TruckerGuy:
I missed the part where he said he failed.
He also said he left 18 months later, so the question becomes: what did he do in that time, and did the term of “pay if leave within 2 years” still apply?
I really can’t see how it can’t be enforcable? He agreed to the term at the outset, did the training (even if he failed the test at the end - it could be argued the TRAINING costs are still lost) and he then continued to work for them for 18 months afterwards.
Hi Truckerguy,
My apologies for going off the deep end to your reply.
This is a an area covered in some depth on the Transport Manager CPC.
An ‘uneforceable contract’ is any contract that is unequal or puts one party in an unfavorable position. The law quite clearly states this is uneforceable and null and void.
It covers exactly this scenario. The ‘firm’ cannot enforce it without some extraordinary circumstance. Maybe if you were working on a nuclear site that required extensive specialised training that was transferable ‘might’… and I stress ‘might’ qualify. The ‘firm’ would have to prove you took the training and left and benefitted from that training by being poached (note, “being poached” not left for other reasons) then youmight convince a court that your NEW EMPLOYER owed the “firm” money for training… notice it doesn’t say the employee.
The new employer would have breached agreements the employee made with his current employer. not the employee. The employee is nothing more than an asset. The two “firms” would Duel it out in court just as they would over a truck or a bag of cement. We are assets. Not people in this scenario.
The TM CPC also covers uneforceable contracts with main contractors and subcontractors. It’s a very interesting course.
Uneforceable contracts span everything from mortgages, pay day loans, work agreements, billion pound oil drilling rights…they even cover subbies signing up for work with Stobbies.
TruckerGuy:
I missed the part where he said he failed.
He also said he left 18 months later, so the question becomes: what did he do in that time, and did the term of “pay if leave within 2 years” still apply?
I really can’t see how it can’t be enforcable? He agreed to the term at the outset, did the training (even if he failed the test at the end - it could be argued the TRAINING costs are still lost) and he then continued to work for them for 18 months afterwards.
To break it down -
He failed - not relevant.
18 months what did he do - irrelevant. The “firm” kept him on. The “firms” contract obviously didn’t stipulate passing the test was a condition of employment otherwise they would have hired a class 1 driver in the first place or not hired OP until he’d passed his test.
Pay if leave before 2 years
This is a biggy! This is edging towards slave labour. It’s a massive no! no! For any decent company. You don’t want to go in front of a judge in the UK saying you’re “keeping” staff. You’ll lose on that point alone.
Agreed at the outset -
If OP was a barrister or contract law solicitor then there would be raised eyebrows because they should have known better but they wouldn’t set precidence by allowing an unfair contract. OP is a bag of meat (sorry OP) whoever drew up the contract is at fault, not OP.
“Firms” speculate daily. They risk money to buy trucks to make a profit. They speculate on advertising to generate work. They speculate on training to train drivers.
If OP decided to move to the other end of the country and the “firm” demanded he work for them, it’s easy to see how this could be seen as slavery (read the slavery act)
If OP decided the job wasn’t for him, this would be seen as a speculative investment by the “firm” the " firm" intended to make money from OP passing the course. It didn’t pan out. That’s a risk of business.
Surprisingly, we’re heavily covered by the law when it comes to this sort of stuff. The law doesn’t like slave labour in any form and will punish “firms” who dare bring this sort of thing in front of them.
Whether the contract is enforceable is a moot point, this comes under behaving honourably.
It might be an old fashioned (some would call it stupid these days) outlook, but if i give my word to someone that, in this case i would pay back some of my training costs if i left before the agree payback period, then honour dictates paying up.
And yes i expect the same sort of honesty and decent morals from others, and yes regularly find myself disappointed when once again their word meant the square root of bugger all, just one of the many reasons i prefer dogs to people.
Juddian:
Whether the contract is enforceable is a moot point, this comes under behaving honourably.
It might be an old fashioned (some would call it stupid these days) outlook, but if i give my word to someone that, in this case i would pay back some of my training costs if i left before the agree payback period, then honour dictates paying up.
And yes i expect the same sort of honesty and decent morals from others, and yes regularly find myself disappointed when once again their word meant the square root of bugger all, just one of the many reasons i prefer dogs to people.
This this this ^. Couldn’t have said it better myself Jud. Like I said earlier in the thread, this is why a lot of people can’t have nice things. They want their cake and to eat it as well.
TruckerGuy:
I missed the part where he said he failed.
He also said he left 18 months later, so the question becomes: what did he do in that time, and did the term of “pay if leave within 2 years” still apply?
I really can’t see how it can’t be enforcable? He agreed to the term at the outset, did the training (even if he failed the test at the end - it could be argued the TRAINING costs are still lost) and he then continued to work for them for 18 months afterwards.
^ The OP’s story makes no sense.
The OP knew that the money would still be owed if he left ‘the job’ that he was doing during the 18 months whether he’d passed or failed the LGV.
Juddian:
Whether the contract is enforceable is a moot point, this comes under behaving honourably.
Moot point?..moot point!! Are you serious?
Mate, you’re talking about the law. The LAW.
The “law” isn’t some inconvenience to get around, it’s what makes societies and communities. It’s a standard we are all held to for the greater good.
Tell me who’s at fault -
An employer making an unlawful contract or an employee not honouring an unlawful contract?
Our society is going down the sh!tter because of this ‘new mentality’ - “laws are bad because they stop me working illegally for minimum wage, boss says take the truck, I need to take the truck out”
Yeah, I’m not a fan of that.
An employer must be held to a higher standard. He must set the standard for his staff to follow.
I’ve seen too many Range Rovers sat in reserved spaces and sh!tty trucks with questionable practices to be convinced an employer has my best interest at heart.
The law isn’t a pick ‘n’ mix you decide what to follow.
The"firm" HAS LEGAL DUTIES to ensure the truck is legal, the drivers are legal, the operation is legal. You’re saying it’s okay if not all of it is legal.
Excellent reference Shullbit, I’m reasonably confident we can assume ACAS know what they’re talking about, for anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking the link:
Deductions for training courses Employers can only deduct money for training courses if it was agreed in the contract or in writing beforehand. For example, an employer could ask someone to agree in writing before a training course to pay back costs if they leave within 6 months.
Excellent reference Shullbit, I’m reasonably confident we can assume ACAS know what they’re talking about, for anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking the link:
Deductions for training courses Employers can only deduct money for training courses if it was agreed in the contract or in writing beforehand. For example, an employer could ask someone to agree in writing before a training course to pay back costs if they leave within 6 months.
Hey build5. How’s it feel to be shot down in flames?
Excellent reference Shullbit, I’m reasonably confident we can assume ACAS know what they’re talking about, for anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking the link:
Deductions for training courses Employers can only deduct money for training courses if it was agreed in the contract or in writing beforehand. For example, an employer could ask someone to agree in writing before a training course to pay back costs if they leave within 6 months.
Hey build5. How’s it feel to be shot down in flames?
He lost his point when he said this
“An ‘uneforceable contract’ is any contract that is unequal or puts one party in an unfavorable position. The law quite clearly states this is uneforceable and null and void.”
tell me how the employee,was in an unfavourable position at all?
1, If he passed, he had a licence for life.
2, He failed he had a job for 2 years.
Minus any sacking etc, he had the job for 2 years either way… build5 needs to go look again as he is 100% wrong, hopefully they will file a CCJ, and recoup some of the investment they paid into him.