# Boss charging employees for training?



## thebiz (26 Sep 2006)

Hi 

 Background: Small Irish company ~30 people.
 Key people are leaving because it's a shambles.
 The boss makes every decision, management is non existant....

 The boss has put into the employee handbook that,

 If you leave you will be required to pay for any training you recieved in the previous 12 months.

 This is a ploy to stop his fed up workforce leaving his circus.

 Can he do this??

 Thanks


----------



## Towger (26 Sep 2006)

I believe so. Is that one of the things people complain about when working for Ryan Air.

Towger


----------



## Humpback (26 Sep 2006)

Don't see why not. There's nothing illegal about it, and since its in the contract up front, people who don't like the condition don't have to sign the contract.


----------



## thebiz (26 Sep 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> Don't see why not. There's nothing illegal about it, and since its in the contract up front, people who don't like the condition don't have to sign the contract.



It's not inthe contract for the people who already work there. Does that change anything?


----------



## momomo (26 Sep 2006)

happens in the company I work for, they make you pay for a certain percentage of the course if you leave within 12 months of completing


----------



## ClubMan (26 Sep 2006)

thebiz said:


> It's not inthe contract for the people who already work there. Does that change anything?


I don't think so. Unless there is some element of unionised/collective bargaining in force in that workplace that might be relevant in this context. Otherwise each new employee is subject to the terms & conditions of the contract of employment which they individually negotiate and to which they agree at the start as long as these don't attempt to abrogate any statutory rights (which would be illegal).


----------



## ClubMan (26 Sep 2006)

thebiz said:


> If you leave you will be required to pay for any training you recieved in the previous 12 months.
> 
> This is a ploy to stop his fed up workforce leaving his circus.


You mean stuff like clown and lion tamer school tuition fees?


----------



## thebiz (26 Sep 2006)

ClubMan said:


> You mean stuff like clown and lion tamer school tuition fees?



Might be handy in here...



ClubMan said:


> I don't think so. Unless there is some element of unionised/collective bargaining in force in that workplace that might be relevant in this context. Otherwise each new employee is subject to the terms & conditions of the contract of employment which they individually negotiate and to which they agree at the start as long as these don't attempt to abrogate any statutory rights (which would be illegal).



So I agreed a contract 12 months ago.
This changes the Terms now - should I have the right to renegociate because of these changes?

Can I refuse training on the grounds that it could put me in financial red?


----------



## Humpback (26 Sep 2006)

thebiz said:


> It's not inthe contract for the people who already work there. Does that change anything?


 
Unlikely (as stated somewhat obtusely by Clubman). Basically the employment contract will be normally the same for all employees, so it will apply for existing as well as new employees.

Now, if the employment contract (the employee handbook) was changed while the existing employees were there, and this condition was added in, it remains to be seen if they were clearly notified of such a change, and what if anything they said about this being implemented at the time.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Sep 2006)

thebiz said:


> So I agreed a contract 12 months ago.
> This changes the Terms now - should I have the right to renegociate because of these changes?


This _OASIS _article might bf of interest to you:



Also - contact the DETE Employment Rights Unit for advice on your statutory rights.


----------



## ajapale (26 Sep 2006)

> If you leave you will be required to pay for any training you recieved in the previous 12 months.



How does the employer propose to enforce payment for any training? As far as I know he cant simply deduct it from wages without your consent.

What is the nature of the training? Is it health and safety training? Is it training on how to operate equipment? Is it training which is specific to employees trade or profession? Is the training compulsory? Is the training specific to this company?

aj


----------



## ClubMan (26 Sep 2006)

ajapale said:


> How does the employer propose to enforce payment for any training? As far as I know he cant simply deduct it from wages without your consent.


The terms & conditions of the original or modified contract could contain something covering the deduction of such amounts. I know that my contract allows the employer to deduct any mitaken overpayments of wages should they arise.


----------



## thebiz (26 Sep 2006)

ajapale said:


> How does the employer propose to enforce payment for any training? As far as I know he cant simply deduct it from wages without your consent.



I'm certain he has not tought about how he's actually going to charge - as i;ve said it's a fear tatic.

What is the nature of the training? 
Is it health and safety training? Is it training on how to operate equipment?
It's ANY training be it Equipment operating or Health and Safety. He's very vague.

 Is it training which is specific to employees trade or profession? 
Some of it wil be specific to the industry but not to the company.

Is the training compulsory? Is the training specific to this company?
I suppose it's compulsory in order to be qualified to do a task.


----------



## ajapale (26 Sep 2006)

The employer has no way of recovering these vague/arbitrary training charges without your consent.
aj


----------



## Humpback (26 Sep 2006)

ajapale said:


> The employer has no way of recovering these vague/arbitrary training charges without your consent.
> aj



It's in their employee handbook/employment contract from what we've been told above, and therefore he already has the consent of the employees. I would expect that deductions from payroll would be an easy way of recovering these charges.


----------



## thebiz (26 Sep 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> It's in their employee handbook/employment contract from what we've been told above, and therefore he already has the consent of the employees. I would expect that deductions from payroll would be an easy way of recovering these charges.




he already has the consent of the employees

I'm not sure how telling the employeese that this is going to be the way equates to having their concent.


----------



## ajapale (26 Sep 2006)

from oasis



> The  gives all employees in Ireland a right to a pay slip which will show the gross           wage and details of all deductions. A pay slip is essentially a statement in           writing from the employer to the employee that outlines the total pay before           tax and all details of any deductions from pay. Your right to a pay slip is set           down in  of this Act. You can
> *Deductions from pay*
> 
> An employer* may not make* deductions from your           wages unless:
> ...


This employer will not be able to make deductions from his employees wages for vague and ill defined training without their written consent.

Incidently, I assume the company is not unionised?
aj


----------



## momomo (26 Sep 2006)

ajapale said:


> from oasis
> [/list]This employer will not be able to make deductions from his employees wages for vague and ill defined training without their written consent.
> 
> aj


 
In the company I work for we have to sign a contract when we start a course accepting that we will have to pay a portion if we leave, so unless they have this in written with your signature, i wouldnt think they could do this.


----------



## Humpback (26 Sep 2006)

ajapale said:


> This employer will not be able to make deductions from his employees wages for vague and ill defined training without their written consent.


 
ajapale - see the 2nd point in your quotation there 



> An employer* may not make* deductions from your wages unless:...... They are provided for in the contract of employment


 
And we've been told that these deductions for training are provided for in the contract of employment.

I think the focus here should be on how the employer added this condition in to the contract of employment, how this was communicated to the employees, and what if anything they did to either prevent it being put into the contract, or what alternative benefits/payback they received from the employer in exchange for a change in the contract of employment.


----------



## ajapale (26 Sep 2006)

My point is that the proposed deductions are a_rbitrary_ and _ill defined_.

The only way I can see an employer being able to recover costs through payroll deductions in this circumstance is (as momo pointed out) that the employee explicitly signs for each course for a specified amount.

The leglislation is designed to protect employees from "wheezes" like this. I dont think that the OP has anything to worry about.

I might be wrong but I think that employers have a statutory duty to provide Health and Safety training and that the employer must bear the cost of such training.

aj


----------



## MugsGame (26 Sep 2006)

> we've been told that these deductions for training are provided for in the contract of employment



Quite the opposite. An employer can't vary existing terms and conditions retrospectively and expect them to take effect without some negotiation.


----------



## Humpback (26 Sep 2006)

MugsGame said:


> Quite the opposite. An employer can't vary existing terms and conditions retrospectively and expect them to take effect without some negotiation.


 
This is the question I've been asking. We haven't been told how these terms and conditions got into the contracts in the first place, particularly for existing employees.

Can thebiz clarify when these terms were introduced to the contract? And how it was done?


----------



## thebiz (26 Sep 2006)

The chosen method of delivery was to send everyone a group mail stating that there was changes made to the employee handbook.
The hand book was attached with the said changes.


----------



## ajapale (2 Oct 2006)

Hi TheBiz,

Im convinced that this is an unenforceable "wheeze" on behalf of this employer.

Is the company in the Republic of Ireland?
Are you an employee (as opposed to a self employed contractor) of the company?
Do you have a contract of employment?
What, if anything, does it (the contract) say about Training and associated costs?
Is such training voluntary or compulsory?
Is such training of a highly complex technical nature or is it very expensive?

Im not sure what the status of an "Employees' Handbook" is.

I can see a case whereby an employer might pay for an Executive MBA and that the employee would sign a document undertaking to refund the costs should they leave within a specified time frame.

aj


----------



## Humpback (2 Oct 2006)

ajapale said:


> Im not sure what the status of an "Employees' Handbook" is.


 
I know that the terms of an employment contract that I had with an Irish company previously stated that the terms of my employment were according to said contract, and the contents of the employee handbook - which I was given to read prior to signing the contract.

I presume this is normal.


----------



## shipibo (2 Oct 2006)

TB,

    You have not signed any contracts stipulating that all rules in the Company Handbook are added with your approval ??

     If not, your Terms and Conditions supercede this book.

     I assume if you leave, he will take charges out of your last pay packet, you will have to go to arbitration to get monies back, stating custom and practice in company previously was no one paid for training.

     As a group, you should send a letter to boss stating you do not accept this amendment to the handbook.

     Check out your issue with

http://www.flac.ie


----------



## ajapale (2 Oct 2006)

Hi Crumb,

Thanks for the Free Legal Aid link, I never realised that they were a resource for employment law cases. (and also it would seem debt management).

I found  [broken link removed] a uk employment website, it deals with the principles and best practice of employee deductions for training.



> *DEDUCTION FROM WAGES *
> 
> Employers who want to make a deduction from wages should ensure that they do so lawfully.
> 
> ...



So if I were an employer intent on recovering costs associated with training from departing employees I would A) cover this in a general deductions clause in the contract of employment *and* B) have a separate agreement that is signed by the employee which explicitly states the deduction amount to ensure there is no ambigutiy.

aj


----------



## lff12 (4 Oct 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> I know that the terms of an employment contract that I had with an Irish company previously stated that the terms of my employment were according to said contract, and the contents of the employee handbook - which I was given to read prior to signing the contract.
> 
> I presume this is normal.


 
No its not.

A company I once worked for asked us to change our sick leave arrangement and working day length - in return they gave us each an additional 5 days vacation a year. They reissued all our contracts, and everybody was expected to sign them, which of course, we did, since almost everybody was happy to get an extra week off. 

They cannot write this into your contracts retrospectively. Unless you actually have signed the new contracts, then it is not binding.

However I know of a handful of companies in Dublin and Cork who do this very underhand practice but apply it to induction training. Its mostly used to discourage people from working in their companies as a temp measure until "something better comes along." If they were good employers they wouldn't need to twist employees arms in this way.

I think its fairly reasonable for an employer to want to get back any externally billed training for an employee who leaves within a specified time.  Most employers do this for anything paid for in the last 3 months - sometimes more.  But to look for initial training costs back is unreasonable since what they are doing is expecting the next generation of replacements to effectively pay for their own training or stay in the job longer.


----------

