Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

P-Jay

Original Poster:

6,423 posts

75 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
The OH has to sign her new contract of employment this week - new job. It's a 6 month Nursing preceptorship.

I thought I'd check it over after getting royally shafted 10 years ago, all pretty standard stuff, they're always written in a way that makes it sound a terrible thing, understand they're covering their backs etc.

The one thing I've not seen before - Repayment Clause, because there's a largish element of training.

If she leaves or is fired in the first 6 months, she has to pay 8 weeks salary back. 6-12 months, 6 weeks salary, 12-18 months 4 weeks salary, 18-24 months 2 weeks salary.

In extremis it could mean if she starts, absolutely hates it for whatever reason and leaves after 2 weeks, it does happen. She would owe them £3500!

I'm not sure how fair or enforceable this is?

Eric Mc

76,277 posts

149 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Would it put her under the Minium Wage if she had to pay some salary back?

Repayment of traing course fees etc is not that unusual.

mondeoman

7,733 posts

150 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Am I reading this right? Its a six month contract, that if she leaves within six months she has to repay the training costs??

If its a longer, permanent role, then renegotiate based on a fairer amount. But its not unusual for a clawback clause for training courses.

P-Jay

Original Poster:

6,423 posts

75 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Eric Mc said:
Would it put her under the Minium Wage if she had to pay some salary back?

Repayment of traing course fees etc is not that unusual.
It's £11 an hour, 38.5 hours per week.

I would guess taking income tax / NI deductions into account she would have to go past the first 6 month barrier at least to make the NET income above £6.08 an hour.

Anyone care to guess how enforceable it is? I.E. I'm assuming that if that for whatever reason she leaves after 4 months for example, she'd give 4 weeks notice, and at the end of that month they'd withhold £1694 in salary, about £170 in unused holidays and we'd get a bill for the remaining £1,524.00

Do they have to take her to court for that, and how much of a chance would they get of winning the case or can they lift it straight from her current account or somewhere in between?

I should add she's really looking forward to the job and the people seemed really nice at interview and she has no plans to take it and leave quickly afterwards, it's just we're saving for our wedding and house deposit and I don' like the idea of getting a big bill like that - it's certainly not a case of her sitting in a classroom for 6 months getting paid £20k a year, it's really hard job with an element of training.

P-Jay

Original Poster:

6,423 posts

75 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
mondeoman said:
Am I reading this right? Its a six month contract, that if she leaves within six months she has to repay the training costs??

If its a longer, permanent role, then renegotiate based on a fairer amount. But its not unusual for a clawback clause for training courses.
It's a 6 month contract that automatically becomes a permanent role at the end of it (with a modest pay rise in writing).

The contract stipulates she must repay the cost of the training, but the clawback level is high, and theoretically it could mean if she leaves or is sacked within 8 weeks she would owe them more than she was ever paid, plus the clawback is staggered over two years. I understand the costs, I really wanted to know what PH thought about the fairness and enforceability of it.

Advertisement

Du1point8

16,180 posts

76 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
no different from golden handcuffs deal that some graduates get and I got... £2500 sign on fee repayable if you leave within 2 years due to the fact we did 6 months training with the bank.

If she is getting training I can see why they are saying that as the last training course I went on cost circa £10,000, imagine how pissed you would be as a business owner if you shell out for the course and then your employee leaves to join another firm afterwards?

you train them and they use the skills to get a better paid job and you are left £20k in the hole as you now need to train the replacement too...

essayer

2,140 posts

78 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Does that clause apply even if they terminate her employment?


P-Jay

Original Poster:

6,423 posts

75 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
essayer said:
Does that clause apply even if they terminate her employment?
Yes.

Munter

25,054 posts

125 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
P-Jay said:
essayer said:
Does that clause apply even if they terminate her employment?
Yes.
In the OP you say Fired. So I presume if they "downsize" then she'd not need to pay back. It'll only be if she decides to leave, or go's though some kind of disciplinary procedure for stealing paper clips or such like, and is fired within 6 months. That they then want her training money back. (And I assume she can keep her hands off the paper clips for 6 months).

So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.

P-Jay

Original Poster:

6,423 posts

75 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Munter said:
In the OP you say Fired. So I presume if they "downsize" then she'd not need to pay back. It'll only be if she decides to leave, or go's though some kind of disciplinary procedure for stealing paper clips or such like, and is fired within 6 months. That they then want her training money back. (And I assume she can keep her hands off the paper clips for 6 months).

So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
Ha ha, I suspect she will behave herself. She's a goodie two shoes.

There's no specific clause for redundancy, but I suspect you're right.

Just for clarification though, the claw-back period is 2 years, the training period is 6 months.

Du1point8

16,180 posts

76 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
P-Jay said:
Munter said:
In the OP you say Fired. So I presume if they "downsize" then she'd not need to pay back. It'll only be if she decides to leave, or go's though some kind of disciplinary procedure for stealing paper clips or such like, and is fired within 6 months. That they then want her training money back. (And I assume she can keep her hands off the paper clips for 6 months).

So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
Ha ha, I suspect she will behave herself. She's a goodie two shoes.

There's no specific clause for redundancy, but I suspect you're right.

Just for clarification though, the claw-back period is 2 years, the training period is 6 months.
so it is a golden hand cuffs rule... we train you and if you don't leave (for another job) in 2 years then we don't claim back our investment.

P-Jay

Original Poster:

6,423 posts

75 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Du1point8 said:
so it is a golden hand cuffs rule... we train you and if you don't leave (for another job) in 2 years then we don't claim back our investment.
Guess so, not sure of the Golden bit, there's no upfront payment.


edc

4,824 posts

135 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
P-Jay said:
Munter said:
In the OP you say Fired. So I presume if they "downsize" then she'd not need to pay back. It'll only be if she decides to leave, or go's though some kind of disciplinary procedure for stealing paper clips or such like, and is fired within 6 months. That they then want her training money back. (And I assume she can keep her hands off the paper clips for 6 months).

So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
Ha ha, I suspect she will behave herself. She's a goodie two shoes.

There's no specific clause for redundancy, but I suspect you're right.

Just for clarification though, the claw-back period is 2 years, the training period is 6 months.
Redundancy = dismissal = "fired". Don't bank on a loose interpretation of a clause when the situation is not specifically excluded.

Chipchap

1,599 posts

81 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
I would think that the claw back clause actually only applies after the 6 months period is up and she has commenced full time employment.


A

Du1point8

16,180 posts

76 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
P-Jay said:
Du1point8 said:
so it is a golden hand cuffs rule... we train you and if you don't leave (for another job) in 2 years then we don't claim back our investment.
Guess so, not sure of the Golden bit, there's no upfront payment.
my payment was training and money, yours is just training.

toxicated

716 posts

97 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
My company sponsored my MBA and sadly exercised their right to claw the money back. Apparently hoping they won't do it doesn't always work!

Du1point8

16,180 posts

76 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
toxicated said:
My company sponsored my MBA and sadly exercised their right to claw the money back. Apparently hoping they won't do it doesn't always work!
did you get terminated or did you leave and switch companies after completing the MBA?

essayer

2,140 posts

78 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
The main issue I would have is that they can seemingly train her up for 3 months, then dismiss her for some spurious-but-fair reason and then demand the training money back.

If it's on the job training, how much has the training really cost them, given that she's been working at the same time?

They'd probably do quite well out of it !


don4l

3,762 posts

60 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
essayer said:
The main issue I would have is that they can seemingly train her up for 3 months, then dismiss her for some spurious-but-fair reason and then demand the training money back.

If it's on the job training, how much has the training really cost them, given that she's been working at the same time?

They'd probably do quite well out of it !
This is completely wrong.


Even if it is "on the job" training, then the trainer is not being productive while they are doing the training. If the beginner needs training, then they are not being very productive either. So the company ends up paying two salaries for less than one competent person's work.

Why do you think that the company could do well out of this?

Don
--




toxicated

716 posts

97 months

[news] 
Tuesday 28th February 2012 quote quote all
Du1point8 said:
toxicated said:
My company sponsored my MBA and sadly exercised their right to claw the money back. Apparently hoping they won't do it doesn't always work!
did you get terminated or did you leave and switch companies after completing the MBA?
Nope, left to start my own company. Not in competition with them before you ask!

2
Reply to Topic