Do anyone know?

Coniff

It can be a real minefield for the employer, depending on the quality of the drafting used when the Apprenticeship Agreement was drafted.

Normally, the employer will be under a duty to seek suitable employers where the apprentice could have been transfered to before making him/her redundant.

The bottom line is that you need to read the agreement, check what provision it made for termination, including by way of redundancy, and come back.

If an apprentice is wrongfully dismissed he may have a claim for enhanced damages by reason of the loss of his prospects as a tradesman on completion of his apprenticeship (Dunk v George Waller & Son Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 630, , CA). See also Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd , QBD. The case concerned an apprentice sheet metal worker who was dismissed for reason of redundancy after 19 months and claimed damages for breach of contract, arguing that the contract was one of apprenticeship and therefore not subject to a redundancy dismissal. This was held to be the case and the matter was remitted for damages to be assessed, presumably on the basis that the contract should have been one for four years.

Che

Thanks elche

It says on her employment contract (not exact words, I don't have it in front of me) Apprentice for a term of 4 years.

It says on her employment contract (not exact words, I don't have it in front of me) Apprentice for a term of 4 years.

See if you can get a copy, and check what provision it made for termination.

I have seen recently some very poorly drafted agreements that neglected to make adequate provision for termination - remembering of course that in law a redundancy is still a dismissal.

Ultimately the employee could find that they are entitled to a sizeable damages award because they have numerous heads of claim.

See:

In Flett v Matheson 2006 ICR 673, CA, F worked under a ‘Modern Apprenticeship agreement’, which operated as a tripartite arrangement between him, the ‘employer’ and a Government-sponsored training provider. When he was dismissed without notice, he brought a breach of contract claim before an employment tribunal. The issue was whether F was to be regarded as employed under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship, or neither. This was important because, were he employed under a contract of apprenticeship, he could seek damages in excess of £ 50,000 in respect of lost earnings and the potential diminution of his future prospects. If, on the other hand, he worked under a contract of employment, his claim would be limited to one week’s pay for being dismissed without proper notice. The Court of Appeal concluded that the tripartite arrangement had the essential ingredients of an apprenticeship; namely, it secured wages for the apprentice for the duration of an apprenticeship; training enabling him or her to acquire valuable skills; and status in the labour market following successful completion of the training. The fact that part of the training was provided by a third party did not deny the contract the classic qualities of apprenticeship.

Che

S

See:

 

In Flett v Matheson 2006 ICR 673, CA, F worked under a ‘Modern Apprenticeship agreement’, which operated as a tripartite arrangement between him, the ‘employer’ and a Government-sponsored training provider. When he was dismissed without notice, he brought a breach of contract claim before an employment tribunal. The issue was whether F was to be regarded as employed under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship, or neither. This was important because, were he employed under a contract of apprenticeship, he could seek damages in excess of £ 50,000 in respect of lost earnings and the potential diminution of his future prospects. If, on the other hand, he worked under a contract of employment, his claim would be limited to one week’s pay for being dismissed without proper notice. The Court of Appeal concluded that the tripartite arrangement had the essential ingredients of an apprenticeship; namely, it secured wages for the apprentice for the duration of an apprenticeship; training enabling him or her to acquire valuable skills; and status in the labour market following successful completion of the training. The fact that part of the training was provided by a third party did not deny the contract the classic qualities of apprenticeship.

 

Che

wish id known this back in 1997, my first job on leaving college was a modern apprenticeship that i got sacked from after 2 months service, as the muppet who took me on didnt realise that as part of my contract i was to be allowed 3 days a week leave to attend an engineering course at college, so the asshole sacked me, because he thought he was getting a teaboy/skivvy

wish id known this back in 1997, my first job on leaving college was a modern apprenticeship that i got sacked from after 2 months service, as the muppet who took me on didnt realise that as part of my contract i was to be allowed 3 days a week leave to attend an engineering course at college, so the asshole sacked me, because he thought he was getting a teaboy/skivvy

It's all easy with hindsight mate!

Oh well, no point crying over spilt milk .... and all that.

Still a bummer though

Che

I've done some reading starting with the Flett v Matheson which lead onto other things and can quote a bit from the regulations as read by an employment specialist company:

If the employer terminates the agreement early, thereby depriving the apprentice of the training, the apprentice is entitled to claim damages for wrongful dismissal under the contract for the remainder of the fixed-term apprenticeship and also damages for future loss of earnings and prospect as a qualified person.

This is still the case even if the apprentice is a poor performer or is having difficulty passing any necessary exams or if he has a conduct problem such as poor timekeeping or poor attendance record.

Even a genuine redundancy situation such as a downturn in work, would not entitle the employer to dismiss the apprentice early, regardless of length of service.

What if the employer is arguing that you aren't actually an apprentice because you never signed a deed of apprenticeship/indenture.

I have been treated as an apprentice, attending apprentice's dinner with the management and being put forward for apprentice of the year (and coming in the top ten for the area!) and also the training provider I take wednesday mornings off to study with has documents signed by my supervisor which class me as an apprentice!