My daughter graduated from uni with an Hons degree in summer 2016 and got a job with an accountancy firm in Scotland (not a big 4). Job is Personal Tax Assistant and the employer was going to put her through the ICAS (Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland) which is basically the CA qualification.
Over this time she has struggled with the exams, had a couple of resits and has now taken the decision that she wants to leave and do teacher training.
Although this is only Feb, at her recent 1:1 with her boss she told her of her plans to leave and go to uni in the autumn. Main reason for telling her was she was being asked about exams and future development etc.
HR dept have now advised her that she will be due to pay back the fees they have incurred which are around £4200. Her actual contract of employment does not mention anywhere about fees having to be repaid but it does refer to the staff handbook for more detailed information and within that it does mention fees and costs being repaid.
Now there is potentially some discrepancy here as the handbook refers to leaving within a year of costs being incurred whereas she thinks they have included all costs since outset.
Anyone got any experience, thoughts , suggestions on this and best course of action? She doesnt have anywhere near that money. In fact, her salary last year on appointment was £15,500 and because she is on a training contract she is still on the same salary! £8.50 per hour! I personally feel they are totally "ripping the p" from her and have more than enough got their money's worth out of her! Her charge out rate is £65 per hour!
MY initial thoughts are to challenge the figures, or to simply walk out at the end of a month when she has been paid and let them try and get the money back from her - she lives at home and has no assets (other than her 10 year old Aygo).
Alternatively do something that justifies gross misconduct and get the sack and then I am pretty sure they can't reclaim it as she hasn't resigned!
Any input would be appreciated.
|
You need better and more expert advice than this, but for what it is worth;
There needs to be a written and explicit clause covering this that she acknowledged, usually by signature, before she started the training.
If that exists, then she is done for.
If it does not exist, then they probably cannot reclaim it, and they probably know it.
It being in the Handbook is almost certainly insufficient, unless it was part of her contract to read the whole thing and then acknowledge that she had done so. And in any case chances are that handbook is an uncontrolled document.
However, she doe not this want to be an unsettled dispute. She should discuss with her management and HR and if they insist, then ask for them to put their intention in writing including the justification for it.
Given that she has not got the qualification, she is not going to a job where she can reuse the training, then my money is on her.
But negotiate and agree and in writing. She does not want this rising up and biting her on the bum, in the future.
|
|
Don't go the dismissal route. You never know what is going to matter tomorrow.
|
>> You need better and more expert advice than this, but for what it is worth;
Absolutely. Is she a member of a trade union?
If not then suggest ACAS, Citizens Advice or a.n. other route to pro bono (ie free) legal advice.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 27 Feb 18 at 23:10
|
Cheers for thoughts so far.
She believes that she has signed that she has read the handbook, all 62 pages or such like of it. She is going to try and access it tomorrow to see the exact detail. Once we have all the facts then may go to CAB or ACAS as suggested. No union membership.
I know it looks like she may be at fault here, or certainly contributing, but I am annoyed at the response of her employer. I understand reasons if they pay for qualification and then you just go elsewhere.
But here is a young woman who has to reach 85% of hours charged out. So she gets paid £8.50 per hour as an honours graduate, has 85% of her hours charged out at £65 per hour. I wonder if there is a clause relating to reasonable actions. On an average week she is costing them £320 and bringing in £2k of fees. Seems totally unjust and immoral to then want money back from her.
Who’s be a parent!
|
She needs to negotiate. The best way is to get their starting position and tell them that you will be taking advice.
Ask for their position in writing.
Be wiling to negotiate. They don't need this problem any more than you do, and she is not, after all, going to a competitor which is what they clause is designed to stop.
Suggest a compromise agreement. e.g. "if i work in a related field within 5 years then I will pay back the fees, but if not, then not"
|
>> She believes that she has signed that she has read the handbook, all 62 pages
>> or such like of it.
She would have had to say she read it because it contains business conduct guidelines, That wont be her contract of employment tho because the guidelines are generic, her contract is not.
>> But here is a young woman who has to reach 85% of hours charged out.
>> So she gets paid £8.50 per hour as an honours graduate, has 85% of her
>> hours charged out at £65 per hour. I wonder if there is a clause relating
>> to reasonable actions. On an average week she is costing them £320 and bringing in
>> £2k of fees. Seems totally unjust and immoral to then want money back from her.
None of this is relevant and certainly not to be brought up with them, nor for you to dwell upon and cloud your objectivity. As Marks sage words say, its a clause designed to prevent staff working elsewhere in the profession at their expense, so calmly negotiate her a release clause using the fact she is changing carer.
Like to know how her appraisal went, were they concerned about her ability to complete accreditation, or did it come as a surprise to them she wanted to quit? It should all be documented and could from part of your negotiation.
|
My thoughts, as an employer, are that if not explicitly in the contract they’re on shaky ground. Staff handbooks can and do change regularly. It’s also likely that an employee has signed a contract before even seeing the handbook, though not sure if that’s the case in this instance.
In the cases where we provide study support we’ll set the terms under which its provided in a separate (short..) document, and ask the employee to confirm that if they leave within 6 months we can demand repayment. Practically speaking we never do...
In addition, the national living wage is £7.50 an hour, and there’s a fairly limited numbers of things that can be deducted to take payemnt to an employee below that. Now, one of them is a bit of a catch-all ‘if the contract says they can’ but, if the contract is silent then again I think they’re on shaky ground
I’d definitely avoid the ‘try and get sacked’ approach though!
|
My previous employer had such a clause in their handbook, but I cannot remember it once ever being enforced.
Calm negotiation is the way forward here. Getting sacked is a terrible idea.
|
|
What exactly does it say about the status of the Handbook in the Contract ?
|
>>What exactly does it say about the status of the Handbook in the Contract ?
"Whilst the above is a summary of the main conditions of employment, you will be issued with a comprehensive statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment upon joining us. Furthermore, you will be able to access the Employee Handbook on XXXXX HR system when you join.
She has no recollection of receiving the terms and conditions noted above.
|
|
This reminds me of Shoe Lane Parking.
|
>> This reminds me of Shoe Lane Parking.
Perhaps the company will prefer Mrs Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
|
>> she wants to leave and do teacher training
Don't assume that training is an easy route. A lot of candidate leaves without completing.
|
>>Don't assume that training is an easy route. A lot of candidate leaves without completing.
Yip she is very aware of that, has a few friends that have went through it (successfully) recently and has a lot of support available to lean on.
|
So if it's £4200 across two years, and she takes no more exams this year then by September she will owe them not much anyway. Given that over the next few months she will also have been in the office and therefore earning fees - rather than being on study leave - they will have more than made up the cost of whatever it is that she still owes. That way the firm should end up not down on the deal.
She should get negotiating. And not leave under a cloud. She may find that TT is worse, and will eventually want to go back to them.
I must say, I disagree with those who think that it's about preventing her from going to a competitor, I think it's just about the firm preventing itself from throwing away money. So if you can show that they haven't lost this money (because it's only one year's worth, AND they've had her full time earning) then they might be more reasonable.
|
|
I agree with your last para Mapmaker. When I worked in the IT tech arena and Windows was fairly new and sexy I was sent on some quite serious technical courses and had to sign a similar agreement. The courses were not cheap and the company didn't want to train me up just to lose me - albeit to a competitor - but it was more about retention and protecting their investment. Not unreasonable really...
|
>>I must say, I disagree with those who think that it's about preventing her from going to a competitor, I think it's just about the firm preventing itself from throwing away money.
I believe that with the big 4 (which this isn't) if you fail your exams you are automatically dismissed. This has happened to three of her fellow students. I have also heard that in many cases, when you do qualify, it is also common to be released as the firm do not want the salary cost that you would now expect!
|
>> I believe that with the big 4 (which this isn't) if you fail your exams
>> you are automatically dismissed. This has happened to three of her fellow students. I have
>> also heard that in many cases, when you do qualify, it is also common to
>> be released as the firm do not want the salary cost that you would now
>> expect!
salaries and conditions for graduator apprentice accountants have never been high, the big 4 used to be better (there used to be more than 4 of them) but even they were a way off commercial employers. When I graduated in 1977 I went on to more than any of my mates, including a few who went to the big players.
Out of pure interest, Bobby was her degree from Glasgow Uni?
|
Teaching these day, is a truly high pressure job.
The holidays do not make up for the horrendous hours worked in term time by the conscientious ones.
|
>> I have also heard that in many cases, when you do qualify, it is also common to be released as the firm do not want the salary cost that you would now expect!
You have been listening to the wrong people. Salary cost is trivial compared to charge rate. If you are let go it is because you're on the bench, not because of your salary.
However, if you are not really suitable for grown-up jobs and thus not likely to be promoted, you will fall foul of the process that everybody insists does not exist called "up or out". And that can come to the fore on qualification, since that is normally around the same time that your career is considered.
I was big six (or four as it is now) until I went independent. I have worked in smaller firms as well, it's no different just not as efficient or expert.
|
>> you are automatically dismissed. This has happened to three of her fellow students. I have
>> also heard that in many cases, when you do qualify, it is also common to
>> be released as the firm
That happens yes.
>>do not want the salary cost that you would now
>> expect!
Not the reason. The firms have an intake quota to fill, and expect a % drop out during qualifying, a % not to pass. If those predictions are not met they can be heavy with grads. Also one thing they can't predict is how suitable the candidates are, they might pass, but still be not whats required.
|
>>I must say, I disagree with those who think that it's about preventing her from going to a competitor, I think it's just about the firm preventing itself from throwing away money. So if you can show that they haven't lost this money (because it's only one year's worth, AND they've had her full time earning) then they might be more reasonable.
Again, salary cost and training cost are trivial when compared to a successful career's charge rates.
What they are trying to avoid it people going and doing their seriously professional and thorough training at a competent and established firm with an excellent infrastructure, and then going to a small firm who love you because they haven't had to train you, which in any case would be beyond their capabilities.
So you will not impress them with cowboy calculations on beermats. What will sway them, assuming they are able to recover, is illustrating to them that you will not be remaining in the industry.
Or do you think that you will tell them what they paid in a year on training and what they earned from that person will come as a shock to them because they've never thought about it before??
And do not forget that training is a great deal more than classroom courses.
|
>>and will eventually want to go back to them.
And most firms will refuse most people. "I won't cheat on you again" being one of the more worthless phrases of our times.
|
1) Get the firm to state their intent and position in writing. With rationale if you can.
2) Get daughter to state her intention and reasoning in writing
3) Go get professional advice.
This is not a matter to be dealt with by discussion on the internet.
|
>> This is not a matter to be dealt with by discussion on the internet.
+ 1
|
>> And most firms will refuse most people. "I won't cheat on you again" being one
>> of the more worthless phrases of our times.
You would have thought so, wouldn't you, but I am consistently astonished to see people reappearing in firms they left a few years previously. There is a steady cycle around the Big Four, large numbers of senior people seem to have spent a period in another firm (or two) before going back to their first firm (and then unsurprisingly moving on again, as you note with your worthless phrase).
I think that under these circumstances it is about the money - at least in the eyes of the person to whom OP's daughter reports - as this tinpot little firm is apparently trying to charge for two years' training rather than the one to which it is entitled. As I say, by September - provided she does no more exams - there probably won't be much left on the clock for them to reclaim.
|
I am big 4 and recruit grads each year. As others state this is a standard clause. We usually only apply the clause when the individual is going to a competitor. We expect the competitor to pick up the tab rather than the employee. If she is leaving the industry I would follow Mark's advice and negotiate on this basis. Re the contractual clause being in the handbook this again is pretty standard and I would expect it to stand up if challenged.
Most firms are pretty reasonable on this type of thing with young grads. They will not want a fight. My grads have often turned up later at clients and I would rather have them leaving on good terms
|
Just like to provide an update.
Thanks to all for their input and for the reasoned approach. Based on this , we worded an email for her to send to HR basically asking for written confirmation of the fees due and on what basis these were due. We pointed out that her contract did not mention it and the staff handbook only stated that fees would be due within a year.
She got called in to a meeting with HR who advised her, very casually, that yes she had checked things over and she is right, no fees are to be paid.
Whether they were chancing their arm, were ignorant of their own policies or were wanting to frighten her into staying, we will never know (unless it comes out in the wash). However she has now had it confirmed that no fees are repayable.
Which is a huge relief for her (and me) and many thanks once again for all your input.
|
|
Given Victim Support's reaction to anyone leaving them (not just me) and the recent bad weather, ignorance of employment law is rife.
|
>>were ignorant of their own policies
Almost certainly.
|
|
Tinpot little firm, person applying rules thought it was about the money. Obviously there was somebody in HR who understood.
|
Repaying fees to employer on termination - No FM2R
