Cantila

Greetings,

Can anyone guide me to the form with the correct definition of "full time" employment as per DIMIA's definition? I know part-time would be 20 hours.

I suspect that this is in form 1119 but unfortunately cannot access it at this time.

Thanks very much.

Cantila

Jaj

20 hours per week counts as full time as far as DIMIA is concerned.
Less than 20 hours doesn't count at all.

In other words it's all or nothing - they don't pro-rate.

Jeremy

    >On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:46:10 +0000, Cantila wrote:
    >Greetings,
    >Can anyone guide me to the form with the correct definition of "full
    >time" employment as per DIMIA's definition? I know part-time would
    >be 20 hours.
    >I suspect that this is in form 1119 but unfortunately cannot access it
    >at this time.
    >Thanks very much.
    >Cantila
    >--
    >Posted via http://britishexpats.com

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

wizzywozza

slightly unrelated but interesting is the fact that Centrelink - a couple of years ago - declared that 15 hours per week is full time work!

ptlabs

"Employment" for migration purposes is defined as work that is paid, skilled and at least 20 hours per week. Anything less than this definition won't qualify as employment at all.

Actually, the Nov 2002 version of Booklet 1119 left out the page that defines the regularly used terms. An oversight that makes the Nov 2002 Booklet 1119 look rather like a rushed job, really.


Peter

Cantila

Thank you for replying. I'll ask my question a different way:

I am claiming bonus points for having worked 3 of the last 4 years prior to my application in skilled employment. I am a consultant, and during this 4 year period I had paid,skilled employement as a business analyst, logging 1,955 paid hours over 15.5 months.

For my application, I assumed 40 hours a week was the benchmark for full time and thus assessed this 15.5 month period as equal to 11 months of work experience, full-time. I never worked less than 20 hours per week, generally 30 hours plus.

I have a letter of reference from the president of the company and can certainly provide other proof if required. This is the only part of my application that leads me to question DIMIA's interpretation.

Any guidance, then, on how they might look at this work experience? Is 1,955 hours over a 15.5 month period that was averages a 30 hour work week and was always more than 20 hours per week considered 15.5 months of full-time work, or does it represent 11 months of full time work?

A mental conundrum. Hmmm.

Thanks for anyone's two cents.

ptlabs

Work experience is never pro-rated. In this, I mean that if you worked 40 hours per week for 10 weeks, it's still 10 weeks of work experience, not 20 weeks of equivalent work experience (of 20 hours per week each).

Similarly, if you worked 10 hours per week for 20 weeks, it'll count for nothing, not an equivalent pro-rated of 10 weeks of 'compressed' work experience.

So, without going into details for your case (only a migration agent who looks at your case individually may provide a clear and professional opinion - not something a free newsgroup can do), your 30 hours per week (assuming that it's skilled, paid and has never been less than 20 hours per week and you have documentation to prove so) will be treated as skilled employment during the duration of work you performed, counted using calendar days, not using the formula you've used.

e.g. If your consulting work was done over a period of 2 years, with the engagement at at least 20 hours per week during that calendar period, then you will be considered to be in employment for migration purposes for that 2 years. Even if you have worked for 40 hours per week during that period, your work experience will not 'expand' to 4 years in this example.

At the end of it all, it's not clear how many calendar months you've been doing your consulting work in the past 4 years, so it's impossible to guess with the facts at hand, whether you actually qualify for the 10 points.


Peter

Jaj

Never assume that what goes for one government agency will also go for
another.

Jeremy

    >On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:49:51 +0000, wizzywozza wrote:
    >slightly unrelated but interesting is the fact that Centrelink - a
    >couple of years ago - declared that 15 hours per week is full time work!
    >--
    >Shaz
    >Posted via http://britishexpats.com

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Jaj

That kind of question is asking for professional advice and really
isn't appropriate here. Anyone with non-standard work experience
should have an agent handling their case, and not try to do it
themselves, unless they actually want to be refused.

Jeremy

    >On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:09:34 +0000, Cantila wrote:
    >Thank you for replying. I'll ask my question a different way:
    >I am claiming bonus points for having worked 3 of the last 4 years prior
    >to my application in skilled employment. I am a consultant, and during
    >this 4 year period I had paid,skilled employement as a business analyst,
    >logging 1,955 paid hours over 15.5 months.
    >For my application, I assumed 40 hours a week was the benchmark for full
    >time and thus assessed this 15.5 month period as equal to 11 months of
    >work experience, full-time. I never worked less than 20 hours per week,
    >generally 30 hours plus.
    >I have a letter of reference from the president of the company and can
    >certainly provide other proof if required. This is the only part of my
    >application that leads me to question DIMIA's interpretation.
    >Any guidance, then, on how they might look at this work experience? Is
    >1,955 hours over a 15.5 month period that was averages a 30 hour work
    >week and was always more than 20 hours per week considered 15.5 months
    >of full-time work, or does it represent 11 months of full time work?
    >A mental conundrum. Hmmm.
    >Thanks for anyone's two cents.
    >--
    >Posted via http://britishexpats.com

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Cantila

Respectfully, I think any question that is related to migration to Australia and New Zealand is perfectly appropriate on this forum! I am asking for an opinion, not legal guidance. If I need legal guidance, I certainly know how to get it.

I appreciate both the breadth and depth of the various questions people ask and would not discourage anyone, including myself, from gathering information in whatever manner works for them. What one does with that information is up to the individual.

Thanks to all - this is a great tool!

Cantila

Jsuppal

JAJ is right. The only applicable law is Immigration Law.

Under Regulation 2.26A.(7) - "employed" means engaged in an occupation for
remuneration for at least 20 hours weekly.

The regulation does not set an upper limit in terms of the number of hours
worked per week. Neither does it says "an average" of 20 hours per week.

Best wishes.

Jas
http://firms.findlaw.com/JSUppal



"JAJ" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Never assume that what goes for one government agency will also go for
    > another.
    > Jeremy
    > >On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:49:51 +0000, wizzywozza
wrote:
    > >
    > >slightly unrelated but interesting is the fact that Centrelink - a
    > >couple of years ago - declared that 15 hours per week is full time work!
    > >
    > >--
    > >Shaz
    > >
    > >
    > >Posted via http://britishexpats.com
    > This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Jaj

You can ask whatever question you like as long as you appreciate that
there are limits to what kind of advice you can get.

Simple rule - if you want professional advice, be prepared to pay for
it.

Jeremy

    >On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 00:50:10 +0000, Cantila wrote:
    >Respectfully, I think any question that is related to migration to
    >Australia and New Zealand is perfectly appropriate on this forum! I am
    >asking for an opinion, not legal guidance. If I need legal guidance, I
    >certainly know how to get it.
    >I appreciate both the breadth and depth of the various questions people
    >ask and would not discourage anyone, including myself, from gathering
    >information in whatever manner works for them. What one does with that
    >information is up to the individual.
    >Thanks to all - this is a great tool!
    >Cantila
    >--
    >Posted via http://britishexpats.com

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

Eric

wizzywozza wrote in message news:...
    > slightly unrelated but interesting is the fact that Centrelink - a
    > couple of years ago - declared that 15 hours per week is full time work!

When was the declaration made? In what section of the Social Security
Act was it mentioned? What newspaper or other media reported it? Was
it spoken about in parliament? Why doesn't Hansard mention it? Why
isn't it in old versions of the Social Security Act. Why do online
databases fail to have a single reference to it in legislation or case
law?

You are totally wrong. You do not know what you are talking about. You
will be unable to prove this. You're a dill to even bring up stupid
things like that.

In other words, I disagree!

Eric.

PS You smell too.