Recruitment Fee repayment

whunt18885

Hi

I have recently quit my job, I was within my 3 month probation and I basically got a job offer that was too good to pass up.

I discussed with my boss and he was totally cool with it, He even said if he was in my position he would also take it. The same was true with the Managing Director - He totally understood and encouraged me to take the opportunity (but also said I would always have a job if it did not work out).

My concern is that my employment contract states that if I leave within the first 12 months then I have to repay £250 recruitment costs, My department boss does not think that this will be the case given that I left under very amiable circumstances and everyone including the main director understood my decision for leaving (he even said they would keep my place open for a while in case it did not work out).

That being said I am slightly concerned, A few things are in my favour I believe however namely;

* Nothing was mentioned about this clause and it was only highlighted in my contract after 2 weeks of working there - I did not receive/sign my contract until day 15 of employment so if it came to a tribunal then surely this information should have been forthcoming in my employment offer letter and employment terms (it was not) - My argument is that by the time I had my contract I had already started with the new company and if it was not acceptable I could not exactly return to my old job - Essentially no prior knowledge was forthcoming.

* They did not actually employ me through a recruitment agency - Instead they paid £200 for access to Reed's library of CV's , At no point was I involved with any recruitment agencies in any way - The boss looked me up (I did not actively apply for the job) and interviewed me directly. No one from Reed (or any other recruiter) contacted me. Its also worth noting that for this sum they interviewed several people not just me - Essentially they got their monies worth

Again I don't think they would be low enough to take £250 off my wages but just in case they do do you think I would have a fair chance at an employment hearing ?

Advice please ?

Les79

whunt18885 wrote: »

* Nothing was mentioned about this clause and it was only highlighted in my contract after 2 weeks of working there - I did not receive/sign my contract until day 15 of employment so if it came to a tribunal then surely this information should have been forthcoming in my employment offer letter and employment terms (it was not) - My argument is that by the time I had my contract I had already started with the new company and if it was not acceptable I could not exactly return to my old job - Essentially no prior knowledge was forthcoming.

Maybe, but there are two problems I can immediately see:

1. You potentially have no proof that this was not verbally stated to you when first offered the job. If you have some email exchanges then you may be able to formulate a stronger case, particularly if one relates to a formal offer of employment.

2. You agreed to work under the terms of the contract presented to you after 15 days of employment.

Not to mention that you chose to commence work without insisting on receiving written particulars from the outset. Contracts have lots of little "clauses", and some favour you (such as the remuneration, holiday entitlement and additional benefits aspects), whereas some favour the employer (such as paying back recruitment fees within a certain timeframe).

It depends on what specifically has and hasn't been said as to whether or not you'd have a case. Maybe speak to ACAS to see if they can offer advice.

Ultimately, though, it is a case of wait and see for you right now! If they don't deduct money from your wages then happy days, you have no case. If they do deduct money then seek help and also maybe set yourself up better in the future (get the particulars BEFORE commencing an assignment, and maybe also aim to stay in a job more long term rather than 3 months).

sangie595

It's unusual, to be sure, and you must have been very cheap to recruit. But I can't see that it's unlawful, and your arguments are irrelevant - by continuing to work you agreed the term, you did sign it, and so it would be up to the employer whether they decided to waive it.

There are lots of contractual conditions that people only discover after starting a job. Largely because the document everyone calls a contract isn't the contract - it's a summary of main conditions. Therefore, if you don't like a term, you must object to it at the time, and you must also decide how far your are willing to take that objection.

[Deleted User]

I think you would be OK as you left/leaving agreeable.

I know recently when I got a contract with two months notice in it for me (statutory on the employers side mind) the Employer made me collect it (not hugely) in advance and there had to be an independent witness signing - even then to be fair I want to make sure I'm really, really happy in the job before I carry on (s0d the money if it comes to it) (they might also receive a reference they don't like and anything else) as I notice the 6 month probation period was a bit cloudy and thought two months notice had something to do with a month's training which in reality not quite so I'm stumped. (I've no issue with thinking 2 months notice is a good idea - it just makes me realise the importance of a right fit early on)

I would have liked to (in my dreams) have sued my last work place with it bringing the fixed term contract to an end early - they signed a contract! which two months premature they were the ones looking to end my contract first. But no, agreement reached in everyone's best interests. The HR person thought they were some 4 months early! My old line manager really was fixated and would always say I started a week later then I did do, so struck me no one had a scobbie! on what was in writing and actual events. I dread any of them writing a reference.

Marcon

Deleted%20User wrote: »

I think you would be OK as you left/leaving agreeable.

This is just guesswork - and contracts trump parting on good terms.

OP, ask your employer to confirm if you're bothered.

bugslet

Marcon wrote: »

This is just guesswork - and contracts trump parting on good terms.

OP, ask your employer to confirm if you're bothered.

^^^ That.

We wouldn't be bothered about reimbursement, other firms take a stricter view. The only way to know is to ask for confirmation.

TELLIT01

Deleted%20User wrote: »

I think you would be OK as you left/leaving agreeable.

What anybody 'thinks' is totally irrelevant. The company can enforce repayment as it was part of the contract of employment. If it is up to line management to start the process of recovering the money the OP may be OK. If it's standard practice to recover it, and it is controlled by the HR department, the OP may have to pay it back. As the OP is going to a better, hopefully better paid, job it shouldn't be too difficult to repay £250 particularly if a repayment plan can be agreed.

mariefab

In order for your employer to lawfully recover the Recruitment costs they would have had to provide you with a copy of the contract before the costs were incurred.

marliepanda

Marcon wrote: »

This is just guesswork - and contracts trump parting on good terms.

OP, ask your employer to confirm if you're bothered.

Pretty much everything they post is guesswork, but they always back it up with their own experiences. They seem to have experiences of every single workplace event/situation ever...

LilElvis

mariefab wrote: »

In order for your employer to lawfully recover the Recruitment costs they would have had to provide you with a copy of the contract before the costs were incurred.

That's plainly ridiculous. How can an employer provide a potential employee with details of the recruitment costs before they are incurred? Answer - they can't because they have to incur the costs in order to have any knowledge of the potential employee.

mariefab

I completely agree that it's ridiculous. Impossible even.
However, in these circumstances, it is what is required in order for the recovery of the costs to be lawful.