Ex-employer chasing study expenses

benten69

Not sure if it's been mentioned or not as I have not read the full thread, but you say it's not in your contract and you did not sign anything. Are you sure it's not in the employee handbooks? I know that for the last 2 companies I have worked for there has been nothing specific regarding course fees, etc in the contract, but the contract does say it is in addition to the company employee handbook, and within said handbook is full details of the course fees and how they have to be repaid if you leave within certain periods, etc.

I would double check the company handbook before you go off and say you don't actually owe them anything. When you signed your contract you will have agreed to all terms within said employee handbook as well as the specifics in your contract.

Stuff in your contract is usually specific to your job only, stuff in the handbook covers everyone in the entire company.

WellKnownSid

moblie120 wrote: »

The Company may, at its discretion in appropriate cases, agree to fund certain training and in those instances, signature of a training contract will be required.

So what you are saying is, you haven't signed the training contract so the Company has therefore not actually agreed to fund the training..?

Although not distilled in writing, a contract was formed when you agreed to attend the training, evidenced by the invitation to the training [induction letter] and your subsequent attendance at South Barthamshire college on [long list of dates] constituting your acceptance in law of all terms in relation to this agreement which were made available to you on the Company intranet during your period of employment blah blah blah.

I refer the court to BigCorp vs Jones (use of company paper clips after termination of employment, 1965).

Hopefully you can now see where this will rapidly head without appropriate (and robust) legal advice.

andyfromotley

RJH,

can i just clarify, did you continue with this training after you ceased employment for the company?

If so that changes my perspective somewhat, and i think you are more likely to be liable.

Legal advice!!

WellKnownSid

The OP and others have fallen into the trap of assuming that something has to be signed and in writing in order to form a legally binding contract. In fact, there are very few occasions in UK law where this is actually true.

Whether a valid contract has been formed, and the exact terms of this contract, will be down to someone with far more knowledge than I, ultimately the court.

What we do know is that the OP is adamant that he/she has NOT signed a training contract, something which he/she openly admits would have been the minimum condition for the company to agree to fund any training. Therefore, it's not a great leap to argue that the OP is and was well aware that their training would not be funded by the company.

The OP has clearly accepted their training by attending the course, their name is on it. I can't see an argument that he/she was dragged kicking and screaming to attend an overpriced course under extreme duress would wash, especially if he/she continued to benefit from it after termination of employment!

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

The OP and others have fallen into the trap of assuming that something has to be signed and in writing in order to form a legally binding contract. In fact, there are very few occasions in UK law where this is actually true.

Whether a valid contract has been formed, and the exact terms of this contract, will be down to someone with far more knowledge than I, ultimately the court.

What we do know is that the OP is adamant that he/she has NOT signed a training contract, something which he/she openly admits would have been the minimum condition for the company to agree to fund any training. Therefore, it's not a great leap to argue that the OP is and was well aware that their training would not be funded by the company.

The OP has clearly accepted their training by attending the course, their name is on it. I can't see an argument that he/she was dragged kicking and screaming to attend an overpriced course under extreme duress would wash, especially if he/she continued to benefit from it after termination of employment!

I think the issue is more the company failed to follow their own policies when paying for the OP to attend a training course. It sounds pretty clear that their policy says if they are going to fund training they will ask the employee to sign a contract agreeing to various terms. If this contract was never provided nor signed I think they may struggle to enforce the terms of it.

I appreciate that contracts can be implied, but if a company has a clear policy that relates to training, but then fails to follow it's own documented policy then it is in a very much weakened position trying to enforce terms of that policy.

If the company cannot prove that the employee was aware of all of the terms included in the training contract, usually indicated by signing said contract, then recovering training costs will be challenging.

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

If the company cannot prove that the employee was aware of all of the terms included in the training contract, usually indicated by signing said contract, then recovering training costs will be challenging.

They're not trying to enforce their training contract or its terms... they're enforcing the more general terms in the company handbook which clearly states that the company isn't going to be funding training without a training contract in place.

Clive_Woody wrote: »

It sounds pretty clear that their policy says if they are going to fund training they will ask the employee to sign a contract agreeing to various terms.

This. Therefore they are NOT going to fund training. Now, I appreciate that they've obviously bankrolled the training - paying the provider's invoice - but that in itself does not constitute an agreement that they're liable to for it.

No different to spending unapproved expenses at any company. Do this any you'll get an invoice from the company and they'll take you to court and win if you don't pay.

Clive_Woody wrote: »

if a company has a clear policy that relates to training, but then fails to follow it's own documented policy then it is in a very much weakened position trying to enforce terms of that policy.

No-one has yet been able to prove they didn't follow the policy. They clearly stated that they would only fund training under certain circumstances, circumstances which were subsequently not met. All they did was pay the training provider's invoice on behalf of the trainee... and are now claiming the money (which we all agree they are not liable for under the terms of the company handbook) back.

A solicitor, familiar with employment law, may be able to defend this - but I don't think a generic 'treating customers fairly' type argument will wash with the court - it needs something far more substantial because the OP was an employee and not a customer, hence privvy to far more knowledge of internal processes, had access to terms, paperwork, internal training documents, etc, etc.

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

They're not trying to enforce their training contract or its terms... they're enforcing the more general terms in the company handbook which clearly states that the company isn't going to be funding training without a training contract in place.
.

Yet they did exactly that, they paid for this training course but apparently forgot to follow their own policy and now want to try and claw this money back.

The company handbook may state that "the company isn't going to fund training without a training contract in place" but by approving this employees attendance at the training and paying the cost of the training it seems that they either chose to ignore their own policies/handbook or this was intended as a gift.

Unless the handbook has terms regarding repayment in full of training fees upon the employee resigning, which seems unlikely as they have a training contract document to cover this, then I suspect they don't have a leg to stand on.

A vague statement in a company handbook cannot imply additional terms that could be applied at a later date, otherwise there would be no need to have a training contract that spells out the terms they wish to enforce.

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

The company handbook may state that "the company isn't going to fund training without a training contract in place" but by approving this employees attendance at the training and paying the cost of the training it seems that they either chose to ignore their own policies/handbook or this was intended as a gift.

Yes, I fully understand your argument, but this is not how they'll spin it in court...

Is this your signature, confirming you understood ALL terms and conditions of your employment?

Yes

Do you recognise the following clause? For removal of doubt, this was the clause which you quoted to our firm on xx/yy/2015:
The Company may, at its discretion in appropriate cases, agree to fund certain training and in those instances, signature of a training contract will be required.

Yes

Do you have a signed training contract in your possession?

No

So, in the absence of the training contract, do you still believe that the company should fund your training? It clearly states in the clause that they won't...

Well...

Who did you think would be funding your training?

Well, I thought it was a gift?

I put it to you that you knew that your training would not be funded by your company, but you proceeded anyway. You accepted the training course, evidenced by your attendances on

and your continued attendances after the termination of your employment. You were hoping that this would somehow slip through the net and you'd get away with not paying. Is that correct? Well, um...

Clive_Woody

WellKnownSid wrote: »

Yes, I fully understand your argument, but this is not how they'll spin it in court...

Is this your signature, confirming you understood ALL terms and conditions of your employment?

Yes

Do you recognise the following clause? For removal of doubt, this was the clause which you quoted to our firm on xx/yy/2015:
The Company may, at its discretion in appropriate cases, agree to fund certain training and in those instances, signature of a training contract will be required.

Yes

Do you have a signed training contract in your possession?

No

So, in the absence of the training contract, do you still believe that the company should fund your training? It clearly states in the clause that they won't...

Well...

Who did you think would be funding your training?

Well, I thought it was a gift?

I put it to you that you knew that your training would not be funded by your company, but you proceeded anyway. You accepted the training course, evidenced by your attendances on

and your continued attendances after the termination of your employment. You were hoping that this would somehow slip through the net and you'd get away with not paying. Is that correct? Well, um...

Simple enough response.

If the company did not intend to fund the training why did they pay the invoice and not simply pass this on to the employee for them to pay? Claiming that they never intended to fund the training but paying the invoice for it does not stand them in a strong position and leaves an enormous hole in their defence.

I put it to you that the company failed to follow their own documented polices and in doing so did not make the employee aware that they would seek to recover training costs if said employee resigned their employment. In failing to follow their own internal processes they cannot fall back on vague language contained in the employee handbook and attempt to claim they had no intention of funding said training, despite having paid the invoice in full.

Well um indeed.....

The judge will make his decision on the balance of probabilities and trying to convince him that they never intended to fund the training (because they forgot to put in place a contract) but proceeded to pay in full for the training is highly unlikely. He will look at the facts, which are that the employee was never made aware of any claw back clauses and as such will not consider these as retrospectively enforceable.

WellKnownSid

Clive_Woody wrote: »

The judge will make his decision on the balance of probabilities and trying to convince him that they never intended to fund the training (because they forgot to put in place a contract) but proceeded to pay in full for the training is highly unlikely. He will look at the facts, which are that the employee was never made aware of any claw back clauses and as such will not consider these as retrospectively enforceable.

I put it to you that a training contract is standard practice within the industry, your role, and well documented, including within the handbook you acknowledge. I further put it to you that you had intended to take the training, and had the contract been presented to you at the time, you would have signed it. Unless you have some evidence to suggest that you wouldn't have signed under those terms, that would surely be the balance of probabilities.