Verbal agreements - enforceable?

[Loxxie]

Hi

In September 12 I started a course on a Wednesday - I was advised to complete it by my employer who said he was happy for me to go on day release to complete my course. They only specifics they asked as I that I complete the course on a Wednesday instead of a Friday. I subsequently started the course and no changes were made to my salary or holiday entitlements as no discussions were had about his

the sector I worked in meant I was a team leader looking after 20 people on my time - although I didn't agree to it I practically worked 8-2200 as although I finished shift if there was an issue or sickness or lateness by boss used to ring / text me. This applied regardless of bank holidays, if I was at uni on the Wednesday or I was on holiday if I didn't answer they would bombard me with voicemails asking why I wasn't answering

In February I subsequently left. They are refusing to pay me my outstandingly wages - as they calculated it wrong and my accrued holiday as apparently I create a verbal agreement back on September that I would serve them for 18 months while completing my studies - news to me - and as I subsequently broke that agreement they don't owe me and want me to pay my salary back for every Wednesday I was back at uni. Nothing was written down as no agreement within this nature took place.

how do I go forward in getting my money back?

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

This is probably not going to end happily - for anyone. A verbal agreement is as binding as a written one, just much more difficult to prove. On the other hand, you were not in work on Wednesdays, and so it is just as easy for them to claim that an overpayment was made in error and claim it back - because you equally have no written confirmation that they would pay you for days when you were not in work. What you "practically worked" isn't relevant - unless you have an agreement for overtine pay, then what you choose to do in relation to your working hours is up to you.

Unfortunately this is not about training agreements - which makes me suspect they have taken legal advice. A training agreement to reimburse course fees or other costs (which does not seem to be the issue here) must be in writing and signed. But without such an agreement you have no evidence they agreed to pay you for your day off either. This appears to be about "where you were every Wednesday" - and there seems to be nothing in writing to say that they would pay you anything for this course, and that includes paying you for the time. So it is going to be your word against theirs, and this could turn into a costly wrangle for you both. Frankly, unless you have something better than "no evidence", I would call it quits and move on.

[Loxxie]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Thank you for your reply - they are refusing to give me my accrued outstanding holiday - over Ł600 as they are saying that's for every Wednesday. I have spoken to the manager who agreed for me to have the time off and they confirm they were going to make no alterations to my wages - although nothing was in writing they confirmed that it would not be altered. In my contract there is a section that overtime will be paid at the standard hourly rate - but they have never paid me the overtime despite having records available of all the lengthy telephone conversations I have had to have with them.

Putting the issue of Wednesdays beside - surely I am statutory entitled to all outstanding accrued holiday?

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Not if you owe them money you aren't - and that is the crux of the matter. They say you owe them money and you say they owe you money. I seriously doubt that if it came to the crunch of a court case, your managers memory would be quite so good. They may have forgotten the entire matter. So - do you have any evidence that that the overtime was authorised - not volunteered but authorised; and that they agreed to pay you for the day you did not attend work? Because if you haven't, I don't see that this isn't simply going to be a case of your word against theirs.

The lesson here for the future is to make sure that agreements are in writing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but getting caught out twice is unforgiveable.

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Sorry fir sticking my beak in but just had a question (I like to learn and I'm a nosey cow!!)

Could the fact that they have paid her for Wednesdays up till now and are only complaining now that she has quit that they were unpaid time off count for anything?

Do the employers have to prove that verbal conversation took place and could the OP argue that an argeement would have been confirmed in writing?

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Could the fact that they have paid her for Wednesdays up till now and are only complaining now that she has quit that they were unpaid time off count for anything?

The OP coould argue that yes. But as I suggested before, the employer coulod argue that the payment for working on Wednesday was paid in error, and that the payroll should have been amended to reflect a four day working week. Errors of this magnitude (and greater) are not uncommon so there would be absoluetly not way in which such an argument would stand out as exceptional. If you look at this from all sides of the argument, does it actually sound plausible that an employer would decide to continue to pay someone their full-time wage for only working part-time hours? It doesn't really, does it? So this still leaves us with a hugely messy "he said, she said" story.

Do the employers have to prove that verbal conversation took place and could the OP argue that an argeement would have been confirmed in writing?

The OP could argue that. But it is just as strong an argument that if the employer agreed to pay full-time wages for part-time working that that would have been confirmed in writing! The same argument as above applies. The OP themselves says that no discussion were ever had about salary payments - so the employer at no time said "you work four days a week and we'll pay you for five" either! Playing devils advocate, how credible is it that your would reduce your working hours by 1/5th and not ask your employer what they intended to do about your pay? I am not suggesting that the OP is lying, simply pointing out that the OP's version of events is as incredible - or possibly more so - than believing that there was an error in payroll and a pay reduction for part-time hours was never actioned. If such an agreement (to pay full pay for a reduced working week) was in place, who wouldn't get that in writing?

The base line on this argument is that the OP agrees that they reduced their working week by one day - it stands to reason that the salary would be reduced by the same amount unless there was an agreement to the contrary. So to turn your questions back on you - where is the OP's agreement to this? Wouldn't they have wanted such an agreement in writing? And actually, since even the OP agrees that no such agreement took place and that no discussion about salary ever took place - who on earth reasonably thinks that their employer is going to pay them full-time wages for part-time working?

I can see quite how this situation has arisen, but I also cannot assume that one side or the other is telling lies (they may both be telling their version of what they thought they agreed - one of the benefits of written agreements is that they confirm the details!), but I do not see that this can necessarily be easily resolved if both sides dig their heels in. But if I was a betting person, I wouldn't like to lay bets on who would win - I certainly could not say with confidence that the OP would.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Haven't read the full thread, but i will point out that the proof that they knew were the OP was on Wednesday would be available from the Uni the op attended. After all the employer paid for the course (at least thats what it sounds like to me) and the Uni will have records of that.

If the OP were to get that evidence or letter from the Uni confirming the course and that the company paid for it, then it would but a right big spanner in the employers argument.

Also the OP stated she was a team leader and worked 8-22 (thats 8am to 10pm by my understanding) so going by that, i very much doubt the OP was working part time, but more likely full time hours and more.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Haven't read the full thread, but i will point out that the proof that they knew were the OP was on Wednesday would be available from the Uni the op attended. After all the employer paid for the course (at least thats what it sounds like to me) and the Uni will have records of that.

If the OP were to get that evidence or letter from the Uni confirming the course and that the company paid for it, then it would but a right big spanner in the employers argument.

Also the OP stated she was a team leader and worked 8-22 (thats 8am to 10pm by my understanding) so going by that, i very much doubt the OP was working part time, but more likely full time hours and more.

Where does it say that the paid for the course? It doesn't say that at all. And nor does that mean that the employer agreed to pay their wages for a day they were not at work. Knowing where your employee is does not imply either of those things.

Nor does "voluntary overtime" which is what the OP actually said they worked, count as basic hours.

It wasn't an awfully long thread. It might have been a good idea to read it before advising soneone?

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Where does it say that the paid for the course? It doesn't say that at all. And nor does that mean that the employer agreed to pay their wages for a day they were not at work. Knowing where your employee is does not imply either of those things.

Nor does "voluntary overtime" which is what the OP actually said they worked, count as basic hours.

It wasn't an awfully long thread. It might have been a good idea to read it before advising soneone?

If the employer wanted her to do the course, then its likely they paid for the course. Just because the OP didn't say that they did doesn't mean they didn't, as neither did the OP say they didn't, nor did the OP say that the OP paid for the course. If the OP was on a course that the Employer paid for then they should be paid for the day. The OP has not be clear on the vital points, as such we can not just assume that either party had or had not said something. So was my advise wrong, No it was not, because if the employer wanted her to do the course then it is highly likely they paid for it.

I never said voluntary overtime counted as basic hours, i said that it MAY BE a breach of working time regulations - Reason i said that it MAY BE was because the OP was not clear on how many days a week she did those hours, or whether she had opted out either.

As for "It wasn't an awfully long thread. It might have been a good idea to read it before advising someone?" - All i can say is that is highly insulting. I do not need to read what others have advised the OP to advise the OP on the issues the OP his/herself have raised in their original post. When i advise people, my advice is based on what they themselves have said, and on my interpretation of what they said. I do not advise them on what others or 3rd parties have posted as advice.

What we need here is more clarification form the OP as to who paid for the course, whether it was a company promoted course or one the OP signed up for outside of his/her work? We should not be going round saying the OP's chances are slim, until we know the full facts here. Also does the OP have a contract of employment? Does it state anything it its terms and conditions on such Courses? If not in the contract of employment, is it int he company hand-book? All valid questions that need answering to get the full facts and to understand exactly where the OP actually stands from a legal point! We will then have the maths to do to see whether the OP is actually owed any outstanding wages or not, depending on what the OP's answers are to the above.

[wales01man]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Maybe the employer paid for the course on the understanding the OP attended in their own time unpaid asking the course provider who paid only answers 1 question,the OP needs to know and tell all to get the advice needed

[Loxxie]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Hi everyone - thank you for your replies to my issue - it is much appreciated.

in regards to the questions that have been raised - sorry if I miss any
The company wanted me to do my course - after completing uni - the director explicitly said I should complete the course - although it wasn't a direct benefit to the company when I was completing it - it would be when I finished (accountancy course) I had the option of doing it on a Wednesday or Friday and they employers specifically said Wednesday as I could then deal with any issues that arose Thursday and Friday.
I had a 7 page contract of employment - that is/ was a complete shambles! There was nothing in it with relation to courses and having time off to complete. I just had to complete my contracted hours (35)
i easiy completed my contracted hours as some days they would keep me after work and with literally been on call 8-2200 7 days a week it was easily done. I never grumbled about staying over or answering my phone and did not expect to be rewarded financially for it.
The company did want to pay for my course fees but I explicitly stated I would pay - as should I want to leave - like I have I would not be tied down and asked to re pay my fees.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

If the employer wanted her to do the course, then its likely they paid for the course. There is absoluetly nothing in the thread that indicates this is the case. Just because the OP didn't say that they did doesn't mean they didn't, as neither did the OP say they didn't, nor did the OP say that the OP paid for the course. But the OP definitely didn't say that the employer paid for it. If the OP was on a course that the Employer paid for then they should be paid for the day. That is a very large "if" based wholly on no evidence at all. The OP has not be clear on the vital points, as such we can not just assume that either party had or had not said something. The OP appears to have been very clear - what evidence do you have to suggest that they do not understand their own problem? So was my advise wrong, No it was not, because if the employer wanted her to do the course then it is highly likely they paid for it. An assumption for which there is not a single shred of evidence and which the OP has never said - so your advice is wholly incorrect based on what the OP has said. perhaps they are very stupid and forgot to mention all the rest of this stuff that you have assumed to be the case? Including the fact that they have said that absolutely no conformation was ever given that they would be paid for this say, because it was never discussed.

I never said voluntary overtime counted as basic hours, i said that it MAY BE a breach of working time regulations - Reason i said that it MAY BE was because the OP was not clear on how many days a week she did those hours, or whether she had opted out either. You did not once mention the working time regulations or any potential breach of them. Where did this comment come from - they were your words and these were not any of the words that you used. But again, the OP was clear in the first post of the thread that you admitted that you did not bother to read - "Haven't read the full thread" - they did not work these hours - they continued to answer the phone after finishing their shift. If they choose to answer their phone and answer work messages in their own personal time then that is their own choice. And if they worked overtime and did not claim pay for it, that was also their choice.. If they knew that they were not being correctly paid they should have said something.

As for "It wasn't an awfully long thread. It might have been a good idea to read it before advising someone?" - All i can say is that is highly insulting. I do not need to read what others have advised the OP to advise the OP on the issues the OP his/herself have raised in their original post. When i advise people, my advice is based on what they themselves have said, and on my interpretation of what they said. I do not advise them on what others or 3rd parties have posted as advice. It was six posts long! How arduous a task is that? Your advice was based on assumptions and statements not in evidence anywhere, and was certainly not based on what the OP said, as you claim, because they didn't say any of the things that you assumed. I would consider it equally "highly insulting" to have such a low opinion of other posters that you don't even bother to read what they have said. For example, you give you advice as an "employer and a businessman". Did you consdier that some other posters might give their advice based on being employment lawyers, and having just a tad of experience at this? Maybe they might have something to offer? Or some experience or perspective that you don't have?

What we need here is more clarification form the OP as to who paid for the course, whether it was a company promoted course or one the OP signed up for outside of his/her work? We should not be going round saying the OP's chances are slim, until we know the full facts here. Also does the OP have a contract of employment? Does it state anything it its terms and conditions on such Courses? If not in the contract of employment, is it int he company hand-book? All valid questions that need answering to get the full facts and to understand exactly where the OP actually stands from a legal point! We will then have the maths to do to see whether the OP is actually owed any outstanding wages or not, depending on what the OP's answers are to the above. Nobody said that the chances were slim - and of course you wouldn't know that because, as you admitted, you don't read posts by anyone else! What was said was that there was no way of calling this and that if this went to law, it could go either way and that I would not bet on the OP having a clear case to win.

The OP has said very clearly that there was no agreement on the matter of wages. It is therefore entirely unclear since there is no agreement that the employer would pay wages for this day. It is, therefore, as I said, a case of "he said and she said" - with nobody having actually said anything! Therefore there is no way in which anyone could accurately predict what a court may say about the situation.

By the way - a training agreement must, by law, be specific to an individual and their course - generic statement in contracts and/or staff handbooks do not have any relevance to what is or might be paid to an individual if the employer agrees that someone can go on a course which they financially support.

[teaboy2]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Eloise

I have no intention of getting into a full blown arguement with you here.

But i will say that alot of the points you are making in response to me are nothing but deminis. The OP was not clear as to what the situation was until her latest post. So that theres nothing to indicate anything i or you have said was wrong, as neither of us knew the full details at the time and nor did anyone except the OP.

The OP has now confirmed they paid for the course, which is not something that had been confined earlier. Though the OP also stated that she paid for it because she didn't want to be tied down if she decided to leave.

I think you misunderstand what can and can not be in a employment contract. They can be terms in the contract of employment that state the employer will pay any course fees (or vice verser) if the employee is required to go on a training course, and/or that the employer will be entitled to reclaim said fees if the employee leaves employment with the employer within a specific period after course completion. The specific's of that course it's self, in terms of type, duration, and other terms and requirements related to the specific course, is all that needs to be signed separately from that of the employment contract

As for me not reading the entire thread, well unlike you i happened to be a very busy person today, i did not have the time to sit and read every single post, and i doubt am the only that did not have the time to read every single post in thread. Not everyone has as much time on their hands as you may have!

It may well have been clear that their was no agreement in regards to wages for the days the OP was on the course. But what wasn't clear until the OP provided confirmation, was whether the course was one her employers put her on and wanted her to do, which would have meant that the employer would have been liable to pay her when the OP was attending the course. As such course would have been classed as work related activity and the employer legally would have been obliged to pay her.

Granted the OP has now confirmed that they paid for the course themselves and not the employer, we now have the question of "would she have lost her job if she had not completed or took part in the course?", given the employer clearly wanted her to continue the course. As it was an accountancy course it may well have been implied requirement for the OP in order to continue in her employment (especially if the job role was in accounting). If that is the case, then Yes she would have been entitled to full pay when she attended the course.

We also have the law of estoppel as well, which may prevent them from reclaiming any overpayment they allege! We also have custom and practice which if practiced over a period of time and had become to be expected, would actually becomes an implied term in the employment contract. I find it highly unlikely for any judge to say that they employer did not know they were overpaying the OP and therefore knew very well where the OP was and therefore had indeed agreed to pay her when she was on the course - Especially given the time frame involved, where the OP was allegedly overpaid.

As for potential breach of working time regulations, well if the OP had not OPT out yet did more than the maximum hours (48 hours) per any working week allowed under the regulations, or at any one time had less than 11 hours break/rest between shifts, which would have been the case if she worked 8am through to 10pm and then returned to work at 8am the following day. Then that would be a breach of the regulations. Hence why i said MAY BE a breach - I never said it would be for certain as i did not have the facts from the OP to know for certain. Though you are correct i had not mentioned about that on this thread earlier in my first post and may have said it on another thread regarding another employment matter, not necessarily on this forum - So in regards to working time regulations i apologize for any confusion, its an easy mistake to make - Though it is a valid point considering the above.

Also the duration of the contract can not be implied, it is a core term, given that they stated to the OP that she verbally agreed to serve them for 18 months (which the op claims was news to them) and the fact this is not in her written contract 9unless the OP confirms otherwise) as it should be under the employment rights act section 1 subsection 4 (G) - So no they have no case, unless it stated that the contract was for 18 months and gave an end date in the OP's written contract! - So if they are stating that now, then we can easily prove that it is a lie and that it should have been in the written contract. Once that is proven to be a false statement, they lose all their creditability.

OP - May i ask, was the employer an accounting firm? And/or would you having not completed the course put your job at risk? Did the contract state give a date for when your contract would end, or mention anything about your contract being for 18 months only? Also are you aged 16-17 or 18 (at time you started the course) as you may be protected under section 63A of the employment rights act not to suffer deteriment for time off for studies and the right to remuneration under section 63B for time taken of for studies.

[EXC]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

As for "It wasn't an awfully long thread. It might have been a good idea to read it before advising someone?" - All i can say is that is highly insulting. I do not need to read what others have advised the OP to advise the OP on the issues the OP his/herself have raised in their original post. When i advise people, my advice is based on what they themselves have said, and on my interpretation of what they said. I do not advise them on what others or 3rd parties have posted as advice.

In providing the best possible advice it is always necessary to read 3rd party posts. You can only be sure of what an OP is saying if you know what they're responding to.

In life it is not the answers you get but the questions you ask.

[Eloise01]

Re: Verbal agreements - enforceable?

Unlike Teaboy2 I could be bothered to read his lengthy post - I found is so amusing that he suggests that I do not know what a contract of employment is! I just love amateur hour - someone who is clearly not a lawyer but who is quite certain what the law says and what a judge is or is not likely to say in a court case.

I am not going to argue further on this - the OP has confirmed that the assumptions made by Teaboy2, which were never in evidence, are not in fact true. So the OP can consider which advice they feel is more likely to be accurate: advice based on untrue assumptions which says that they will definitely have a case; or the advice based on what the OP has actually told us, which suggests that it could go either way and that there is no clear evidence to say which way a case would go.