If this refers to Chairmanship of a company then you would need to refer to the articles of association and read the rules for election to this position. it may well be that they have breached the articles of association by not accepting your nomination.

I wanted to put a link here to the result of this, I thought it may help anyone having issues with Phones 4 U http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/employment-problems/174594-ex-employer-claiming-money-3.html This gives the final decision in the litigation taken by Phones 4 U Ltd which was thrown out.

OK so here is what we hope will be the final update on this case. Today we attended the small claims court on this and I can now reveal that it was Phones 4 U Ltd who took the action to attempt to recover money in relation to training expenses incurred by the comapny. The short story is we won! The district judge decided that as we have said in our defence all along, the clause 16.1 in the contract of employment was not valid and that Phones 4 U Limited could not claim the money under this clause. When we entered the court the district judge imiediately told Paul Green (Legal Officer for Phones 4 U) that she had read the claim and the defence and was confused as she could not see on what basis Phones 4 U were claiming the money, Paul Green replied that they were claiming on 16.1 of the contract of employment which states "The Company reserves the right at any time during your employment, and in any event on its termination to deduct from your salary any sums owing to the Company including, but not limited to, excess holiday taken, advances and expenses, car fines, outstanding relocation expenses/study fees, pecuniary loss or damage of company property. You hereby consent to such deductions being made." The district judge then pointed out to Paul Green that as the defence had pointed out on numerous occaisions clause 16.1 does not make any provision for reclaining training costs, inf act it isnt worded sufficiently to claim any costs from an employee, she then asked him again if he had any other basis for the claim, after much awkward fluffing around by Paul Green he had to admit that he was relying on the fact that the 16.1 clause says that Phones 4 U can claim for pecuniary loss and this is the only basis of the claim. The district judge pointed out to Paul Green that clause 16.1 was not specific regarding how much and for how long and in what circumstances the company could claim anything, she pointed out that if that was upheld Phones 4 U Ltd could pretty well claim anything at anytime from anybody regardless of circumstances. She then informed him that she was dissmissing the claim, at this point the fun begins, he was clearly very annoyed and was visibley losing his temper, he looked over to us and said this dosent preclude Phones 4 U from reissuing the claim on a different basis! Well such a flagrant dissregard of a district courts judement did not go down well with the judge, she in no uncertain terms pointed out to Paul Green that she had just dissmissed this case if he did choose to go down that route that she was sure the defedant would ask the court to strike out the claim as it would be an abuse of the court process. Jeez, what an idiot! of course we would have it struck out. At this point Paul Green (Legal Officer for Phones 4 U Ltd) was getting up to leave, I stopped him and asked the district judge if we could recover costs for time spent preparing the defence and witness statements plus loss of earnings for the defendant, she would not allow costs for preperation of the defence but did allow loss of earnings which she said was capped at £50 per day maximum and promptly granted £50, Paul Green then started to even argue this asking for proof of the loss and asking if it was taken as holiday, the judge politely (but firmly) pointed out that holiday or not the defendant has still lost a days pay and she didnt require proof. So that was the end of the case, well not quite . On the way out Paul Green who by this time had completely lost it (much to our amusement) said that this ruling dosent stop him reporting the defendant to the police for fraud! What a bozo! I told him that I would recommend that he shut his mouth and get on his way, he then accused me of threatening him! I pointed out that I wasnt threatening him but simply recommending he shut his mouth and go otherwise we would consider his actions as harresment, I also just reminded him he was a loser as he left. So we will be waiting for the police investigation for fraud, we have numerous defense arguments already prepared for this so we dont really care. What is astounding is that Phones 4 U (who I do think is a reasonable company) should allow their Legal Officer to behave in such a maliscious way, clearly Phones 4 U are not a very good employer. This action was unreasonable and reflects the company in a very bad light. John Caudwell would be horrified to see an officer of the company he founded acting in such a way. Paul Green is obviously very inexperienced and should never be in a position with Phones 4 U where he can take legal action without clearing the case with a solicitor who is conversent with employment law. Incidently had the District Judge allowed the 16.1 clause from the contract of employemnt we had 5 more defence arguments, any one of which would have got the case dissmissed. Also I am amazed that in the witness statement Phones 4 U sent a copy of of the complete delegate list for the training containg all their personal information! Surely this is harldy compliant with the data protection act, I wonder if Phones 4 U Human Resourses department know that Paul Green rides rough shod over the care of their employees personal data! I am now wondering just how many of Phones 4 u's ex employees Paul Green has threatened and extroted money from based on an unenforceable clause, we do have the list of employees that he provided all of which have mobile phone numbers, I guess we could ring them all and find out if any others have suffered and paid back money, if they have I assume they could now reclaim it back as this case has set a precident. Still, all in all a good result! Thanks to all that contributed in advice and tips. I'm now fairly good on employment law in relation to deductions from salary, anyone stuck on this ask away, I will be glad to help.

Due to dumb oversight I have filed a defence statement 10 days late. The order was for April 20th and it wont be with the court until April 30th. I know that the district judge dissallow the statement, but it is at their discretion. I called the court and they said that it will not be allocated to a judge until 4 weeks before the hearing date which is June 15th. They said send it in and the judge will probably accept it. Does anyone know what the usual procedure is, i.e do they usualy accept late submission? I have read many cases on here where claimants file late, it often seems to be a deliberate ploy. Fingers x I'm ok.

Thought I would pass on some info that I have regarding recovering traing costs. It will be worthwhile for you to Google "potter vs hunt contracts ltd [1992]" This sets a clear case law precident for recovery of monies from salary. It does not matter that your ex employer is seeking to recover the monies through the court, the same will apply. I have been involved with a very similar case since November of last year and will be going to county court on June 15th. Trust me they will lose. Biggest problem is learning how to deal with all this crap, like you this was my first time and it is all a bit confusing, like many others in here you will become very knowledgeable with the experience. My major piece of advice, do not panic! You will have plenty of time to arrange your defence and statement for the hearing day. The procedures are what gets difficult to work out. There are some great people in here who will guide you through that. I do have some info that I can pass on to you regarding case law should you want it, you will need to PM me though, I will explain why if you PM. Most of the info you need is available though if you Google the case I refer to above. The solicitors info you quote is only an opinion and does not quote case law so a judge may not take any notice. Should this go to court you will have the opportunity to quote the case law in your written witness statement. Good luck, my money says you will win and recieve costs, just think of the smug feeling you will have leaving he court and giving your ex employer a knowing grin

Got a solicitor to prepare the defence on this. He has experience of similar claims and is certain that we will win. [Oh this was BS we didnt have any solicitor but we had a suspicion that Paul Green was reading the posts on here so we wanted to throw him of the scent]

I would agree that if the clause is drafted carefully it could be enforceable, perhaps my statement was a bit sweeping and generalised. I think you would agree though for such a clause to be a valid part of a contract of employment it would have to be very detailed and would almost be a seperate contract in itself (hmm does that make sense?). Anyway I would certainly bow to your greater knowledge of these things. Most of my knowledge has come from hours of research prompted by info you first sent me to help with my sons case.

OK fist the change of location: I think you need to check to see if you have a mobility clause in your contract of employment, if you do they can move you but it must be conducted reasonably. You may want to have a read here Disclaw Publishing - Employment Law, unfair dismissal, redundancy pay Here is an extract from info I found: Mobility Although the employer is required to state the employee's usual place of work in the section 1 statement, employers often include a mobility clause in an employee's contract of employment in addition to stating the place where the employee is usually based, to give an employer flexibility to move its workforce between different locations. To be enforceable, such a clause needs to be clear and unambiguous and to cover the particular move envisaged. In any dispute as to whether or not a mobility clause covers a particular situation, any ambiguity would be construed against the party who drafted the contract. There is also case law to suggest that it is part of the implied duty of trust and confidence that an employer should not attempt to enforce a mobility clause in such a way as to prevent an employee from complying with his contractual obligations. If you do have a mobility clause in your contract I would have a Google (Google is your friend ) and see what you can find. They certainly would have to give you reasonable notice to relocate so far away. Now the demotion: No way I can see they can do this it would be a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence that exists between employer and employee and you can take action against them for breach of contract. Read through this then begin your Google search for further advice: Demotion Clause - Contracts - Employment documents - Tips & Advice Personnel Plus Good luck, P.S I deal with pub co's all the time, dont ya just love em.

Whilst researching for a case I am currently working on I came across the case of MISS R S HILL APPELLANT v HOWARD CHAPELL RESPONDENT. Word Doc Link www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/EAT1250012032002.doc HTML Link Appeal No. Basicaly what this means is unless an employer has a written agreement in place with an employee and that employee has given consent in writing the employer can not deduct any money from salary that is not authorised or required by virtue of a statutory provision. Having a clause in a contract of employment is not enough to authorise deductions in law. Interestingly in the case above the lady had left the company half way through a holiday year at which time she had taken 15 days holiday but would have only been entitled to 10, the employer deducted the 5 excess days from her salary (quite reasonable you would have thought), the result of the case was that they had to pay it back to her as no agreement was in place which was agreed by the employee in writing. This can be applied to most of the problems we see on here where an employer is attempting to deduct money for traing or anything else, no written agreement from the employee and that is the end of the matter no deduction!

OK Thanks Pat, appreciate the response. Just the final question of do I send a copy of the defence to the claimant or does the court do that. Sorry to ask so many questions but this is the first time of dealing with a court claim.

If it is a large company she works for with a centralised HR department at head office I would raise a grievance directly with HR and justify bypassing local management on the basis of their unfair treatment. You often find that it is not a case of an unreasonable company its unreasonable local management.

Any caggers with experience with filing a defence who can take a look over the one I have posted and offer feedback please? Also when I file this do I send two to the court or one to the claimant and one to the court? Finaly if want to quote case law precidents, do I copy the entire case precident verbatum in to my defence of just refer to the case, where would it go in the defence document? Cheers all.

This may help clarify your legal entitlement: Sick pay rights : Directgov - Employment & this: Frequently Asked Questions - BERR I would take a look at your contract of employment and see what is said. It may refer to an employee handbook in which case you will need to consult that. I am no expert on the rules surrounding payment for public holidays whilst sick, however it seems reasonable that you would have been paid for the two public holidays (xmas & Boxing day) if it is normal for your employer to give them. I would recommend having a talk with your HR department or line manager if you do not have HR. I'm sure if you ask they will explain the basis of your payment. They may have made a genuine error.

Removed, will repost after the case is settled..ex-employer reading to much. Sorry

Removed, will repost after the case is settled..ex-employer reading to much. Sorry