To think it’s crazy that a p/t work contract can do this?

[NellesVilla]

Hello!

I'm trying to get a mortgage alone for next year and need additional hours so have accepted a lovely admin job. V easy, pleasant job/workplace, nice hours etc. Extremely low hourly rate but feel this reflects the low pressure and stress. Just outside Brighton.

But…the contract stipulates that if you leave within 6 months (probation) you must pay them £1200 for ”training costs”. Wtaf? Especially when the training is on the job.

I was shocked and worried to read this because to be honest- with my mh issues- I am a flight risk and can’t guarantee I would last this long. I’m concerned I’d be obsessing over the time limit set out for this. Does anyone know for sure these days?!

I’ve already been stung this way in the past. I had a teaching post at a SEN school and upon arrival we were ‘welcomed’ with a £1,000 bonus which was repayable in the event of a resignation witching 3 months. I did indeed resign (and it was the best thing I did- no regrets) but I understood this to be fair as it was an ‘extra’ that I put aside in case I left iyswim.

This £1200 seems like a payment that maybe goes to finding another administrator, maybe? I’m shocked though; that the hourly rate is low, the training is about 15 hours and then you’re liable for this amount if leaving early.

Is this legal, please? Does anyone know?

Legal yes, but rarely put into proactive whenever I've come across it.

They'll spend more money taking you to court to get it back surely

If you sign the contract, then it will be a legally binding term you agreed to. So you can not sign if it is a dealbreaker for you.

But you say

lovely admin job. V easy, pleasant job/workplace, nice hours etc.

so to be honest 6 months doesn’t sound too onerous?

How low is the hourly rate? If reclaiming this money from you would take you below minimum wage then it would be illegal.

If you disagree with the policy you don’t have to take the job.
All jobs require training whether it’s formal or informal. The recruitment process costs time and money for the business and then there is training time, mentorship and therefore money. This isn’t an unusual policy.

If this was a thing then I would have been bankrupt several times over or have a reasonably better CV than the one I have currently.

This should only happen if there is an actual training course which the company is paying for. They can’t make you pay them money back for training you up on the job, that’s not lawful.

They would have to prove that your training cost them £1200, which if on the job would be incredibly difficult.

What is the training?

www.acas.org.uk/final-pay-when-someone-leaves-a-job/deductions-for-training-courses
its very clear. You can’t be made to pay money back for on the job training, simply not lawful

So you’re a self-proclaimed flight risk and are upset that a company doesn’t want to waste money training you if you leave shortly after hiring. You do realize you are why these clauses exist, right?

Legal or not I don’t know..

This

Contracts have to be deemed reasonable and fair in order to be legally enforceable. So sometimes, even if you've signed agreeing to certain terms, a court might not agree that the terms were reasonably enforceable.

I do think that if there was a specific training course with a provable cost of £1200, then it's not unreasonable for a company to not want to waste money and to expect that repaid if you can't commit. On the job training though and I think they'd find it difficult to enforce that particular clause.

Did you get the job via an agency? I pay 17-20% of the salary as a fee to the agency for every new hire. It's so disappointing when someone doesn't work out and leaves in the first few weeks/months. It's a huge cost to recruit and replace.

That doesn’t matter though. When someone leaves a job, agency or not, frustrating or not, it is never lawful to deduct money or expect it to be paid back for on the job training. Only for a specified particular training course which the company has paid for and the employer has agreed in writing to pay back. Op says it’s on the job training so not lawful.

It means if you did leave within 6 months, you'd have to give no notice and leave just after pay-day, to stop them recovering the costs from your salary. Seems like a stupid clause to have in there to me, as encourages staff not to give notice. You'll have to think about references though, and how important leaving on good terms is to you.

I personally wouldn't take a job on with this clause in the contract - it's a lot of commitment for a low paid job, and not like they're paying for a course for you or anything. Hopefully the job would continue to be nice, but all it takes is a few staff changes (eg a new boss who is a dick) to make any job rubbish, then you would be in a vulnerable position.

Tbh if your MH prevents you from keeping a job for 6 months, how will you ever get a mortgage?

You sound a nightmare . You're only taking this job to prove income to get the mortgage and this companies team will have trained and invested in you only to have to start the whole process again when you leave .
FWIW these training contracts have been around years , I remember working in the 2000's and they were a thing then . I doubt a company would introduce such a clause if it were illegal

It’s not a great sign though. Basically an employer has to fine people because of its inability to retain staff?

That's interesting. I've never worked somewhere that had a clause like this and I've never heard any of my friends of family mention one either (although I realise it wouldn't necessarily come up).

Also - not all admin jobs require training at all! Lots are very simple and it's just a case of showing someone where things are kept and explaining what to do for 30mins. That's not £1200 worth of training!

OP - they're hedging their bets but it does seem unfair. People have to quit for a wide variety of reasons.

I'd probably talk to them about it. Say you have no intention of leaving, but you're concerned about that clause as it seems a very high charge (especially if it's essentially a minimum wage job). They may happily remove it.

So is this a thing? Move from job to job, take the bonus then leave? You must be making a killing at the employer’s expenses.

Just stick with it for six months. It doesn't sound like too hard or stressful a job. Holding down jobs is a pretty essential life skill.

Well of course, companies never do stuff that's illegal. Employment tribunals are empty.

Actually, as others have pointed out, training costs can only be recovered if there is an actual quantifiable cost over and above any routine training required to do the job. "Legal" and "enforceable" are not the same thing.

As for "investing" in low paid jobs, employers expect turnover in such roles. It partt and parcel of employing someone. Which is why they invest next to nothing.

And BTW - such clauses were largely not enforceable in the 2000's either. Just because you read something in a contract doesn't mean you have to be stupid enough to believe it. If the OP is a "nightmare" for trying to work - and after all, doesn't everyone get a job to pay the mortgage / bills? - then perhaps you should reflect on what you are for giving someone advice that is entirely wrong and delivered in the nastiest way?

How will you pay your mortgage without a job OP?

Only an issue if you’re planning to leave within 6 months, surely? And if so why are you even taking it in the first place? It does sound a bit excessive but I can see it from the employer’s point of view if they’ve been messed around in the past. Recruitment and training takes a lot of resources out of a business, sounds like they’re just trying to deter people who’ll piss them about.

THe OP did not say that. This job is in addiiton to another job (it says that in the first line). Quite seperately they suggested that they couldn't hack it in a particular teaching post and left. They wouldn't be the first or the last to do that. Nowhere at all did they say that they cannot keep a job for more than six months, and I would assume they are not foolish enough to think anyone would give them a mortgage with a spotty employment record.

This role is extra to whatever else they work as.

Did you not read the link you posted? It doesn't remotely say that...