Is this legal?

bmj191

My partner is a qualified social worker and his employers want him to undertake the advanced qualification. He doesn't want to do this qualification as he is about to go part time.

We are questioning the legality of the text below which is saying he must agree to take the training, and then once complete, must stay in employment with the council for two years afterwards - five years in total.

Can anyone give any insight please?

Kind regards

I hereby agree with the Council as follows:

a) That the above qualification is an essential requirement of my post as MENTAL HEALTH SOCIAL WORKER.
b) That the programme of learning (PQ Higher Specialist Award in Mental Health) is a three year programe.
c) That on attaining the qualification mentioned above, I will remain in the service of the Council for a period of two years following the date of notification of such qualification success.
d) That in the event of my failure to comply with this obligation I will repay to the Council the whole amount paid by the Council to me, or on my behalf, under the Professional and Development Qualification Procedure in relation to the qualification.

Zazen999

They aren't saying that he has to stay for 2 years. They are saying that if he leaves, he will have to repay the investment that they have made in his training.

Why would he be allowed to be less qualified if he is part time? Surely the hours don't make it a less professional job?

[Deleted User]

It's standard council policy, I've just done the PQ practice teacher award and had to sign the same thing. They just want to ensure they get their monies worth. The courses cost between £500 - £1500 per module so want some benefit from your learning. Other option is to pay for it yourself or do it and be willing to pay them back if he leaves.

He must have applied for the course they dont just put people on them because they only want people who think they can and are willing to do it because otherwise they would be wasting money. There's usually limited places with lots of SW's fighting for them.

Is this a newish job? Did he say he would be willing to work towards the award? just a bit odd that they say it's essential yet he's already employed as a MH SW unless he agreed to do it to get the job at some point.

bert&ernie

Usual disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer etc.

However, I would suggest that this is highly unlikely to be a legally enforceable agreement. I doubt that any employer would actually attempt to take you to court should you refuse to pay. They might try to play silly games over references though!

I had a similar issue myself a few years back when I was considering a job offer. As it happened I didn't take the offer, but I did research the legality of a similar agreement I had made with my employer. Its seems the key issue is that, for the agreement to be fair, the employer can only attempt to recover what it has actually lost. In effect, this means that the contract must specify some kind of sliding scale of reparations - thereby acknowledging that the employer will have received some benefit from your training over time.

The agreement in the OP suggests that the employer receives no benefit from the training for a period of 2 years. Its difficult to see how this could be deemed reasonable and fair

I would also suggest that the fact the training is stated as mandatory is also likely to render such a contract unfair. It could be argued that the employer immediately recovers the full value of the training in that it allows them to continue to employ you!

I wouldn't worry about it, but then I probably wouldn't take the word of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum either. If you need legal advice, you should ultimately get this from an insured legal professional. Assuming you don't have a lawyer on speed dial, I guess you could try your trade union or perhaps the CAB.

Zazen999

bert&ernie wrote: »

Usual disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer etc.

However, I would suggest that this is highly unlikely to be a legally enforceable agreement. I doubt that any employer would actually attempt to take you to court should you refuse to pay. They might try to play silly games over references though!

They would stop it out of the final month's wage.

pitkin2020

its usual practice for any company, if they pay for your training they want there moneys worth out of the investment, as to whether they can force him to undertake the training or not is a different matter, personally i would say if he is going parttime, and they know about this already and are happy he can part time and do the course he would be mad not to, unless he is planning on leaving before the golden handcuff deal is up, i very much expect that course is not a cheap one
2 years isn't a long time, most i have seen are for 5 years after but the repayment scale slides after 2 years, i.e if the course is 3k, and you leave before 2 years the full 3k is payable, leave after 3 yrs 2k, 4 yrs 1k, and after the 5th year no repayment. Most companies will chase the cost of this too

bert&ernie

Zazen999 wrote: »

They would stop it out of the final month's wage.

Which I believe would be an illegal deduction.

bert&ernie

pitkin2020 wrote: »

its usual practice for any company, if they pay for your training they want there moneys worth out of the investment, as to whether they can force him to undertake the training or not is a different matter, personally i would say if he is going parttime, and they know about this already and are happy he can part time and do the course he would be mad not to, unless he is planning on leaving before the golden handcuff deal is up, i very much expect that course is not a cheap one
2 years isn't a long time, most i have seen are for 5 years after but the repayment scale slides after 2 years, i.e if the course is 3k, and you leave before 2 years the full 3k is payable, leave after 3 yrs 2k, 4 yrs 1k, and after the 5th year no repayment. Most companies will chase the cost of this too

I know its usuall practice, but that doesn't in itself make such an agreement enforceable.

Just for the record, I don't have any problem with the principle of an employer being able to recover money they have lost. However, I think that the OPs agreement amounts to a penalty and I don't believe this is fair or indeed legal. If it were me, I would be fairly confident that I had a complete defence to any claim and that a final salary deduction would itself be illegal.

pitkin2020

no as it would be part of the contract for the training........do you have a job??? a company is entitled to do this as long as it is in the contract, which would form part of the training agreement...........

bert&ernie

pitkin2020 wrote: »

no as it would be part of the contract for the training........do you have a job??? a company is entitled to do this as long as it is in the contract, which would form part of the training agreement...........

Yes I do have a job thanks.

You can write whatever you terms you want into a contract/agreement, but it doesn't guarantee that they can be enforced.

Are you an employer?

pitkin2020

most companies have legal departments to ensure they are within the letter of the law, like i said this is a standard golden handcuff contract, as to whether they can legally inforce the OP to take the course is a different matter, legislation may be a part of whether the education requirement is part of the job or not, i dont know.
But any company who invests in its staff and that what this is an investment want a return, or everybody would be wanting the training and then just leave after qualifying