Training costs

[mrrem]

Hi

Thank you for taking the time to read this its my first post and I'm having major issues with my employer. its long winded but i would be grateful if you could give me some advise. The long and short of it is he is trying to take £3000 from me.

In 2012 i stated an apprenticeship and signed my first contract with the company.

In early 2013 i completed a week long course for the company which was mandatory.

In late 2014 i was asked to sign another contact but this time it was allot more in depth. for some reason i was not allowed to date this copy?

in mid 2015 i finished my college course and my apprenticeship, and was sent on more mandatory training, needed so the company could get specific jobs.

Which brings me to now, i have resigned as I've been offered a job in London with good prospects, but i cant leave as my boss is demanding £2500 in training costs.

My questions are...

Does the first contract cover the college course and any training up until the second contract? or is the second contract retrospective?

can they just take the money from my wage?

why would they write do not date on my contact?

The first contract states " Please be aware that the course is carried out over a three year period and we would expect a minimum of two years service on completion of the course, or we may seek reimbursement of the college fees retrospectively.

The second contract -
"The employer agrees to meet the cost of training courses which are relevant to carrying out their contracted duties. The employee undertakes to reimburse to the employer the costs if.

A) He voluntarily withdraws from the course early without the employers prior written consent.
B) He is dismissed or otherwise compulsory discharged from the course early, unless the dismissal or discharge arrises out of the discontinuance generally of the course;
C) His employment is terminated by the employer for any reason prior to the completion of the course; or
D) He resigns from the employment of the employer either prior to the completion of the course or within Five years after the end of the course, except that, in the latter case, the amount which would otherwise be due to the employer shall be reduced by 20% percentage per year of service.

To the extent permitted by law, the employee agrees the employer may deduct a sum equal to the whole or part or part of the costs due under the terms of this agreement from his wages (as defined in section 27 of the employment rights act 1996) or from any other allowances, expenses to other payments due to the employee."

[Kati]

Re: Training costs

I'll tag [MENTION=26290]mariefab[/MENTION] for you xx

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

Does the first contract cover the college course and any training up until the second contract? or is the second contract retrospective?

The purpose of the second contract is presumably to replace or supplement the first one, which clarifies in greater detail what deductions can be made and how they are to be deducted? Curious about the date thing though. It may need a bit of research because if the date omission or reasons for omitting it were to invalidate the contract then there would be no actual contract and, I suspect, the common law and statute would take over.

[mrrem]

Re: Training costs

They just said new contracts, surley it makes no diferance as i agreed all the terms of the first contract when i agreed to go to college not the second.

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

Is the course referred to in your first contract the apprenticeship? Do you know what the fees for that were?

[mrrem]

Re: Training costs

yes the first contract only refers to my college course and not any other training courses.

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

I am struggling with the 5 year period (from the 2nd contract). Is it a penalty deterring you from leaving or is the formula adopted for the repayment of the fees reasonable? I am also struggling with the meaning of 'training courses'. Does it mean courses that you go on by your own volition, and does it include courses that your employer forces you to go on?

[mrrem]

Re: Training costs

My college fees were £1800 according to my employer, i will be checking this with the college next week.

I feel like it is a penalty but section 20 of my contract covers that. its a small company and i know my boss has taken it personally but feel he trying to force me to stay. Also why would you put do not date on contracts?

"20. The amount due to the employer under the terms of this agreement is genuine attempt by the employer to assess its loss as result of the termination of the employee's employment and takes into account the derived benefit to the employer. This agreement is not intended to act as a penalty on the employee upon termination of his employment.

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

1) If your college fees are £1,8k why are they asking for £2.5k? Is this because they are charging you for the mandatory training as well?

2) What is the definition of a training course and do these courses satisfy that definition? Were they in fact seminars or something similar?

3) Have they proven that they have factored in the amount of service since 2012 and reduced the fees accordingly?

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

You may be interested in this case........ Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd v Williamson [1993] ICR 371

It appears to me to suggest that in respect of the Employment Rights Act 1996, reference to 'previously' in s.13(1)(b) means that the signed agreement for the deduction must pre-date not just the deduction, but the event giving rise to the deduction.

In your case, the event which gave rise to the deduction was your college course and your agreement was signed after the event. It may therefore not be possible for your employer to make the deduction. Maybe this why they told you not to date the document?

Can anyone clarify this point of law please?

[des8]

Re: Training costs

You may be interested in this case........ Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd v Williamson [1993] ICR 371

It appears to me to suggest that in respect of the Employment Rights Act 1996, reference to 'previously' in s.13(1)(b) means that the signed agreement for the deduction must pre-date not just the deduction, but the event giving rise to the deduction.

In your case, the event which gave rise to the deduction was your college course and your agreement was signed after the event. It may therefore not be possible for your employer to make the deduction. Maybe this why they told you not to date the document?

Can anyone clarify this point of law please?

Agree with you in view of S.13 (6)

[mrrem]

Re: Training costs

1) He is charging for every course i've ever been on.

2) They were training courses, he accepted / won jobs and then needed me to go on specific training to compleat the jobs. Seems unfair to charge me for manditory training.

3) Yes they have reduced the amount from one of the courses i just need to check the amounts. Am i within my rights to ask for proof?

So he may not be able to charge for my original course and the contract came later?

Surley if theres no date on the contract from either party no one can prove when it came into effect? Does this not make it void?

So what should my next step be?

Ps thanks for all your help so far, its so nice to think he might not ruin me

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

He is charging for every course i've ever been on.

He can't do this if the course was undertaken before you signed the agreement. If (a big if) the 2nd agreement replaces the 1st then my view is that all course fees incurred prior to that date are written off. You just have to read the wording of the 2nd contract, it is written in the future tense so it cannot have been the intention of you or the employer to include costs incurred prior to that date. In any event the Employment Rights Act and also Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd v Williamson prevent it.

Yes they have reduced the amount from one of the courses i just need to check the amounts. Am i within my rights to ask for proof?

Yes you are. How can anyone be expected to defend themselves if they are not provided with the details of claims made against them. In Fairfield Ltd v Skinner [1992], an employment tribunal found that money had been unlawfully deducted because evidence had not been supplied to prove the basis of and how the deductions had been calculated. Thus, if they make the deduction before supplying the details, that would be unlawful.

So he may not be able to charge for my original course and the contract came later?

I don't think he can charge you for any of the courses that you attended prior to signing the 2nd agreement. The 1st agreement is irrelevant.

So what should my next step be?

Have you received a formal letter from your previous employer demanding repayment or was it a verbal demand? If you have received a letter then you should respond firstly by asking for a detailed statement of the costs which are alleged to be owed, and remind them that any costs which were incurred prior to you signing the 2nd contract are not recoverable in law because, contrary to s.13 (1) & (6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the fees pre-date the agreement. You could also quote the case of Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Ltd v Williamson as an example of judicial authority.

The only sticking point that I can foresee is that they probably asked you not to date the contract for this reason. Presumably, you have a copy of the undated contract?

[des8]

Re: Training costs

[QUOTE=Ripped-Off;638289] contrary to s.13 (5) & (6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, [unquote]

Typo? s,13 (1 ) & (6)

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Training costs

well spotted des8!

At least someone takes the time to read my posts!