Funded Study Support

VivaPayne

Hi,

I'm working my way through my ACCA studies at the moment and my employer has been paying for all of these. There is a funded study agreement policy that has to be signed, however in the 3.5 years I've been studying, I've not been asked to sign anything at all.

When I finish studying and decide that I want to move on, can the business try and deduct any amounts from my salary if I've not signed this agreement?

They're notorious for not following through anyway so I think there's only a slim chance of them trying to get the money back, but I'm just curious as to where I would stand.

Cheers

DomRavioli

Check your basic employment contract or employee handbook.

If it doesn't state in there, you need to ask HR - it is common for them to expect you to stay for x amount of time, and they can claim back either the whole or part of the costs associated.

VivaPayne

Thanks for the response.

Yeah there's a clause in the pacakge for a minimum length of time to stay after qualifying, but this package doesn't form part of my basic contract and does require an additional signature (that also states should be kept on my file). To date, I've not been asked for a signature.

Basically if I left tomorrow, would they be able to recoup the money without prior consent?

Thank you

somethingcorporate

Is it in the handbook?

It's the same at my employer, they didn't give me the contract amendment to sign so if I leave I won't have to pay but know a lot of peers that had this in theirs.

Yorkie1

If you were given the clause before starting the studying, then by doing the studying you can be argued to have accepted the clause even if you didn't sign it.

DomRavioli

I can't believe a "professional" would think they can be trained for free. As Yorkie1 says, if it is implied consent as you were aware of the rules, then you don't have a leg to stand on and they can recoup the full costs of training, plus any associated costs if these are specified.

I would have thought you would have a little more respect for a company who has paid to train you to that level - it isn't cheap, and there aren't too many about because of people like you who have jumped ship way too early.

Another_not_new_user

DomRavioli wrote: »

I can't believe a "professional" would think they can be trained for free. As Yorkie1 says, if it is implied consent as you were aware of the rules, then you don't have a leg to stand on and they can recoup the full costs of training, plus any associated costs if these are specified.

I would have thought you would have a little more respect for a company who has paid to train you to that level - it isn't cheap, and there aren't too many about because of people like you who have jumped ship way too early.

Although I agree with the sentiment, both you and Yorkie1 are actually incorrect. There is no such thing as "implied consent", whatever ones knowledge of the rules was, when it comes to deductions from wages and/or training agreements. Certain deductions are permitted by law and training is not one of them. You cannot owe money unless you are party to a signed agreement that you owe the money in the first place. Knowledge of the rule does not replace a signature on a valid training agreement.


Of course, whether you ever get a good reference from your employer is another question.

Yorkie1

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

Although I agree with the sentiment, both you and Yorkie1 are actually incorrect. There is no such thing as "implied consent", whatever ones knowledge of the rules was, when it comes to deductions from wages and/or training agreements. Certain deductions are permitted by law and training is not one of them. You cannot owe money unless you are party to a signed agreement that you owe the money in the first place. Knowledge of the rule does not replace a signature on a valid training agreement.


Of course, whether you ever get a good reference from your employer is another question.

Thanks for your comment, ANNU.


I suppose I was thinking more in terms of a small claims court action rather than deduction of wages - would that be different?

Another_not_new_user

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Thanks for your comment, ANNU.


I suppose I was thinking more in terms of a small claims court action rather than deduction of wages - would that be different?

No it would be the same. The "debt" arises from an employment jurisdiction, so a small claims court cannot deal with it, and the law on training agreements is one of the very clear ones. If it isn't a signed agreement, and more than that, if the terms are not reasonable (a diminishing amount over a proportionate period of time) then the agreement does not exist. The employer cannot claim a debt exists when the law is clear on how such a debt is established.

Undervalued

DomRavioli wrote: »

I can't believe a "professional" would think they can be trained for free. As Yorkie1 says, if it is implied consent as you were aware of the rules, then you don't have a leg to stand on and they can recoup the full costs of training, plus any associated costs if these are specified.

I would have thought you would have a little more respect for a company who has paid to train you to that level - it isn't cheap, and there aren't too many about because of people like you who have jumped ship way too early.

Sorry but your first paragraph is completely wrong for the reasons explained by ANNU above.

However, unlike ANNU, I do not agree with the sentiment expressed in your second paragraph. Personally, I would have expected a "professional" company / partnership or whatever to have got something as basic as this correct. It is one of the clearest and least ambiguous parts of all employment law. If they can't put their own house in order should they really be charging no doubt substantial fees for advising other businesses?

VivaPayne

First off, thank you for answering my curiosities. There are many of us currently studying who are all in the same situation at varying points of study. I was assuming that participation would be as good as a signature on the agreement, but it would appear not. It's never a bad thing to be as clued up as possible in these matters.

Regarding your comment directed at me DomRavioli, I am not leaving the business, nor do I have intentions on leaving the business. I am in a very good position with some very good opportunities coming up. I was just curious, that's all.