The amount of 70 complainants – working as special needs nannies – had been affected by overdue payment from Songkla educational service area office during October – November 2018, which had caused them grievance.

The fact was discovered by the Ombudsman that they complained educational office had employed a special needs nanny as a monthly temporary worker, starting 1 April 2018 and ending 30 September 2018. Afterwards, the complained educational agency was informed the 62 qualified amount of special needs nanny as a temporary worker – that the agency was able to hire in the 2019 fiscal year – which were lessen about 10 positions comparing to the qualified amount of the 2018 fiscal year. Then, the agency delayed their action of employment and restarted the recruitment process of special needs nanny. The recruitment process ended and the employment began 26 November 2018. The employment contract ended 30 April 2019. Then, during the period of 1 October 2018 – 25 November 2019, none of special needs nannies was employed so there should be no payment made for special needs nannies during the aforementioned period.

However, the fact revealed that the special needs nannies had been actually on duty during the period of 1 October 2018 – 25 November 2018. Also, more discoveries were proved in the documents of other related offices that the action to reduce the special needs nanny’s hiring amount and the request to delay their employment were behind the end of employment contract. The Ombudsman had discussed with the complained and related offices to identify the solution in order to eliminate special needs nannies’ grievance. Additional point of fact was discovered in the discussion that the payment for special needs nanny as a temporary worker was usually approved retroactively while the employment contract had been constantly renewed for several years and the reduction of hiring amount in the 2019 fiscal year was unidentified beforehand.