Soldato
If you start arguing it surely they won't give her any more hours?
Legality of an employment contract
- Thread starter MassiveJim
- Start date
Don
When you say a bank worker - are we talking somebody who was full time, trained, then at the same company moved into a role that is effectively part time and used to cover for illness/maternity or whatever?
They are having a laugh if they think that's acceptable to charge somebody for.
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 2,779
19.8 lays out the sliding scale, 100% before month 1, reducing by 1/24th for each month worked.
The training is not transferrable, ie it is essentially compulsory induction training, no member of staff is able to work at this company without it.
I believe that if she had started as a bank worker in the first place they would have put her through the exact same training.
So just to clarify, she is moving to another full time job, but with little scope for overtime, this is the reason for remaining on bank so she can pick up some overtime.
Because this is a pretty shady company, they have awful staff turnover, they are always short staffed and there are always shifts up for grabs.
Her only concern is that they will just take the money from her pay slip as and when she picks up shifts.
Yes exactly that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 2,779
Note that this was a week of training at their head office in a classroom.
Then a couple of weeks spent at home doing online courses, which they appear to be charging @ £50 per time, each course taking an hour or 2 to complete.
Last edited:
Soldato
I dunno if it's one of those where you don't pay it and see how far they are willing to take it?
They’re taking the absolute ****. These are all generic “training” areas that you get at pretty much any company. I doubt these figures bear any relation to the cost to provide the training.
As said up thread, if it’s an external, professional qualification that can be used in other jobs then fair enough but company specific, generic training has no external value in the marketplace.
Don’t accept what they’re asking, don’t sign anything, don’t set up a direct debit. Do seek some legal advice.
Edit - quick Google does suggest she might have a problem due to signing that contract though.
As said up thread, if it’s an external, professional qualification that can be used in other jobs then fair enough but company specific, generic training has no external value in the marketplace.
Don’t accept what they’re asking, don’t sign anything, don’t set up a direct debit. Do seek some legal advice.
Edit - quick Google does suggest she might have a problem due to signing that contract though.
Last edited:
So they are wanting her to pay back both her pay during training as well as the course "cost". So scummy, particularly since the training was involuntary. I really hope you find a way to get out of this. Possible angles:
- Those "course costs" are a number on a page. There's no evidence there that the company incurred those costs. You could ask for that evidence and decline to pay unless provided, because the contract states you have to repay "costs to or incurred by the employer".
- I wonder if paying back these training "hours" and costs would bring her below NMW. Seems likely and some research indicates recovering training costs that bring pay below minimum wage for the reference pay period is not allowed if the training is mandatory. Might be worth getting some legal advice, it's not that expensive for a consultation. If so, letting them know they'd be reported and/or you would use this as a counter argument if they take action might make them back off. Probably ruin any chance of banking there, though.
- Was she informed how much the courses cost prior to taking them? Did she specifically agree to those costs? If no to those questions, that may be a valid argument.
Last edited:
Can you claim back training costs from employees? | Employment
Providing training and development opportunities to your employees is a great way to invest in your staff and in your business. The cost of such training is usually borne by the employer on the basis that, over time, the business will benefit from the new skills or knowledge
realemploymentlawadvice.co.uk
Lays it out clearly and in simple terms; she signed up to the terms of a contract and they are acting on it. All legal debates will start there and move into the value derived, the costs past on etc but in the end will see you have to pay something, probably including legals costs should you chose to contest it.
Last edited:
Associate
They've definitely done this before with others based on the breakdown of figures OP so tread very carefully as the value makes it worth visiting small claims. Potentially look at settling with them - I would maybe try this face to face or on a call rather than an email initially. This is pretty scummy practice as although it's in the contract etc. there's no way to know how much money your other half was getting into when agreeing to it and that would definitely be a factor when discussing it in SCC.
That's a good point, if her salary is below minimum wage after payback of the training that would be illegal for the company to do that regardless of what the contract states
Leaving aside the point at hand, everyone have a look down that list of training and pick your top5 most 'disturbing' modules. My wife does all this stuff and more, so when you think you've had a bad day at work, consider the absolute ****** up **** some people have to deal with.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 2,779
Yes every employee gets the same treatment, the letter/email asking for these costs back is normally sent within 2 days of the employees last working day.
She has called and spoken to someone and contested it on the basis that all employees have to complete this training, INCLUDING bank staff.
So to put it another way, had she been on bank initially she would have had to carry out the exact same training. Therefore she still needs this training to be able to work on bank shifts.
But as expected they claim she still has to pay it.
She has agreed (for now) to let them take a £75 payment out of her next wage, and I am awaiting a solicitor calling me back to give further advice.
As for the minimum wage thing, does that rule apply only to the time spent training ?
or would they calculate it based on her entire tenure at the company ?
She was paid around £300 more than minimum wage for the 2 weeks she spent training, therefore it would stand to reason that they can only bill her for this amount.
My partner has spoken with previous employees, and some have ignored it completely, others have agreed to a payment plan (£50 a month or similar) and then cancelled the standing order after a couple of months, and they all report that they haven't been pursued for it. however we are talking about a few months, i don't know if the company will go after these people in 6/12 months time
We sometimes get a little snippet of the kind of thing that goes on in the news with stories like baby P and Arthur Hughes.
She has called and spoken to someone and contested it on the basis that all employees have to complete this training, INCLUDING bank staff.
So to put it another way, had she been on bank initially she would have had to carry out the exact same training. Therefore she still needs this training to be able to work on bank shifts.
But as expected they claim she still has to pay it.
She has agreed (for now) to let them take a £75 payment out of her next wage, and I am awaiting a solicitor calling me back to give further advice.
As for the minimum wage thing, does that rule apply only to the time spent training ?
or would they calculate it based on her entire tenure at the company ?
She was paid around £300 more than minimum wage for the 2 weeks she spent training, therefore it would stand to reason that they can only bill her for this amount.
My partner has spoken with previous employees, and some have ignored it completely, others have agreed to a payment plan (£50 a month or similar) and then cancelled the standing order after a couple of months, and they all report that they haven't been pursued for it. however we are talking about a few months, i don't know if the company will go after these people in 6/12 months time
Its very grim, she has shared an odd story with me from past jobs working with children and I definitely couldn't work in that area.
We sometimes get a little snippet of the kind of thing that goes on in the news with stories like baby P and Arthur Hughes.
Last edited:
She’s probably just torpedoed herself by doing this. Solicitor chat should have been first.
It was a good argument about needing the same training to be on the bank.
Indeed, if it does go further I would expect them to lean heavily on this as an admission and agreement that the money is owed, only that the structure of repayments being in dispute.
No Union support/access?
I wouldn't have offered to pay anything till I'd spoken to a solicitor regards the actual contract - She's effectively entered into a agreement to repay by starting the first payment.
Must be other staff / people that have worked there - any contact with them? Check online for similar situations.
I wouldn't have offered to pay anything till I'd spoken to a solicitor regards the actual contract - She's effectively entered into a agreement to repay by starting the first payment.
Must be other staff / people that have worked there - any contact with them? Check online for similar situations.
Oh dear. Probably not worth spending anything on a solicitor now she has agreed to pay.
Get yourself over to the Consumer Action Group. They have some extremely knowledgeable members. They helped me immensely when a large company pursued me for a training bond because I left 'too soon'.
The employer went after me a few years after I left and it got as far as a couple of weeks before a court date before they backed off. It was incredibly stressful, but the people at CAG were a godsend.
The employer went after me a few years after I left and it got as far as a couple of weeks before a court date before they backed off. It was incredibly stressful, but the people at CAG were a godsend.
Last edited: