Employer took my whole wage packet this month

Rs24

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.

davo10

They have a signed written agreement with you to pay back the money for fees if you left within two years, they enforced the terms of that contract. Have they not done what you agreed to?

Employment contracts have a clause stating that any monies owed to the employer on date of termination of employment can be deducted from final wage payment. Have a read through your contract.

Talk to a solicitor, but if you signed the agreements/contracts, you may well be wasting more money.

Rs24

Reimbursement in the event of leaving within 2 years was included as one of the terms written in the education scheme application. It does refer to the right to make deductions from a remuneration perspective in the employment contract.

My argument is more that they have not to date enforced this clause on anyone but have just recently decided to enforce. In effect, i am arguing I have been treated differently to others who signed up on the same terms but left before me. Equality in treatment is the basis of my argument.

The next step i will take is legal advice. Is their any public bodies that help in such areas?

randomrb

I don't think you have much of a case I'm afraid, unless you can show discrimination based on age race gender etc in relation to the exception then you have no case.
You signed a contract so you have to abide by it, if they didn't enforce it previously that has no connection to yours unless you can show discrimination as above

Rulmeq

randomrb wrote: »

I don't think you have much of a case I'm afraid, ... if they didn't enforce it previously that has no connection to yours

Not necessarily, precedent can be very important in employment law.

Dick Turnip

HR have said they have been enforcing it since Oct-17 so how could you argue that you're being discriminated against due to lack of precedent?

Bandana boy

Rs24 wrote: »

Hi all,
. I wasn’t advised this would happen in advance.

It sounds like you were , way back when you agreed to the terms of them paying your fees.

its quite possible as well you actually owe the tax man some money so I would be careful how much of a fuss you make of this.

As regards the different treatment , have you talked to everybody who left the company in similar circumstances ?
how would you prove that they have treated you differently ?Anybody stepping forward to back up your story they will surely just start proceedings to claim the money back from them that they are owed .,so I think you will struggle to win this.

Probably best to think of this as a tax efficient way of getting your education with an interest free loan.
Well done and move on and good luck in the new job

Turnipman

Rs24 wrote: »

The next step i will take is legal advice. Is their any public bodies that help in such areas?

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/

cdeb

Rs24 wrote: »

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.

If that's the case, I see your case as being non-existent unfortunately.

Ten months of enforcing a clause is plenty enough to show precedent, not discrimination.

You appear to have no case here.

Also, why are you only querying this now, three months later?

evolving_doors

Rulmeq wrote: »

Not necessarily, precedent can be very important in employment law.

This is like a nightclub.
1. They reserve the right to admit or eject.
2. You agree.
3. They admit some, they don't admit others.

If they had said they WILL recoup college fees then it might be different. But precedent doesn't apply when things change and you agree with that.

Turnipman

cdeb wrote: »

If that's the case, I see your case as being non-existent unfortunately.

Ten months of enforcing a clause is plenty enough to show precedent, not discrimination.

You appear to have no case here.

Also, why are you only querying this now, three months later?

Probably because, as he explained above "I have exhausted all internal avenues now ...."

cdeb

Turnipman wrote: »

Probably because, as he explained above "I have exhausted all internal avenues now ...."

Fairy nuff; missed that.

Still, October to April is seven months; plenty of time to establish precedent.

Help!!!!

Turnipman wrote: »

Probably because, as he explained above "I have exhausted all internal avenues now ...."

Probably been told so many times by numerous people that there is no way of winning because they have a written agreement but the penny still hasn't dropped

davo10

Rs24 wrote: »

Reimbursement in the event of leaving within 2 years was included as one of the terms written in the education scheme application. It does refer to the right to make deductions from a remuneration perspective in the employment contract.

My argument is more that they have not to date enforced this clause on anyone but have just recently decided to enforce. In effect, i am arguing I have been treated differently to others who signed up on the same terms but left before me. Equality in treatment is the basis of my argument.

The next step i will take is legal advice. Is their any public bodies that help in such areas?

Your first paragraph will be hard for you to argue against or prove that your employer has discriminated against you. The terms of the contract you agreed to seem fairly clear cut on both points, the repayment of fees and deductions from your salary.

In relation to you being treated differently, if BOI have been applying the terms since Oct 2017, then they can show it was not applied solely to you. Work practices change, they have a signed contract to back up their action, you on the other hand left within a two year period in the knowledge that you signed an agreement to repay the money for fees during that period. You will have to weigh up the benefits/risks of going down the legal route, verses the glaring reality that you are expecting BOI to write off €4K in fees when you left 3 months after completion.

Ohmeha

Based on the contract you signed that you have described it sounds to me they are covered for their actions.

I know of someone who worked in a large bank (probably the same one in this instance) and two years ago they left for a new job 2/3rds through a course paid for by the same employer. They had to repay the equivalent fees and bonuses that were paid by the employer. Think they reached an agreement for it to be paid back in installments but the installments were sizeable enough that the repayments didn't go on for too long but anyway there is also precedent for people being billed for their fees

Again I do know of people who have left jobs and not being billed for exam fees but generally the fees would be on the low side (hundreds) not amounting to anywhere near 4k for a full course - I couldn't see any employer waiving fees anywhere near that amount especially for someone who departed only 3 months after completing the course and losing their investment who has likely departed to an industry competitior

manonboard

You left almost immediately (3/24) after getting your upgraded qualifications. It makes complete sense for them to seek to recoup the cost they paid for your qualification.
The two years is so they can recoup it back in higher skills. If you had left at a later date, they may not have pursued it, but 3 months is very poor form to be expecting them not to recoup the cost. 
You are not in any way being discriminated against. They've been doing it for 7 months which means they took the action well before you quit. You simply don't like because you want them to pay your education whilst you left them upon completion of it. There is going to be a precedent. Cases before yours will also likely have long than 3 months time for the business to recoup the expense.

gandalf

The bottom line is you signed an agreement and now you have to honour it. Just because the bank in the past didn't claw it back from others prior to Oct last year doesn't mean they have to do the same with you. At the end of the day they have a legal agreement from you that if you leave within 2 years of completion of the course they can claw back the fees. Chalk it up to experience and move on.

C3PO

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the bank would seek to have the fees paid back, your new qualifications are probably the reason you got another job?

LegacyUser

Unless you can prove you were treated differently based on race/gender/orientation etc etc you have no leg to stand on arguing discrimination. Most likely they've enforced this because of the very small time line - had you been 1 year and 3 month after getting exams it might have been a lower chance of them enforcing but 3 months? Come on OP, you must have worked 1 month notice so you pretty much got the exam and quit

FurBabyMomma

If they are enforcing since Oct 17 and you didn't complete your exams til December 17, I really don't see how you have a leg to stand on, given you completed your exams after precedent was set and not before.

I think you would be absolutely chancing your arm thinking you could get 4k worth of education from them and waltz out the door a few months later with no recourse.

Peregrinus

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.

Of course, it's possible that the change in practice was publicised or notified at the time, and the OP simply failed to notice or remember it. But it's at least worth exploring. Employers do have a duty to employees to behave in a way which supports a relationship of trust and confidence, and changing this practice but not telling anyone about the change, if that is what they did, does seem to work against this.

randomrb

There is also a question of whether the previous practice that OP describes had actually been the outlier and they had been let go due to lack of work in the company at that time

Dardania

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.  

Of course, it's possible that the change in practice was publicised or notified at the time, and the OP simply failed to notice or remember it.  But it's at least worth exploring.  Employers do have a duty to employees to behave in a way which supports a relationship of trust and confidence, and changing this practice but not telling anyone about the change, if that is what they did, does seem to work against this.

I think that relationship is a two way one, and in this case the employee betrayed the employer's trust...

Turnipman

FurBabyMomma wrote: »

I think you would be absolutely chancing your arm thinking you could get 4k worth of education from them and waltz out the door a few months later with no recourse.

Par for the course nowadays. And he probably expects a glowing reference from his employer too!

Peregrinus

Dardania wrote: »

I think that relationship is a two way one, and in this case the employee betrayed the employer's trust...

Giving notice is not a betrayal of trust.

Dardania

Peregrinus wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

I think that relationship is a two way one, and in this case the employee betrayed the employer's trust...

Giving notice is not a betrayal of trust.

I agree giving notice is not a betrayal.
What is a betrayal of trust is looking for your employer to fund your education, then not stick around so that the employer can benefit from the education they paid for

C3PO

Dardania wrote: »

I agree giving notice is not a betrayal.
What is a betrayal of trust is looking for your employer to fund your education, then not stick around so that the employer can benefit from the education they paid for

.... and then getting annoyed when they try to recoup their investment!

davo10

Dardania wrote: »

I agree giving notice is not a betrayal.
What is a betrayal of trust is looking for your employer to fund your education, then not stick around so that the employer can benefit from the education they paid for

A viewpoint such as this would support the ops argument that the bank was wrong to seek reimbursement as it implies an understanding and/or an agreement based on trust in relation to the fees. While all employees have a right to fair and equal treatment, the op is not disputing that he/she signed an unambiguous contract to allow the bank to recover fees within 2 years. BOI are doing only what the op agreed to in that contract.

Dardania

davo10 wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

I agree giving notice is not a betrayal.
What is a betrayal of trust is looking for your employer to fund your education, then not stick around so that the employer can benefit from the education they paid for

A viewpoint such as this would support the ops argument that the bank was wrong to seek reimbursement as it implies an understanding and/or an agreement based on trust in relation to the fees. While all employees have a right to fair and equal treatment, the op is not disputing that he/she signed an unambiguous contract to allow the bank to recover fees within 2 years. BOI are doing only what the op agreed to in that contract.

I see your point (if there was trust, there wouldn't need to be a contractual clause) but I don't agree that the two are mutually exclusive. It is possible to have trust, and contractual back-up

Suffice to say, OP had an academic experience here - both in terms of the original course, and the consequences of departing immediately after somewhat cynically

davo10

Dardania wrote: »

I see your point (if there was trust, there wouldn't need to be a contractual clause) but I don't agree that the two are mutually exclusive. It is possible to have trust, and contractual back-up

Threads such as this tend to get bogged down in opinions about the morality of what an op did, but the fact is the op could have gotten a job offer which he/she could not refuse. The question the op is asking is can the employer take the money back for the fees, and can it be done in the last pay cheque. The second part of that is covered in his/her contract of employment so that's reasonably straight forward, monies owed can be deducted from last paycheque.

But the question about the €4K fees, while contractually both parties knew where they stood from the outset and personally I think it is unreasonable for the op to expect BOI to write off €4K, they made a rod for their own back by not applying the terms of the contract to everyone. BOI seem to very much have the upper hand here, they have the contract and they have the ops money, so they don't have to do anything but ignore the op. The op is now going to have to get legal advice to try and "recover" the €4K, but there is a good chance that will lead to further expense and no guarantee of success.

gandalf

Also how sure is the op that those that previously resigned were let off paying the fees.

If they were people made redundant then the wavering of the fees could have been part of the redundancy agreement.

I don't believe the op has a leg to stand on here.

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