Lack of Salary Increase, where does he stand...

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi, I have just had a skim through, so apologies if I have missed anything.

Some general comments:

1 assuming he is an employee (wage slip, P60, PAYE etc) then he should have a written statement of particulars of employment (or contract) setting out salary, hours, location, holidays, and other statutory requirements. However the law doesn't provide any effect means of enforcement so those employers who don't comply normally get away with it.

2 it is not possible for an employer to force an employee to stay with the company for any given period of time during or after training

3 it IS possible for an employer to impose a financial penalty on the employee by way of repayment of training fees if the employee leaves within a specified period but this must be in writing and signed by the employee prior to commencing the course (this does not have to be in the employment contract, it could be a separate agreement).

4 the employer can also deduct the money owed directly from the employees salary but again this provision must be in writing and signed by the employee prior to them starting the course.

5 from a more pragmatic viewpoint - leaving under a cloud is unlikely to encourage a good reference; also word can get round in the profession in the locality and this can result in difficulties getting a replacement position, so I'd suggest that he secures an alternative position before handing in his notice

6 finally - I can only speak fromthe point of view of lawyer training so this may not apply to accountant training - if he leaves part way through his training this will follow him around on his CV forever more. In the law a training contract is two years and anyone leaving and going to another employer during the course of the contract is likely to be flagged up for questions at an interview as it suggests possible problems between the trainee and the employer (which rightly or wrongly could raise questions about the employees ability to be a 'team player' or to work to the standard required of the first employer under the contract, or even that the trainee is a 'quitter'. As I say, this may not be the case for trainee accountants, but at least check this out.

I don't know if the above answers your questions but if not, do post again and I'll try to help

D

persa

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

2 it is not possible for an employer to force an employee to stay with the company for any given period of time during or after training

3 it IS possible for an employer to impose a financial penalty on the employee by way of repayment of training fees if the employee leaves within a specified period but this must be in writing and signed by the employee prior to commencing the course (this does not have to be in the employment contract, it could be a separate agreement).

This is the point I wanted to check - the clause re clawback has to be specifically signed, it's not enough for the original employment contract to refer to a policy which sets out the clawback rules?

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

6 finally - I can only speak fromthe point of view of lawyer training so this may not apply to accountant training - if he leaves part way through his training this will follow him around on his CV forever more. In the law a training contract is two years and anyone leaving and going to another employer during the course of the contract is likely to be flagged up for questions at an interview as it suggests possible problems between the trainee and the employer (which rightly or wrongly could raise questions about the employees ability to be a 'team player' or to work to the standard required of the first employer under the contract, or even that the trainee is a 'quitter'. As I say, this may not be the case for trainee accountants, but at least check this out.

Leaving part way through an accountancy contract normally has exam failure all over it.

I only know of one instance where someone left voluntarily part way through a training contract - he felt like he was being bullied. Hasn't held him back, but he had to play it very very carefully, particularly in terms of transferring the paperwork.

zzzLazyDaisy

persa wrote: »

This is the point I wanted to check - the clause re clawback has to be specifically signed, it's not enough for the original employment contract to refer to a policy which sets out the clawback rules?.

Yes it is enough for the reference to clawback to be in the contract with the details in a separate document that is made available to the employee, but the contract must be signed by the employee - ditto any deductions clause (this is an exception to the normal rule that an employment contract does not need to be signed to be effective).

Though personally, if advising an employer, I would advise a 'belt and braces' approach and get the employee to sign to say h/she has received a copy of the separate policy document and that s/he has read and understood it and agrees to its contents. But that's because I am a nit-picking lawyer, not because it is strictly necessary.

D

persa

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Yes it is enough for the reference to clawback to be in the contract with the details in a separate document that is made available to the employee, but the contract must be signed by the employee - ditto any deductions clause (this is an exception to the normal rule that an employment contract does not need to be signed to be effective).

Though personally, if advising an employer, I would advise a 'belt and braces' approach and get the employee to sign to say h/she has received a copy of the separate policy document and that s/he has read and understood it and agrees to its contents. But that's because I am a nit-picking lawyer, not because it is strictly necessary.

D

Thanks for clarifying. I had to sign a separate agreement as part of my training contract, but that was for a firm with nit-picking lawyers, so I wasn't 100% sure if required or just best practice.

Bottom line therefore is the OP may well have agreed to a clawback and forgotten - he only signed one contract and that was six years ago. So he does need to hunt down any policy documents, I'd wager his original contract refers to them.

It may not be a particularly good firm, but to let a trainee leave without penalty is unheard of in this line of work.

If you're good, sometimes you can persuade the new employer to pay it, but that's no small feat!

mountainofdebt

well personal experience has told me that whilst the boss may have planned a review, and its on the to-do list so he may not be deliberately avoiding the situation.

Also experience has told me that having a job offer to take to said boss also focuses said boss' mind so it may be a case that your OH puts up or shuts up.

pops5588

Well, 3 weeks later and he has continuously had his appraisal pushed back. It is now meant to be tomorrow, but not expecting anything.

He has checked his original contract and there is nothing in it about clawbacks, OH says that it has always been discussed verbally. Anyway, having discussed it at length I think regardless of lack of payrise he will stay. It would be silly for him to make it look like a case of "exam failure" when he has slogged so hard to maintain his 100% pass rate.

Just frustrating. Morale very low! By the way thanks very much LazyDaisy for taking the time to look at this.

System

pops5588 wrote: »

Well, 3 weeks later and he has continuously had his appraisal pushed back. It is now meant to be tomorrow, but not expecting anything.

He has checked his original contract and there is nothing in it about clawbacks, OH says that it has always been discussed verbally. Anyway, having discussed it at length I think regardless of lack of payrise he will stay. It would be silly for him to make it look like a case of "exam failure" when he has slogged so hard to maintain his 100% pass rate.

Just frustrating. Morale very low! By the way thanks very much LazyDaisy for taking the time to look at this.

I trained at a small firm before leaving at qualification.

Small firms have a great deal of difficulty recruiting. They can recruit at trainee level and they can recruit at very senior levels but anything in between is tough. The reason for this is that they generally offer lower salaries and also because the skill set required is very narrow. Add to this that anyone that has passed a few exams in an ICAEW firm can only be replaced on a like for like basis with someone who has passed the same number of exams from another ICAEW firm.

So based on this where do they find someone if they have a team member leave. They aren't going to get anyone from large or mid tier firm because they don't pay enough and no one is going to want their CV to read 'I used to work for a huge firm and now I don't but I di work in a small one'. Second option is sacked trainees from large or mid tiers. Again they don't pay enough and large firm trainees get eaten up by mid tiers when they get sacked and mid tier to mid tier movement is easy because of the skill sets they have so mid tier sacked employees just move between firms. Small firms are unlikely to sack for single failures but even if they do, do you want to take on someone that is likely to fail again. Trying to find an actual employee in the small firm sector to move is nigh on impossible because not many people will leave a firm with no branding to go to another firm with no branding and just add a line onto their CV that doesn't really show any real development.

I think that your OH being given extra responsibility shows the firm do acknowledge his worth. So IMHO you OH needs to approach this the right way. He should not ask for a 'raise'. He needs to ask for an increase in his salary that puts his salary in line with his achievements in ACA as well as his level of responsibility in the firm.

Re the contract - what does his actual ICAEW training contract say? All trainees get this and it is set by the institute.

Also, I would recommend not leaving before qualifying. It is pointless from a long term career perspective because newly qualified usually end up in a higher position than ex practice part qualified that left and have then qualified in the first few years of qualifying.

pops5588

Walcott wrote: »

Re the contract - what does his actual ICAEW training contract say? All trainees get this and it is set by the institute.

Also, I would recommend not leaving before qualifying. It is pointless from a long term career perspective because newly qualified usually end up in a higher position than ex practice part qualified that left and have then qualified in the first few years of qualifying.

I will ask him about the ICAEW contract, obviously I know nothing about it really.

And yes, he has already decided not to leave before qualifying. But will definitely be useful to know where he stands if he leaves as soon as he is fully qualified and has something else lined up.

System

When I was training there was a change of syllabus and the way training records are completed so I am not up to date on the current requirements.

But in my time the ICAEW required that the firm undertook 6 monthly appraisals with the trainee and these covered specific areas and had to be documented. I presume your OH has not done this given the time frame mentioned earlier.

He should look into what the ICAEW requirement actually is and then request an appraisal based on this if he is having no luck down the regular route.

pops5588

Well, the appraisal happened but no mention of pay. OH asked and he said he would "look at the figures and get back to him".

Not feeling hopeful!