Employees leaving/training costs

[gdh]

No idea about the legality but if someone was willing to put me through extra training I think it would be pretty reasonable to either take a pay cut or agree to a contract to stay with them.

 

The employee is gaining from it as much as the employer but it's the employer that's taking the risk and as inoffthered says you always have the choice to not take the training contract. 

 

Another way of looking at it is if an employer said to me they wanted a £1000 up front but I might be fired after a month I'm pretty sure I would be demanding my money back if that did happen so would want a contract.

Edited August 9, 2018 by gdh

[Inoff the Red]

3 hours ago, Rough Hewn said:

You ever worked in arb inoff?

 

3 hours ago, Rough Hewn said:

This may sound harsh but...
You make a lot of false presumptions about me.
Also one sided attitude?
What is a business?
Not a loving caring organisation.
They are for making money off other people's backs.
It's called capitalism.
So I should just sign any shitty contract I'm offered?
And be grateful?
Fuck you Inoff.
We aren't living in the 18th century.
But your attitude is.
Self respect chum.
You should try it sometime.

Oh dear, hit a nerve did I?

With respect, I made no assumptions about you but reacted to the information you posted.

 

As I said, it is entirely open to you whether you sign a contract. I was merely pointing out that accepting the job but failing to sign a contract would not necessarily provide the "protection" that you may assume. (It wasn't clear from your post whether you exercised your right not to accept the job...although your reaction to what my advice would have been to the employer suggests that you may have done).

 

I think your comments about capitalism and somewhat aggressive post suggest that it is you that is living in the 18th century. After 20+ years working in corporate recovery sorting out failing businesses, dealing with delinquent business owners and workforces I am immune to insults and there is nothing you can say that I haven't heard already (although it is a few years since I last heard the capitalist/poncing on the back of poor workers diatribe.)

 

I am unsure how to interpret your comment about "self respect" and how that can be consistent with seeking to avoid responsibility for repaying an investment by an employer in an employee.

Respect is a two way street, people (employers and employees) that don't show it should not expect it in return. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Inoff the Red]

4 hours ago, Rough Hewn said:

This may sound harsh but...
You make a lot of false presumptions about me.
Also one sided attitude?
What is a business?
Not a loving caring organisation.
They are for making money off other people's backs.
It's called capitalism.
So I should just sign any shitty contract I'm offered?
And be grateful?
Fuck you Inoff.
We aren't living in the 18th century.
But your attitude is.
Self respect chum.
You should try it sometime.

Oh dear, hit a nerve did I?

With respect, I made no assumptions about you but reacted to the information you posted.

 

As I said, it is entirely open to you whether you sign a contract. I was merely pointing out that accepting the job but failing to sign a contract would not necessarily provide the "protection" that you may assume. (It wasn't clear from your post whether you exercised your right not to accept the job...although your reaction to what my advice would have been to the employer suggests that you may have done).

 

I think your comments about capitalism and somewhat aggressive post suggest that it is you that is living in the 18th century. After 20+ years working in corporate recovery sorting out failing businesses, dealing with delinquent business owners and workforces I am immune to insults and there is nothing you can say that I haven't heard already (although it is a few years since I last heard the capitalist/poncing on the back of poor workers diatribe.) 

 

I am unsure how to interpret your comment about "self respect" and how that can be consistent with seeking to avoid responsibility for repaying an investment by an employer in an employee.

Respect is a two way street, people (employers and employees) that don't show it should not expect it in return. 

 

 

 

 

 

[felixthelogchopper]

18 hours ago, Inoff the Red said:

But did you take the job? It is open for you to reject employment but if you accepted the job but have merely refused to sign the contract you may be on dodgy ground if , at some point in the future, you say that you don't consider yourself bound by the terms and conditions set out therein.

 

With regards to the enforceability of a repayment clause, there is no statutory right for an employer to recover training costs but if an employer includes a clause to this effect in a contract of employment then (providing it is not unreasonable) it will be effective.

 

Unless you have specifically expressed your refusal to accept the term regarding training (and that has been accepted by the employer) then I suspect it will be deemed to be a valid clause in the contract of employment.

 

As a matter of interest, if your employer decided not to pay overtime/holiday pay etc as set out in your contract and used the fact that you hadn't signed it as justification, what would you think?

 

Attitudes to this issue will split depending on whether you are an employee or an employer.

 

Employers will be fed up of people accepting jobs, being trained up at the employers expense and then leaving to use their qualifications to earn more dosh without giving the employer who trained them a chance to recover their investment in giving someone skills.

 

This may sound harsh but if a client of mine had an employee that wouldn't sign a contract because of  recovery of training costs clause I would advise them to flick you before the end of the probationary period. Experience shows that for someone with such a one sided attitude it is generally a matter of time before the employee becomes a problem and needs a compromise agreement to get rid. 

Assuming I was a PAYE employee, I'd think that refusing to pay holiday pay was a breach of a statutory right of employment and that the court/tribunal would automatically include it as an implied term as part of a minimum contract of employment in the event of a dispute where there was no written contract.

[Inoff the Red]

8 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

Assuming I was a PAYE employee, I'd think that refusing to pay holiday pay was a breach of a statutory right of employment and that the court/tribunal would automatically include it as an implied term as part of a minimum contract of employment in the event of a dispute where there was no written contract.

No written contract? On the basis of the post there is a written contract and if a job was offered on the basis of that contract failure to sign it would hardly be a valid reason to avoid terms contained therein. Most offers of employment are made subject to the terms of a contract of employment and acceptance of the job and subsequent salary payments could be taken as implied acceptance of those terms regardless of whether a contract has been signed. It is not unusual for employees to try and pull a fast one by not signing a contract on the mistaken belief that it absolves them from any responsibility to adhere to the contents. Without wishing to get too involved in legal terms, the broad concept of equitable estoppel is likely to apply which, in general terms, makes it difficult for someone to deny the terms of a contract when they have acted in a way that suggests acceptance and without advising the employer of any objections to the contents.

 

 

You are right about statutory rights re holiday pay etc, but I was just trying to establish  whether you would consider it acceptable if an employer acted in a similarly cavalier attitude to an employment contract.

If for example the employer gave an ultimatum to sign the contract or leave would you consider that to be acceptable? As previously discussed, a prospective employee is not compelled to accept a job if they don't like the terms and conditions. Challenge the terms of the contract and have them changed is another option. To accept the job and then try and wriggle out of those terms while maintaining silence about disagreement with those terms is not, imho, an admirable trait. 

 

Talk of employment tribunals is one thing, it is now not as cheap or easy to launch tribunal cases and the appetite of "no deal no fee" lawyers to take the case may well be affected if the employee is facing counterclaims arising from clauses in an employment contract incorporated into the job offer and that the employee has accepted, to all intents and purposes,  save for signing it.

 

 

[felixthelogchopper]

5 minutes ago, Inoff the Red said:

No written contract? On the basis of the post there is a written contract and if a job was offered on the basis of that contract failure to sign it would hardly be a valid reason to avoid terms contained therein. Most offers of employment are made subject to the terms of a contract of employment and acceptance of the job and subsequent salary payments could be taken as implied acceptance of those terms regardless of whether a contract has been signed. It is not unusual for employees to try and pull a fast one by not signing a contract on the mistaken belief that it absolves them from any responsibility to adhere to the contents. Without wishing to get too involved in legal terms, the broad concept of equitable estoppel is likely to apply which, in general terms, makes it difficult for someone to deny the terms of a contract when they have acted in a way that suggests acceptance and without advising the employer of any objections to the contents.

 

 

You are right about statutory rights re holiday pay etc, but I was just trying to establish  whether you would consider it acceptable if an employer acted in a similarly cavalier attitude to an employment contract.

If for example the employer gave an ultimatum to sign the contract or leave would you consider that to be acceptable? As previously discussed, a prospective employee is not compelled to accept a job if they don't like the terms and conditions. Challenge the terms of the contract and have them changed is another option. To accept the job and then try and wriggle out of those terms while maintaining silence about disagreement with those terms is not, imho, an admirable trait. 

 

Talk of employment tribunals is one thing, it is now not as cheap or easy to launch tribunal cases and the appetite of "no deal no fee" lawyers to take the case may well be affected if the employee is facing counterclaims arising from clauses in an employment contract incorporated into the job offer and that the employee has accepted, to all intents and purposes,  save for signing it.

 

 

Speaking for myself at my point in life, if I didn't accept the terms of a contract them I wouldn't agree to it. If I couldn't negotiate to a postion  that I found acceptable then I would walk away. Not sure if I could have said the same at 17 though. I only work for others on the basis of freelance labour so contracts are far more simple for me but I did work in a previous career on a PAYE basis where I had a lot of experience of industrial relations. I can say that, having made a contract, I would expect both parties to bound by the terms in that contract. Ultimately, if the employee won't sign a contract then I wouldn't expect the employer to allow them to work. You can't sign away a statutory entitlement such as holiday pay so the rest just comes down to the quid pro quo of the contract. I don't think it would be unfair for an employer to expect either a minimum term of service or a scale of repayment in the event of the employee not completing the length of service, providing that was a term in a signed contract. A person would be naive to expect somebody to honour a contract they refused to sign. I certainly agree with what you said in a previous post about respect being earned and a two way street.

[Rough Hewn]

I'm going to go on an accounting forum later and insult random people.
Even though I've never been an accountant.
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji12]