasingly centralised, which again should be reflected in the contract's jurisdiction. It's an incredibly grey area, and to me a contradictory one, in that the BC say they want local centres to be more autonomous, yet are shackling them with further centralisation.
Anyway, I certainly hope none of you readers will ever have occasion to be involved in a dispute, but if you are, do be warned how complex it will be.
