We have a Bus Company who just employed a Bunch Driver.
They Provided Training for Bus License and just everything.
Many of the new Drivers left after they had the “D” License and the Company failed till now to get da Money for Training back.
Fakt: The Company has 2 Pay Scheme…
A Low Pay for New Drivers and a High Pay for Professional Drivers (after a Number of Years in da Company)
The Driver who left get at National Express da same as the olda Drivers of our Local Company.
Right Now is that at Court handled and the Company seems not that Successful with that Contract. On the other Site will the Driver with higher Pay at National Express still win,even if they have to pay back.
I wouldnt pay back. Its the Company which has to pay the Fee ,of they go to Court.
If Your Solicitor says no Chance to win that Battle pay before the Judge makes a Decision.
If it fair wot you do you need to decide for Yourself
If you expect the company to uphold their end of the contract, surely you should be prepared to uphold your end.
Contracts are not a one way deal.
If you agree to repay a diminishing amount over a set period of time, then IMO, you are bound to pay it.
Wether the company thinks it is reasonable to chase you for the money is a different thing.
Also, AFAIK, they cannot withold more than a certain percentage of your wage in any paydate, they must leave you a fixed percentage to live on.( i.e. if you owe £500 then they cannot take £500 out of a wage of £550, leaving you with £50)
Immigrant:
We have a Bus Company who just employed a Bunch Driver.
They Provided Training for Bus License and just everything.
Many of the new Drivers left after they had the “D” License and the Company failed till now to get da Money for Training back.
Fakt: The Company has 2 Pay Scheme…
A Low Pay for New Drivers and a High Pay for Professional Drivers (after a Number of Years in da Company)
The Driver who left get at National Express da same as the olda Drivers of our Local Company.
Right Now is that at Court handled and the Company seems not that Successful with that Contract. On the other Site will the Driver with higher Pay at National Express still win,even if they have to pay back.
I wouldnt pay back. Its the Company which has to pay the Fee ,of they go to Court.
If Your Solicitor says no Chance to win that Battle pay before the Judge makes a Decision.
If it fair wot you do you need to decide for Yourself
Muckaway:
Well what are peoples’ opinions on this then?
As posted in another thread, a tipper firm are deducting pay if the required loads are not done. Drivers are paid day rates but miraculously an “hour” goes missing if you don’t do the amount shown on your work details.
For training as in getting a HGV license or hazardous ticket I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a driver to be required to do a REASONABLE period of time or have to repay it. If its something like being paid to learn to do car transporter or to deal with a particular type of vehicle then it isn’t, that comes under an induction which every single employer should be giving to every new employee.
Agreed. Trouble is the “entitled to” brigade think that it’s a free meal ticket to go and work where they want once they’ve got it. That’s the reason why these conditions are put in place because of people taking the ■■■■.
Carl Usher:
Agreed. Trouble is the “entitled to” brigade think that it’s a free meal ticket to go and work where they want once they’ve got it. That’s the reason why these conditions are put in place because of people taking the ■■■■.
Well I left my previous employer after doing 3 DCPC courses and wasn’t asked to pay anything back. I felt no remorse as I’d spent a fortune at the chiropractors so I could actually do the job.
I got my C with Wiseman Diary. I left after a couple of months and was deducted a weeks wages to cover the cost of training and test fee. I phoned head office and stated that I had actually done less than 2 days training, including test. (I am a ex-driving instructor). I was refunded the weeks pay, and charged for the cost of 2 days training and test fee. £276.
RES ULT
perhaps I am missing something.
the consensus seems to be that the company will not chase via the courts owing to cost. But if they win doesn’t the loser (driver) get stuck with the costs?
So guessing that if you have a valid contract stating that you will compensate the company for training costs if leaving before an agreed time, doesn’t that mean that the driver runs a real risk?
I worked with a company and they paid for my driver qualification card , training was one 7hr module per year but the company could only claim back for training expenses for my last two years of employment with them.
Juddian:
I’d love to know what sort of transport operation this is.
Car transporters probably cost as much to train new recruits as any, even after training there will be ongoing costs such as low productivity for months and the odd bit of, or even major, damage, it happens, if they got rid of every newby who bollocksed up there’d be no one working here.
The drop out rate for anything up to 12 months after training his high, yet i’ve never heard of one single operator trying to charge for that training, they’re struggling enough to get suitable new blood as it is, if they tried to pull this stunt they might as well call in the receiver now.
Juddian:
I’d love to know what sort of transport operation this is.
Car transporters probably cost as much to train new recruits as any, even after training there will be ongoing costs such as low productivity for months and the odd bit of, or even major, damage, it happens, if they got rid of every newby who bollocksed up there’d be no one working here.
The drop out rate for anything up to 12 months after training his high, yet i’ve never heard of one single operator trying to charge for that training, they’re struggling enough to get suitable new blood as it is, if they tried to pull this stunt they might as well call in the receiver now.
I think its the fuel on turners
I know of 3 people recently who “signed” this payback training agreement and quit months after getting pdp and inductions and all the cards you need and etc.
It’s not enforceable. As the company, in this instance, say you need to pay too much back. The guys have turned around and said send me an invoice with evidence of said money spent training. Which they can’t. All training is done in house. So they don’t spend a penny l. Expect uploading info and maybe 100 or so for pdp tests.
Ask for proof of them spending said money training you. 99.9 percent won’t have it.
Jamie, there is a difference between a companying not bothering to pursue it, and it being unenforceable.
Well done to your pals who stood up for themselves, but just because the company in question decided they weren’t worth chasing doesn’t put them in a better position from a contractual point of view…
This sort of Agreement ' is not a new thing. A previous Employer 35 years ago (who were a large National Aggregate Co) did this option with their vehicle mechanics for LGV licence . . Basically what was happening was, all the apprentice mechanics were finishing their training and attaining their licence company paid. Said mechanics then (having received licence and indentured city & guilds paperwork ) departed the Co and set up as Owner Drivers ’ .
.
What rubbed salt into the wound of the Co was that the now ODs were hauling to and from the fore mentioned aggregate depot they worked at. :blush: Thus , an introduced payback scheme ’ was implemented thereafter.
ie: Pay back pro rata if leave within agreed time period.
.
Interestingly, others that followed , payed for their own licence`s except 2, who remained working there till the closure of workshops…
.
Advice is : know what your agreeing to and signing for and read the small print
Keep the time period to what you think is reasonable.
Define the pay back terms within the options of payback - ie: leave / sacked / laid-off / made redundant / retire / tuped / Co closes, etc.
If agreeing, accept the fact that you now have a long term employer - but if it goes pear shaped for whatever reason, know the sums.
I have often been thrust a piece of paper covered in minute writing and been told to sign it. “Don’t bother to read it, Drive. Its just a formality.”
But if you refuse to sign it you don’t get the job.
This is coercion
So:
prefix your signature with the letters, “VC”
This invalidates your signature
The employer is not allowed to withhold due wages, and I guess your union would actively pursue them
del949:
perhaps I am missing something.
the consensus seems to be that the company will not chase via the courts owing to cost. But if they win doesn’t the loser (driver) get stuck with the costs?
Yes and not just the court fees but the company’s legal fees as well. My uncle took a builder to court and lost. Because it had gone through a few stages over a couple of years and ended up in High Court the £1000 he was refusing to repay ended up costing him £10k when he lost because of the builders legal fees.
Lots of opinions posted , but hard facts?
When the HGV was first introduced i was granted a class 4 HGV under grandfather rights. the company then disposed of all their class 4 vehicles and replaced them with class1 (admittedly only Ford D series 300). the company then agreed to put all the drivers who wanted to through the class 1 test, doing the training at their own driving school.
Each driver was required to sign a document agreeing to stay for 2 years or pay £48,(to cover training, test, use of vehicle for test etc) reducing by £2 per month until 24 months had elapsed. All legal and above board.
The only thing that interfered with this was in those days a signature was only legal if signed across a postage stamp (no idea why but mortgages etc were the same) and in this case the company didn’t put any stamps on the document. The manager shortly afterwards called all the drivers involved and gave them the documents to tear up or dispose of as they were invalid .
I realise that the stamp issue has probably gone now but imagine that the overlying principle remains, i.e. if you agree to pay for training then you should expect to pay for it, especially if training increases your worth in the job market.
A different scenario is when a company gives you training to comply with their own requirements, i.e. company H+S procedures etc., or their own specific working methods.
I don’t understand why signing something with a prefix of VC (presumably and abbreviation for something Latin) would invalidate the document. Presumably it refers to being coerced or pressured, very much doubt it has any legal standing.
Vi Coactus, abbreviated to V.C., is a latin term. The website wikipedia cites the definition of vi coactus as:
“constrained by force”. Used when forced to sign (“or else …”)
Perhaps the most famous use of vi coactus when signing a document was that of Cornelius de Witt. Alexandre Dumas captured the event as follows:
The Grand Pensionary bowed before the will of his fellow citizens; Cornelius de Witt, however, was more obstinate, and notwithstanding all the threats of death from the Orangist rabble, who besieged him in his house at Dort, he stoutly refused to sign the act by which the office of Stadtholder was restored. Moved by the tears and entreaties of his wife, he at last complied, only adding to his signature the two letters V. C. (Vi Coactus), notifying thereby that he only yielded to force.
I have my doubts that this would work in the situations being discussed, seeing as how there are no threats of death!
are there other jobs which routinely demand repayment of training costs as a consequence of early departure? I suppose that it is in our interest to deter new entrants to the profession. All the more demand for us happy few.
Euro:
So:
prefix your signature with the letters, “VC”
This invalidates your signature
Oh how I love truck drivers and the sheer amount of bollox that they’re prepared to believe. Which genius told you that? Was it at Tesco or Asda RDC?
It’s actually true in part, but not necessarily the “invalidates your signature” bit. V.C. is short for Vi Coactus which in Latin roughly means “under constraint/duress”. If you are forced to sign before they’ll let you do x then you can quite rightly prefix your signature with V.C. and in the rare event there’s any comeback because you didn’t comply with whatever your signature was agreeing to, they don’t have a leg to stand on legally.
ULT
