Contract & tax queries

ac1173

I

In September I handed in my notice at my current employer to take on a new job. This was dated as the 22nd & all was accepted.

I subsequently asked to go on to a bank hours contract (zero hours) as I wanted to keep my options open & potentially do shifts there as well as at my new job. This was confirmed & agreed on the 17th that I would remain on the payroll & a contract would be sent “at some point”

I started my new job on the 27th & completed a bank shift at my previous employer on the 29th.

Unfortunately, from the first day I realised the new job was not for me & subsequently left.

I contacted my previous employer & enquired about returning on a permanent which was happily agreed to as they are always short staffed.

I returned to working for my previous employer on the 6th of the following month.

As of yet, 27th I have not received a contract, either from the previous offer of bank or from the permanent 16hours contract.

On my latest payslip, which they were stating as my final pay I have received a deduction for training costs as well as a p45.

I have queried this and been told by the md that there was a break in my service as a contract was not issued for my bank (zero hours) contract & I was being treated as a new starter. This slightly contradicts what I was informed about remaining on payroll & concerns me that a contract has not yet been issued despite working for 3 weeks now under the “new” contract.

I’m also a little concerned as for my new employer I stated I had 2 jobs on the tax form as I believed I was still under contract with my previous employer, but am now wondering where reviving a p45 leaves me with the HMRC.

I’m fairly certain the md is using the “break in service” as a reason to recoup the training costs, but at this point I’m more concerned about working without a contract & the tax implications of the p45 & new starter status. 

Jillanddy

This is a little muddy, but ....

A zero hours contract definitely should be put in writing (so should the terms of all contracts, but realistically many employers don't do what they should). So technically since it wasn't put in writing then it wasn't a zero hours contract. Technically. However, what the law says and the practicalities of actual "lived life" are not always the same thing, and sometimes it's best to keep schtum about stuff (something I am really bad at, I admit!). I think the fact that you definitely resigned, you definitely asked to be kept on a zero hours contract, and that you subsequently asked to rejoin the employer establishes the intents that you and they both agreed on. So, that said, the employer is correct - there was more than a week between your leaving your job as an employee (bank /zero hours staff are workers, not employees) and restarting your employment again as an employee. That break is sufficient in law to say these are two separate employments. 

Whether the employer can recoup training costs is another matter entirely, and there isn't enough information to provide an opinion on that. We'd need to know what the costs were, whether there was a written agreement etc - so the actual details. That said, because you are now a new starter, you aren't in a strong position because you can be dismissed for almost any reason under the sun, and I am guessing that isn't something that you want to happen. So it may be moot whether the employer was legally correct in recouping training costs, because you probably aren't going to be in a position to challenge it anyway. To be clear - the employer is technically correct that they could recoup training costs because you definitely broke your service, but that isn't the same thing as being legally correct in the action of doing so. The timing is correct, but the fact may not be - we can't tell the latter.

I am going to make something of a leap and guess you may be in care work? Many claims to recoup training in that sector are, in fact, unlawful. But that's just a general observation and doesn't change anything I said previously.

HMRC should catch up with what has happened pretty quickly - you may pay increased tax for a very short period, but probably get that resolved within a week or two. 

ac1173

Heh, yep, absolutely right that it’s a care company. Tbh, it’s not the fact the training costs are being recouped, I did sign an agreement to that effect at the time of the training & was happy with that, it’s more the fact that it was implied during discussions regarding staying on as bank that I would still be employed by the company & that it shouldn’t happen. Live & learn I guess.
thanks for the reply btw. 

Jillanddy

ac1173 said:

Heh, yep, absolutely right that it’s a care company. Tbh, it’s not the fact the training costs are being recouped, I did sign an agreement to that effect at the time of the training & was happy with that, it’s more the fact that it was implied during discussions regarding staying on as bank that I would still be employed by the company & that it shouldn’t happen. Live & learn I guess.
thanks for the reply btw. 

You're welcome. Yes - never take anything as implied. It's important to recognise that workers and employees have somewhat different positions and rights. Workers have less than employees.