Eleanor Piper

Employment Status if learner is employed prior learning start

Created

None

Good morning

I am trying to ensure that I get my employment status data correct for our apprentices.

The guidance says that "..you must ensure that the ‘Date employment status applies’ of the earliest Employment status record is before the earliest learning aim start date recorded for the learner" but also "apprentices ...should have an employment status record detailing who they are employed with on the first day of the apprenticeship programme". 

OK so.... 

1. Scenario 1: learner starts employment on day 1 of learning.  I assume they need two employment records? One showing what they were doing before starting, and another showing their employment with the apprenticeship employer on day 1.

2. Scenario 2: learner has been employed by apprenticeship employer for some time before starting the apprenticeship.  I assume they only need one employment record, as what they did before starting with this employer is not relevant to their apprenticehsip at all.

 

3. Scenario 3: learner starts employment with apprenticeship employer a week before starting learning. This is where I am a little confused.  Does this require two records (one showing what they were doing before they started the apprenticeship, then other for the apprenticeship employer) or just one?

 

And am I correct that if the employment record relates to an employer who is NOT their apprenticeship employer (i.e. it covers activity prior to starting their apprenticeship), it doesn't require an employer identifier? 

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


Ruth Canham-James

1 - Correct, two records.

2 - Correct, one record.

3 - That's just the same as 2 isn't it? One week, one month, one year before the start date of the apprenticeship doesn't matter, it's still before the start date.

You don't even require an employer identifier for the employment history record that covers the apprenticeship (definitely not previous employer details). They haven't issued new ones since April 2022 because they clearly don't use them any more. I don't understand why they haven't just scrapped that field altogether, but nobody is going to question it if you just report 999999999, even if that employer technically does have an EDRS. Each site had to have a separate EDRS, so an employer might have many EDRS numbers, but not one for the specific site you're using. If we already had an EDRS logged for an employer site, we still return it, but we never bother to check employers we've just started working with to see if they ever had an EDRS for that site.

Eleanor Piper

Thanks Ruth Canham-James. Your thoughts echo mine, and reflect what we are doing so that is good news! We also work with some big employers who have a lot of sites, many of which are tiny - the requirements around the EDRS, and the difficulty of searching for sites, was one of my biggest headaches when I started doing this job.

Ruth Canham-James

I was delighted to see the back of EDRS, it was always a mess. Loads of people used trading name and not company name, so all the hairdressers called "Curl Up and Dye", were then linked and it looked like they had more than 50 employees. Apparently, Thompson Directories just used to bulk dump data in there, and a person I spoke to from Blue Sheep (who managed this) once told me that "sometimes the data is correct...". That's why I don't bother even looking for historic numbers.