Employer took my whole wage packet this month

TheShow

Legal advice can be your only port of avenue here.
To me it would appear there is precedent set and unless HR clearly communicated to all staff that from Oct 2017 the rule would be enforced, I don't think they can hide behind it.

But rightly or wrongly, that's just my opinion. You need to seek legal advice on this issue.

There is no "govt board" as such for this type of dispute as it is between employee & employer. Get legal advice and if they think its worth pursuing them take it further via those channels.

crkcvnirl

Rs24 wrote: »

Hi all,

I need some advice here.
I left my employer, a large Irish Bank (permanent contract) in April after 3 years. They paid for c. €4k in exam fees in that period. I did sign an application agreeing they could seek reimbursement of fees, to a level if I left within 2 years of completing the exams (completed exams in December17).
This was signed up to by many over the years but was never enforced. On leaving in April, they completely cleaned out my last months salary without prior notice. I wasn’t advised this would happen in advance.

As a result I submitted a detailed letter to HR seeking a precedent review to be completed and for them to confirm I have been treated in line with all those that left before me. Which I haven’t been....
I spoke to HR on this and they let it slip it is only being enforced since October17. Hence, I see my case as reasonably strong.

Does anyone have any insights, experience or advice on what I should do?

The company is not responding to my letter despite acknowledging receipt. I have exhausted all internal avenues now and want to consider to going legal on this. Is there any governmental board I could liaise with on this? Ommbudsman, LRC etc... Any advice would be appreciated.

Hi,
As you said yourself, you signed an agreement stating you acknowledge that the college fees etc will be recouped within a stated time frame if you left. Your former employer has exercised that agreement and now you're not happy.


You're previous employer gave you the funds and may have given you study leave aswell, so I don't think it's unreasonable of them to want their money back as you left early.


The Irish banking system isn't huge and you'll very likely meet those same people again in the near future. If I was you, I'd be thankfull for the opertunity and leave them on good terms. If you want some hope of maintaining a professional relationship with them into the future I'd also suggest you stop whinging on an open web platform and get on with your life.


You've posted your gripe up on the internet so it wouldn't be overly difficult for the said HR dept to work out who you are, so, my other advice to you is delete this thread, if you can.


Regards

FurBabyMomma

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a fairness point, though. If the bank changed their practice in October 2017, did they let employees know of the change? The OP left in April 2018, and the new practice apparently came as a surprise to him. Would a reasonable employer change its practice, but not tell employees, thus depriving them of the opportunity to make decisions with full information about their consequences.

I see what you're saying, but in this case the coll practice is also backed up by an enforceable contract, so the employee cannot reasonably argue they weren't aware of the consequences. If there was no contract signed then maybe you could argue precedence, but I don't see it here when there was both a contract and enforcement of same in place before the employee finished the course and handed in their notice.

TheShow

FurBabyMomma wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but in this case the coll practice is also backed up by an enforceable contract, so the employee cannot reasonably argue they weren't aware of the consequences. If there was no contract signed then maybe you could argue precedence, but I don't see it here when there was both a contract and enforcement of same in place before the employee finished the course and handed in their notice.

I wouldn’t agree with that.

While the contract states the terms, if they have been operating outside of those terms then they have created implied terms and set a precedent each time they operate outside of those set terms.

Unless they clearly communicate to all parties involved that from x date the normal terms will be enforced then there is an issue and there may be grounds for recourse as not everyone is being treated equally.
We don’t know if a declaration was made by the company as the OP has not addressed this issue.

Peregrinus

FurBabyMomma wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but in this case the coll practice is also backed up by an enforceable contract, so the employee cannot reasonably argue they weren't aware of the consequences. If there was no contract signed then maybe you could argue precedence, but I don't see it here when there was both a contract and enforcement of same in place before the employee finished the course and handed in their notice.

I think the important time here is not the date the employee finished the course; it's the date the money was advanced by the employer. If it was advanced with a certain understanding in place about how and when it would have to be repaid, a later change without notice is problematic.

davo10

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the important time here is not the date the employee finished the course; it's the date the money was advanced by the employer. If it was advanced with a certain understanding in place about how and when it would have to be repaid, a later change without notice is problematic.

I'm not sure that the op has outlined if he/she was lead to believe it was never repayable or if BOI ever gave that indication. It seems to be more anecdotal. But apart from that, surely the understanding when the money was advanced, was the agreement the op signed to repay it if he/she left within 2 years.

Peregrinus

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not sure that the op has outlined if he/she was lead to believe it was never repayable or if BOI ever gave that indication. It seems to be more anecdotal. But apart from that, surely the understanding when the money was advanced, was the agreement the op signed to repay it if he/she left within 2 years.

According to the OP, there was also an established understanding that the repayment term would not be enforced. Assuming the OP is correct in that, and that the policy was changed at some point and the OP was not told, I do think it matters whether the policy was changed before or after the OP drew down the money.

davo10

Peregrinus wrote: »

According to the OP, there was also an established understanding that the repayment term would not be enforced. Assuming the OP is correct in that, and that the policy was changed at some point and the OP was not told, I do think it matters whether the policy was changed before or after the OP drew down the money.

I can't see where you are getting the established understanding that the money was not repayable, was the op told this at the start? Maybe the op has edited posts, from what is on the thread at the moment, the op has confirmed that an agreement was signed when money was advanced, stating that it was repayable, maybe the op would clarify if BOI indicated that it was not going to be taken back. From what I read, the ops sense of grievance is based on assumption and anecdotal evidence. The only clear understanding the op has posted so far, is the terms of the contract.

I do take your point though, but the op is still going to have to show that BOI have done something wrong, even though they adhered to the terms of the contract which the op agreed to and signed. Op will probably need a wrc/court to rule on this because it is open to interpretation, but you would have to say, a signed contract is hard to argue against.

Peregrinus

davo10 wrote: »

I can't see where you are getting the established understanding that the money was not repayable, was the op told this at the start? Maybe the op has edited posts, from what is on the thread at the moment, the op has confirmed that an agreement was signed when money was advanced, stating that it was repayable, maybe the op would clarify if BOI indicated that it was not going to be taken back. From what I read, the ops sense of grievance is based on assumption and anecdotal evidence. The only clear understanding the op has posted so far, is the terms of the contract.

I do take your point though, but the op is still going to have to show that BOI have done something wrong, even though they adhered to the terms of the contract which the op agreed to and signed. Op will probably need a wrc/court to rule on this because it is open to interpretation, but you would have to say, a signed contract is hard to argue against.

In post #1 the OP says, in as many words, that over many years the repayment clause was never enforced. I don't know whether that's correct, but I've no reason to think that it isn't, and in any case we can only discuss the problem on the basis of the facts presented. If the OP is wrong about this then, yeah, he'll be shot down in flames. But if he's right, then there's a question about when the practice changed, whether that was before or after he drew down the money, and whether the change was brought to his attention.

fingerbob

Similar enough situation to the OP so thought I would add my own situation. I have accepted another job and my current employer is demanding the reimbursement of exam/training costs. I work for an accountancy firm and my contract states that if my employment were to cease within 12 months of my last exam/study course, I would be liable to repay full training costs. 

My situation is that my last exam was 8 November 2017 and I had waited until July/August 2018 to start looking for other jobs. I was offered the role last Monday and my notice period is 4 weeks. I was conscious of the 12 month mark so I advised the new employers that I would be back in touch regarding a start date. I then informed my current employers and maybe stupidly, brought up the 12 months issue myself. I told them I would hand my notice in so the 4 weeks ran up to the point of the 12 months. I should maybe add that the new job is not related to accountancy and I have taken a significant salary drop as the role is more in line with my own interests.

Anyway, my boss later came back and advised that I had possibly misinterpreted the contract and that the 12 months would be instead be taken from the point that I had completed a computer based assessment. I completed this assessment in March 2018 so essentially they were saying that 12 months would run until March 2019. This may sound fair enough, however, the the bulk of the qualification (which will be of no use to me in my next job) is gained through the sitting of the paper based exams. If you were to split the costs (£3k in total) between the paper exams and computer assessments it would be £2,840 and £160 respectively (I'm in the UK). Two thirds of the costs occurred 18 months ago and the remainder aside from the computer assessments were 12 months ago. The computer based assessments can also be sat at any time and the paper based exams are only once every six months. In hindsight I should have sat the computer based assessments immediately and then there wouldn't be an issue. This has made me feel they're screwing me over a technicality but I suppose I'm going to be quite biased!

It seems that the partners of the firm are split on how this should be treated and are worried about setting a precedent. HR have also told me that they agree with my interpretation of the contract. I have a meeting on Monday with HR and the partner of the firm who handles training. Unfortunately, he's extremely tight fisted and somewhat robotic in how he approaches this sort of thing. I want to approach this meeting in a reasonable manner and am happy to reimburse what I owe, however, I take issue at reimbursing £3k as I believe the firm have gotten a significant amount of benefit of that training to date. Usually, when this scenario happens, the departing employee is going to another accountancy firm and where he will benefit from the qualifications and the new employers usually cover the cost. 

I am aware that I probably don't have a strong position as I've signed the contract but I'm hoping that I can make a case that the contract is vague in it's wording and I was acting in good faith when I began to apply for other roles. In honesty, I'd like to negotiate the costs down to definitely below £1k. There may be some chance of this as one of the partners (who doesn't think I should pay anything) has told me that the training partner in question had suggested £1800 in instalments. I definitely could not afford to pay a lump sum of that amount anyway and as I have mentioned, the new role is a few thousand less than my current job. 

Apologies for the length but wanted to try and give the full circumstances and am interested in how people think I should approach the meeting on Monday.

Avatar MIA

I think you know technically you're not qualified (finished with exams) until you pass that pretty meaningless online exam, and won't have reached the required time limit. So, you're relying on their good graces. With that in mind the £1,800 repayment over, say, 12 months is possibly the best you can hope for. Good luck in the new job.

Re the OP. You've managed the almost impossible, created sympathy for BOI.

If employees had learned of the non deduction previously through the unofficial grape vine, why would that not be good enough 7 months into the new policy?

Firstly the OP would need to establish there was precedent. Hearsay isn't going to be enough.

ted1

Rs24 wrote: »

Hi all,

I need some advice here.
I left my employer, a large Irish Bank (permanent contract) in April after 3 years. They paid for c. €4k in exam fees in that period. I did sign an application agreeing they could seek reimbursement of fees, to a level if I left within 2 years of completing the exams (completed exams in December17).
This was signed up to by many over the years but was never enforced. On leaving in April, they completely cleaned out my last months salary without prior notice. I wasn’t advised this would happen in advance.

As a result I submitted a detailed letter to HR seeking a precedent review to be completed and for them to confirm I have been treated in line with all those that left before me. Which I haven’t been....
I spoke to HR on this and they let it slip it is only being enforced since October17. Hence, I see my case as reasonably strong.

Does anyone have any insights, experience or advice on what I should do?

The company is not responding to my letter despite acknowledging receipt. I have exhausted all internal avenues now and want to consider to going legal on this. Is there any governmental board I could liaise with on this? Ommbudsman, LRC etc... Any advice would be appreciated.

As part of your new employment you should have asked that they cover yours fees, it’s standard practice in many places