Minimum length of stay with TOC or FOC

PeeWee · 11 May 2018

Hello all

This is my first post, please be gentle with me

When you join a FOC, upon completion of your training (so you are now fully qualified) is it typical or a specific requirement that the FOC will write into your contract a minimum term that you have to stay with them for?
I'm not talking about finishing the training and then immediately resigning to move to a different company. I would never do that.
I was wondering if FOC's are flexible with requests to relocate?

Many thanks for your help.

RailUK Forums

ExMover · 11 May 2018

It seems to vary by company, I've heard of 2 and even 3 years minimum service to avoid a financial penalty (which is how they normally penalise you for leaving early). That said, i came from a TOC to my current FOC and there was no contractual obligation whatsoever other than working my notice (which was 4 months). You'll find out when you see your contract. I wouldn't turn a job down for that though, not after all that effort and stress!

Cyclist · 11 May 2018

from what I've read the franchising system often means TOCs don't care too much about minimum stays

ComUtoR · 11 May 2018

3yrs at my TOC with a contractually set exit fee. This has been used recently and will continue to be used.

red2005 · 11 May 2018

It’s generally 2-3 years which is a drivers PQA period. Not many other Toc’s would touch a driver still in PQA anyway so it’s not really an option to move if a driver even wanted to.

In regards to these training fees that companies want back should you leave...... I heard they’re not worth the paper they’re written on!...... how true that is I’m not sure but there’s been many a driver leave within this period and not paid a penny.

Bromley boy · 12 May 2018

ComUtoR said:
3yrs at my TOC with a contractually set exit fee. This has been used recently and will continue to be used.

Except that they know they’re on very thin ice legally with that clause and therefore try to bully leavers into signing repayment agreements (which similarly are unlikely to be enforceable), rather than making deductions from wages.

Maybe if they focussed more on providing decent T’s and C’s, not changing the roster mid-year and ruining people’s holiday plans, paying market salaries and creating an environment where people actually want to work long term they would find staff turnover reduced

.

Bromley boy · 12 May 2018

red2005 said:
In regards to these training fees that companies want back should you leave...... I heard they’re not worth the paper they’re written on!...... how true that is I’m not sure but there’s been many a driver leave within this period and not paid a penny.

This.

sw1ller · 12 May 2018

red2005 said:
It’s generally 2-3 years which is a drivers PQA period. Not many other Toc’s would touch a driver still in PQA anyway so it’s not really an option to move if a driver even wanted to.

In regards to these training fees that companies want back should you leave...... I heard they’re not worth the paper they’re written on!...... how true that is I’m not sure but there’s been many a driver leave within this period and not paid a penny.

Haha. I read this without looking who wrote it and though, I bet RED2005 would disagree with this.......

But I suppose that’s just one company so the statement is still correct. Haha.

red2005 · 12 May 2018

sw1ller said:
Haha. I read this without looking who wrote it and though, I bet RED2005 would disagree with this.......

But I suppose that’s just one company so the statement is still correct. Haha.

Hshaha I had a nice little technicality to aid me there though remember hahaha!!!

Bromley boy · 12 May 2018

red2005 said:
It’s generally 2-3 years which is a drivers PQA period. Not many other Toc’s would touch a driver still in PQA anyway so it’s not really an option to move if a driver even wanted to.

In regards to these training fees that companies want back should you leave...... I heard they’re not worth the paper they’re written on!...... how true that is I’m not sure but there’s been many a driver leave within this period and not paid a penny.

What does PQA stand for?

I assume you mean probationary period? Ours is one year, I agree it would be hard if not impossible to move during this. Our contract states 3 years to pay back (unenforceable) and I know at least one driver who has gone elsewhere after less than 3 years.

I’ve seen quite a few adverts that say min 2 years and not in probationary period.

red2005 · 12 May 2018

It stands for post qualifying assessments or something of that ilk...... no, probation is different to PQA mate. Or so I believe haha

MostlyHarmless · 12 May 2018

I think the OP was asking about relocating depots within the same TOC rather than jumping ship to a new one.

I'm not sure that a contractual repayment clause couldn't be enforced legally - particularly if you have signed that contract and I have seen it enforced in another industry. Of course if someone has legal advice to the contrary then I stand corrected!

ComUtoR · 12 May 2018

Ours is still 3yrs. They don't let you put in for a transfer until you have done 3yrs productive at your depot. Our internal transfer system us up the creek without 3 paddles and a short circuit bar.

red2005 · 12 May 2018

ComUtoR said:
Ours is still 3yrs. They don't let you put in for a transfer until you have done 3yrs productive at your depot. Our internal transfer system us up the creek without 3 paddles and a short circuit bar.

Yeah same here.

Although from what I hear if it’s in the companies interest there is flexibility with that.

No harm putting any transfer request in I suppose and if it’s in their interests to move you earlier then result!

Bromley boy · 13 May 2018

MostlyHarmless said:
I'm not sure that a contractual repayment clause couldn't be enforced legally - particularly if you have signed that contract and I have seen it enforced in another industry. Of course if someone has legal advice to the contrary then I stand corrected!

Having looked into this (I should say I am also a qualified solicitor, albeit I wasn’t an employment lawyer, so the below isn’t gospel and shouldn’t be relied upon!)*

The basic position is that these clauses are only enforceable if:
- the amount reclaimed is a genuine pre estimate of loss rather than an (unenforceable) penalty;
- the clause doesn’t operate as a restraint of trade (ie something which unreasonably restricts an employee for seeking other employment).

Most TOCs include some vague standard form wording in the employment contract itself with arbitrary reducing amounts repayable over a (long) period of time, up to three years. This isn’t referenced to any particular accounting cost schedule so sounds more like a penalty than a pre estimate of loss and three years is a long period of time, which starts to sound like an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Making deductions from pay is also unlawful apart from in very particular circumstances (largely where the employee has consented specifically in writing).

In my opinion (which is worth precisely what you’ve paid for it, and is not to be relied on

) these clauses are included as an empty threat to dissuade people from leaving. This is a threat which usually works because people believe they *must* be enforceable because they’ve signed a contract when, in fact, that’s not necessarily the case at all. Just as if you signed a contract which paid you less than the minimum wage.

Anecdotally I’ve yet to hear of anyone repaying a TOC anything (and I personally know of someone who was openly told by management that the amount “owed” wouldn’t be pursued). Pursuing you in a civil action for what is (to the employer) a small amount that is likely to be unrecoverable anyway wouldn’t make much business sense in any case.

*if there are any employment law experts on this board who would care to comment on the above, please do so.

red2005 · 13 May 2018

Bromley boy said:
Having looked into this (I should say I am also a qualified solicitor, albeit I wasn’t an employment lawyer, so the below isn’t gospel and shouldn’t be relied upon!)*

The basic position is that these clauses are only enforceable if:
- the amount reclaimed is a genuine pre estimate of loss rather than an (unenforceable) penalty;
- the clause doesn’t operate as a restraint of trade (ie something which unreasonably restricts an employee for seeking other employment).

Most TOCs include some vague standard form wording in the employment contract itself with arbitrary reducing amounts repayable over a (long) period of time, up to three years. This isn’t referenced to any particular accounting cost schedule so sounds more like a penalty than a pre estimate of loss and three years is a long period of time, which starts to sound like an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Making deductions from pay is also unlawful apart from in very particular circumstances (largely where the employee has consented specifically in writing).

In my opinion (which is worth precisely what you’ve paid for it, and is not to be relied on ) these clauses are included as an empty threat to dissuade people from leaving. This is a threat which usually works because people believe they *must* be enforceable because they’ve signed a contract when, in fact, that’s not necessarily the case at all. Just as if you signed a contract which paid you less than the minimum wage.

Anecdotally I’ve yet to hear of anyone repaying a TOC anything (and I personally know of someone who was openly told by management that the amount “owed” wouldn’t be pursued). Pursuing you in a civil action for what is (to the employer) a small amount that is likely to be unrecoverable anyway wouldn’t make much business sense in any case.

*if there are any employment law experts on this board who would care to comment on the above, please do so.

Fair play mate that a top drawer post hats off to you.

Suraggu · 13 May 2018

Recently FOC's have been unwilling to recruit trainee drivers because it has happened to them in the past Drivers get trained up, work the 3 year term and then leave as soon as they can to TOC's.
Unfortunately because of a lack of qualified Drivers willing to come back to freight (After the way some have been treated I am not surprised) and move to freight they have been forced to recruit trainees.

MostlyHarmless · 14 May 2018

Bromley boy said:
Having looked into this (I should say I am also a qualified solicitor, albeit I wasn’t an employment lawyer, so the below isn’t gospel and shouldn’t be relied upon!)*

The basic position is that these clauses are only enforceable if:
- the amount reclaimed is a genuine pre estimate of loss rather than an (unenforceable) penalty;
- the clause doesn’t operate as a restraint of trade (ie something which unreasonably restricts an employee for seeking other employment).

Most TOCs include some vague standard form wording in the employment contract itself with arbitrary reducing amounts repayable over a (long) period of time, up to three years. This isn’t referenced to any particular accounting cost schedule so sounds more like a penalty than a pre estimate of loss and three years is a long period of time, which starts to sound like an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Making deductions from pay is also unlawful apart from in very particular circumstances (largely where the employee has consented specifically in writing).

In my opinion (which is worth precisely what you’ve paid for it, and is not to be relied on ) these clauses are included as an empty threat to dissuade people from leaving. This is a threat which usually works because people believe they *must* be enforceable because they’ve signed a contract when, in fact, that’s not necessarily the case at all. Just as if you signed a contract which paid you less than the minimum wage.

Anecdotally I’ve yet to hear of anyone repaying a TOC anything (and I personally know of someone who was openly told by management that the amount “owed” wouldn’t be pursued). Pursuing you in a civil action for what is (to the employer) a small amount that is likely to be unrecoverable anyway wouldn’t make much business sense in any case.

*if there are any employment law experts on this board who would care to comment on the above, please do so.

I agree that it's unlikely that they would bother going after you and that such clauses are there to dissuade people from jumping ship as soon as they have finished training. I spoke to a friend who is a lawyer (although with the CPS ) over the weekend and his opinion was broadly the same as your, although he seemed to think that you may get a company that wants to make an example to deter others, and the legal costs for them would be far less scary than they would be for the employee.

PeeWee · 16 May 2018

Thank you to everyone for your replies.

Apologies for not acknowledging your contributions earlier but I've not had a chance to log on until now.

The company in question is GBRF. I was unsure whether to accept a post with a FOC or hold out for a TOC vacancy but from what I can gauge, there doesn't appear to be much of a difference other than having to work night shifts with a FOC. Is GBRF a good company to work for? I got a good vibe from them at my interview and was told that if successful I would mainly be working out of the depot a stones throw from Wembley stadium.

Johncleesefan · 16 May 2018

Yep 3 years over here too at my toc, though I know drivers leaving for a different toc within that time and no financial obligations.

It does make me wonder, obviously transferring depots within the same toc would incur no “cost” but what about transferring tocs owned by the same parent company? Assume it would be the same as any other toc due the company budgets etc.

When I was a bus driver we had the same thing, albeit for 2 years. Loads left within and said you’ll never pay it, however when I left I got court summons sent to my door so I had to pay it. Just a little food for thought

tiptoptaff · 16 May 2018

Johncleesefan said:
When I was a bus driver we had the same thing, albeit for 2 years. Loads left within and said you’ll never pay it, however when I left I got court summons sent to my door so I had to pay it. Just a little food for thought

I'm ex-Merchant Navy and there was a clause in there regarding my training fees. I too got the whole "its unenforceable" but the County Court felt different so had to pay it (albeit negotiated out of court)

ComUtoR · 16 May 2018

Johncleesefan said:
It does make me wonder, obviously transferring depots within the same toc would incur no “cost”

There is a cost involved in internal transfers.

At my TOC there is a huge disparity between each depot in terms of establishment levels and more importantly, routes. When transferring you need to consider the establishment levels and if there is a vacancy at the new depot. Then you have a situation where you have a fully qualified Driver who is unproductive. Their work has to be covered and they need to be sent route learning. Covering Drivers for routes, briefings, courses etc are a large cost. My TOC seem to have addressed the Traction requirements with only a few depots needing a traction or conversion for the transferring Drivers.

There is also a cost to replace or train at the leaving depot. The work again has to be covered and if your still on a link system the vacancy creates the need for new routes/traction etc. Again, typically covered with rest day working.

I can certainly understand why internal transfers have a tie in.

Tom9748 · 17 May 2018

I jumped ship after around two and a half years after coming onto the railways as a driver from the street and went to another company.
I was sent a bill for around £9000 for leaving within the three years,I spoke to the union and was told “ignore it”. I received numerous letters threatening me with bailiffs,court etc,just ignored them.
My last pay note was £0.00 so they did get a bit of there money back when I left so it was a bit of a tight month. After about a year I didn’t hear from them again.
Eight years later I went back to the same company and did wonder if I would be told “pay up”,nothing was ever mentioned.

Minimum length of stay with TOC or FOC

New Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member