Contract of Employment - repayment clause.
Discussion
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?
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 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.Repayment of traing course fees etc is not that unusual.
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.
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). If its a longer, permanent role, then renegotiate based on a fairer amount. But its not unusual for a clawback clause for training courses.
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.
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...
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...
P-Jay said:
essayer said:
Does that clause apply even if they terminate her employment?
Yes. So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
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.So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
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.
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.So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
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.
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.So it doesn't seem entirely unfair to me.
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.
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. 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 !
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 !
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.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 !
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
--
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?Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff