Work Contract

terra_ferma

Is she on minimum wage? Would these deductions take her below minimum wage?
If so they may be illegal because of that.

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, as far as training costs are concerned, read this

http://www.roydens.co.uk/content03.htm

This is a good and accurate summary of the law.

I realise this is daunting for her, but to be honest I'd tell her to forget about it. That clause isn't enforceable. If they do take money off her when she leaves, she should make a complaint to a Tribunal, there is no way they would uphold a clause that just says she has to repay the costs when she leaves.

There is actually a well known case on the subject. I'll find try and find it...

Roobarb73

The employer's obligation is to provide a written statement of particulars.

It doesn't have to be signed to discharge the employer's obligations.

If she continues to go to work, take their money etc and effectively works under the terms of that contract, then there will likely come a point where it is deemed to apply regardless of whether it is signed or not. There will usually only be a couple of clauses that would require her express written agreement.

terra_ferma

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Okay, as far as training costs are concerned, read this

http://www.roydens.co.uk/content03.htm

This is a good and accurate summary of the law.

I realise this is daunting for her, but to be honest I'd tell her to forget about it. That clause isn't enforceable. If they do take money off her when she leaves, she should make a complaint to a Tribunal, there is no way they would uphold a clause that just says she has to repay the costs when she leaves.

There is actually a well known case on the subject. I'll find try and find it...

I think there is a difference between training such as a professional qualification, and basic training required to do the job, and also to meet legal/regulatory requirements.
Things like health and safety, manual handling, mental health etc may not be included in the training they can charge for, in particular if it's done internally (i.e. they employ someone to do it).

If say they told her 'the course cost £xx, it's up to you if you want to do it, you would directly benefit from it, and we want the money back if you leave' then it would make sense, but if it's compulsory and necessary to do the work, it may be different.

This is just my opinion, and experience, but it sounds like they are on dodgy grounds here.

zzzLazyDaisy

They can't charge for internal training because there is no actual cost to them in terms of training fees.

They CAN charge for training that they send an employee on, which costs them money PROVIDED the recovery is on a sliding scale and over a reasonable time AND based on the actual cost to the employer of paying for the training. This is because training can be expensive and the idea is that if the employee does the training, gets the certificate/qualification, and then goes off to a new employer, then the current employer is entitled to be compensated.

BUT the fees have to be agreed beforehand, and the repayment must be on a sliding scale and a genuine estimate of loss. So say the employee goes on a one year training course for an NVQ at the employer's expense, the employer is entitled to ask the employee to sign an agreement that if they leave within the next two years, they will repay 1/12th of the cost for each month they fail to complete the two year period. This agreement can be in the contract, but even so, they must be informed of the amount and agree to it before going on the course. If it is a course that is a statutory requirement of the job, and they refuse, then they may be fairly dismissed (failure to comply with a statutory enactment).

BUT (and this is the important point) if the employer deducts money from wages on an unenforceable clause, the a tribunal will order them to repay it - and at that point the employer is de-barred from reclaiming the money through any other means (eg through the courts). But it has to be a tribunal decision, and not an agreed settlement (so if an out of court settlement is agreed, the agreement should make it clear that the employer will not attempt to recover the money some other way)

The way the clause in OP's DD's contract is written, it is unenforceable because it does not provide for a sliding scale or for a time limit on the claw-back period. So any deduction under that clause would be deemed unlawful.

Madmonk

I think she will have to sign the contract and hope that if and when she leaves (she really loves her job,even though it is slave labour!) she can fight the bits in the contract she is unhappy with! She is going to add a letter asking for confirmation of the uniform return/payment and the training reimbursement bits!

Thanks for everyones imput!

MM

zzzLazyDaisy

Just as a 'belt and braces' when she returns the signed contract she should include a letter stating that she is concerned about having to pay for her uniform and any training fees when she leaves and asking them to explain these clauses to her in writing as she doesn't understand them.

She should them wait for the employer to come back to her about this. Don't be tempted to explain to the employer why you think this is wrong in law. There is then correspondence on file to say she did not understand the clauses (and so arguably cannot be deemed to have agreed to them). If the employer does write back keep a copy with the contract (make sure she gets a copy of the contract).