Hi, a friend of mine has just quit his job with an employment agency as he recieved an offer from another company. He quit during the initial training for the role, and the company in question has said that they will not pay his final weeks wages as he is liable for the costs of the training.

I'm wondering if they are able to do this? It's for Blue Arrow

I'd say no, but alas I am not an expert.

Tell him to check his contract - if it says he is liable he is, if it doesn't, he isn't, and if he doesn't have a contract he isn't liable.

my guess would be it could vary depending if he was working actually in the agency or in a post with an employer that they put him in. either way, first step is to read the relevant contract he signed.

There was a declaration signed which stated that if he was to leave shortly after the training period then he may be liable for training costs. However, couple of things with that are:

- He left during, and not after training.
- Surely a breakdown of training costs would have to be provided in the case of non payment.
- Is it legal to not pay the wages as it would be under minimum wage?

Quite interesting really. Any help much appreciated.

I know if you go to be a bus driver the training costs are taken out of your wage for x amount of your employment. If you leave for say another company with that driving qualification you are liable for the full cost of the repayment for the training.

So I would say that it would have been some notification that this would happen if he quit the employment and they are totally justified in doing it.

There was a declaration signed which stated that if he was to leave shortly after the training period then he may be liable for training costs. However, couple of things with that are:

- He left during, and not after training.
- Surely a breakdown of training costs would have to be provided in the case of non payment.
- Is it legal to not pay the wages as it would be under minimum wage?

Quite interesting really. Any help much appreciated.

1 - He could win on a technicality i suppose, if it specifies after the training then you are right it may not apply if he leaves during;

2 - They wouldn't have to provide a breakdown, however they sound more like they are saying "don't care how much the training was, we are taking all your last wages to cover it" which would probably be in his favour;

3 - They cannot take any wages that would leave him getting under the minimum wage*

Also, does it state anywhere that it will be taken from his wages - "liable for training costs" is not the same thing as "we will take training costs out of your wages", the wording you put above sounds like they would have to pay him then send him an invoice and take him to court if they want payment.


*That was the case about 10 years ago, not heard of any changes.

btw, when you say that the company will not pay his last weeks wages, do you mean the company he was working for, or the agency. If the agency, ask for proof that the company have not paid the agency, sounds a bit scammish to me.

Does the contract require him to give notice?

Does the contract require him to give notice?

Even if a contract specifies notice, they still have to pay you for every minute you worked - some people seem under the impression that the wages don't have to be paid if notice is ignored.

Of course, you can then be sued for breach of contract, but it rarely happens.

Hi, a friend of mine has just quit his job with an employment agency as he recieved an offer from another company. He quit during the initial training for the role, and the company in question has said that they will not pay his final weeks wages as he is liable for the costs of the training.

I'm wondering if they are able to do this? It's for Blue Arrow

Capita call centre then? Blue Arrow will have to pay for the sessions he attended... Capita are a terrible client (which is why no other agency ever tries to pull this business off them) and probably refuse to pay Blue Arrow and want them to pay for this guys training (which was probably group, and of little note)... He just needs to dig his heels in with the agency... They probably tell everyone this tale, but will have to back down if pressured... They are simply trying to save themselves another loss due to the albatros that is having any contract with Capita...

If for whatever reason they fail to cough up the cash, send them a letter claiming they have no rights to it what so ever, and should they wish to make a claim against you should do so separately.
Give them 14 days to cough up the dosh, if they fail to do so, send a summons.
You only have 3 months from leaving a company to claim any moneys owed, after that, they get to keep it.

This route normally ensures that the money is paid, obviously depending on the individual case, but normally the company owing will settle out of court.
It is then up to them to make any claims against whoever for whatever training was given to who.

Just make sure your friend persues this. Don't let them get away with it, otherwise they'll think it's fine to treat people like this.

Check contract.

If it states 'after training' you might get them on word technicality - an employment lawyer could advise you on this.

If no mention, then not liable at all and must cough up all wages de.

If liable, the agency must still provie the pay slip (by law) showing pay due, minus decuctions for tax and NI due as normal, then from what is left, minus training costs.

And I would say those costs should have been specified in advance in the contract if they were mentioned they could be clawed back, because otherwise they could charge anything they liked afterwards, so again, a technicality issue there.

You can get a free half hour with a solicitor in most practices.

Fantastic advice, thanks everyone. I'll get in touch with him and let him know his options. I have a feeling that the 'decision' was made by an irate employee rather than official word.

Couple more questions if that's OK:

- If there has been financial difficulties due to the non payment, are they liable to cover these? Bank charges etc.
- Would he be able to claim any further for the stress caused, or would it be a case of just recovering what he's due?

Thansks again.

I think no to either question. Loads of situations cause stress and can knock your bank balance off course but nobody can go around claiming recompense for that sort of thing in these kind of situations.

OK thanks - sorry guilty of looking for opportunities in bad moment :)

I'll keep you updated on the outcome of it all, and again thank you for all the advice (everyone!)

It seems to me the bloke was happy with the contract until he found a better job and now he is trying to backtrack, what happened to the days when a mans word was is bond.

It seems to me the bloke was happy with the contract until he found a better job and now he is trying to backtrack, what happened to the days when a mans word was is bond.

Fair assumpsion, however that wasn't the case.

He got the job as he urgently required an income to support his family. Following accepting, and starting this job, he was offered a job in an industry he previously had a career in, for slightly more money (although not leaps and bounds more).

Fair assumpsion, however that wasn't the case.

He got the job as he urgently required an income to support his family. Following accepting, and starting this job, he was offered a job in an industry he previously had a career in, for slightly more money (although not leaps and bounds more).

None of which means you can go back on your "word".

None of which means you can go back on your "word".

Fair point - however the case detailed in this thread highlights that this is also the case of employers, too.

The employer said that you may have to pay for your training that doesn’t seem hard to comprehend.

No such thing as 'your word' in business. It's whatever contractual or standard UK Law applies.

The employer said that you may have to pay for your training that doesn’t seem hard to comprehend.

But when you also take into account the minimum wage laws and comtractual obligations of the employer, do they legally have to pay him?

A separate case could be made in terms of morals and principles, and I do tend to agree with you somewhat. However financial hardship can limit ones abilities to stick to these.

There is no crossover between the training and the pay though. They employer has to pay the employee regardless of what the employee then owes back to the employer. However the employer can show it as a deduction AFTER pay, leaving a possible nil balance, a bit of pay left, or even the employee owing them.

However, unless their contract on this is watertight it may not hold. If they failed to mention the cost in advance as to what could be claimed back, then I can't see this holding contractually. Likewise it does state 'after training' not 'during training', and again, that's a technicality issue which in a court of Law, would be taken literally, since after does not mean during.

A contract must always be reasonable in any sense. A court would not enforce an unreasonable contract of terms outside of what is already UK Law.

Update: Situation resolved and payment agreed to be made for the full wages due. Thanks everyone for your help with this, I'm not sure it would have been possible (if not, as easy) for him had it not been for your sound advice.

Im sure the info gave you more confidence to stand your ground. Often that is all that is needed. Well done!

So are you going to tell us what you said and how you resolved it or why they agreed to pay?

It may depend upon company to company?

I quit a long-term job to start at another (a certain Broadband supplier), and left after the one-week of training, expecting not to be paid at the end of the month- but I was!