About Coventry Law Centre : Law Centre news

£24,000 payout for apprentice

17 October 2006

Coventry Law Centre has secured just over £24,000 compensation for a young man working in Coventry who had his apprenticeship wrongly terminated by his employer.

James Lloyd, 22, of Nuneaton, started an apprenticeship with Federal Mogul Sintered Products Limited in August 2000. He was employed as a maintenance technician apprentice and was expecting to work for the company for four years. He had signed a standard apprenticeship deed and what was called a ‘modern apprenticeship pledge’. The company dismissed him before the end of his apprenticeship and Mr Lloyd bought a claim of unfair dismissal in the Birmingham Employment Tribunal.

The Tribunal had to decide whether Mr Lloyd had a claim for unfair dismissal for both the way in which he was treated and the reason for his dismissal, which was alleged to be his attendance record. It also had to decide whether he was a genuine apprentice and whether therefore the company were not entitled to end his apprenticeship before the end of the four year period.

Historically, a company taking on apprentices was not entitled to end the apprenticeship and had very few rights to dismiss without running the risk of breaching the apprenticeship agreement and being liable for damages. In this case however there was much argument about whether or not a ‘modern apprenticeship agreement’ really amounted to an old fashioned style apprenticeship.

The Tribunal concluded that it did and that Mr Lloyd had been dismissed wrongfully as the company had no rights to terminate his apprenticeship when they did, and that also he had been unfairly dismissed, as they found that the company’s absence policy was inherently unfair and that the disciplinary hearing had not been conducted fairly and that no reasonable employer would have sacked Mr Lloyd in the way and for the reasons they did.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of £20,000 for the breach of his apprenticeship contract and £4,000 for unfair dismissal. The damages took account of the significant effect on Mr Lloyd’s future earning capacity as, having not been able to complete his apprenticeship, has significantly impacted on his career prospects. Mr Lloyd has just received the cheque from the company and is delighted that he has received compensation for the treatment that he received. He is looking forward to using the compensation to help the business which he has set up renovating and selling cars.

Fiona Monk from Coventry Law Centre, who represented Mr Lloyd at the Employment Tribunal, said “The Tribunal’s decision is a very interesting one and should make employers consider when they take on apprentices whether they have any right to terminate the apprenticeship early. Young men and women who commit themselves to apprenticeships do so in the belief that they will be trained for a trade or profession and it is quite appropriate that they get additional protection from the Law to ensure that they are not treated unfairly. The size of this award should send a warning signal to employers to think very carefully before terminating the employment of any apprentices.”