Repayment of training costs

cla666

Hi, I just wondered if anyone could help in regards to a training clause in my contract that specifies on a sliding scale the amount of training costs that are to be repaid if I left within a certain timeframe.

When taking on the training, I had hoped that I would be in this company for several years. However, a new Manager at head office has made it a very toxic place and a number of us are looking to leave.

My question is: a colleague left at the beginning of the year, largely due to bullying by their line manager. They had been given the same level of training as me and we not made to repay (I think it was largely to keep on their good side as they had good grounds for taking the company to a tribunal).

Can they enforce the clause on one staff member but not on another?

Morally, I know I should repay at least some cost and will enter this discussion once the time comes. Leaving this position probably means I will not be able to complete the training. I just wondered if they could force this clause on me when they have not done so on another employee for the same level of training?

Thanks for your help.

ohreally

cla666 wrote: »

Can they enforce the clause on one staff member but not on another?

Yes.......

nimbo

cla666 wrote: »

Hi, I just wondered if anyone could help in regards to a training clause in my contract that specifies on a sliding scale the amount of training costs that are to be repaid if I left within a certain timeframe.

When taking on the training, I had hoped that I would be in this company for several years. However, a new Manager at head office has made it a very toxic place and a number of us are looking to leave.

My question is: a colleague left at the beginning of the year, largely due to bullying by their line manager. They had been given the same level of training as me and we not made to repay (I think it was largely to keep on their good side as they had good grounds for taking the company to a tribunal).

Can they enforce the clause on one staff member but not on another?

Thanks for your help.

It sounds as though you are still
Undergoing the training? Had they finished the training and was the training cost written off as a kind of settlement?

You could maybe try to use it as a bargaining tool - but if as you say the other employee had a potential grievance they may have done all sorts to sweeten their leaving package.

Have you agreed on your contract or in some kind of agreement that the fees would be paid back on some kind of sliding scale within xxx years? I don't believe that they can apply an agreement retrospectively. If if you've already signed you may be out of luck.

cla666

They hadn't finished the training. They had only just started it and intact, didn't seek other employment and did the training full time, graduating next month.

It is specified in my contract as you stated, its something like 100% if I leave one year, 50% 2 years, 25% 3 years. Im only 2 years into the 3 year course so would have to stay another 4 years to have no cost to pay back.

I will try to appeal to their better nature and the fact that I won't be able to complete it. Its not that I am trying to get it for free, just reduced as I won't actually have the benefit of finishing it. I decided the potential of paying it back was worth getting out of somewhere that was making me miserable.

steampowered

cla666 wrote: »

It is specified in my contract as you stated, its something like 100% if I leave one year, 50% 2 years, 25% 3 years. Im only 2 years into the 3 year course so would have to stay another 4 years to have no cost to pay back.

For a 3 year course, surely the cost would be spread over the three years, rather than paid up front?

Carefully read the exact wording of the contract rather than jumping to conclusions, but I would have thought the payback would only apply to training costs incurred up to the date you left? Saying you have to stay 4 years doesn't sound right?

rdr

It also depends on the training - it is illegal to charge for anything required by health and safety regulations - Section 9 of HASWA 1974

fiisch

In my experience, companies rarely enforce this - have left three jobs previously where technically I have owed a four figure sum for training costs, but in each case they have waived their right to recoup.


I think these clauses are more often than not placed to act as a deterrent. If the training is relevant to your new role, you can negotiate with the future employer and ask if they will pay/contribute towards any costs levied by your current employer.

Helvetica_Van_Buren

cla666 wrote: »

Can they enforce the clause on one staff member but not on another?

Yes, they definitely can.

Undervalued

fiisch wrote: »

In my experience, companies rarely enforce this - have left three jobs previously where technically I have owed a four figure sum for training costs, but in each case they have waived their right to recoup.


I think these clauses are more often than not placed to act as a deterrent. If the training is relevant to your new role, you can negotiate with the future employer and ask if they will pay/contribute towards any costs levied by your current employer.

OK, that was your experience. However plenty of people have experienced the opposite.

Properly drafted, and providing there is a signed agreement, these clauses are enforceable providing the amount reclaimed is reasonable and proportionate.

Regardless, the practical problem is that they can simply deduct the money from your final pay leaving you to fight to get it back if they are in the wrong.

paddyrg

Just to elaborate - the contract between the company and the other person may not even bet the same as the one between the company and you. They may not have had training repayment clauses, but been paid a lower rate and had no pension contributions, or whatever. Point is you only know the agreement you have with them, and that's all that's important.

fiisch

Undervalued wrote: »

OK, that was your experience. However plenty of people have experienced the opposite.

What a strange thing to say... That's exactly why I prefixed my statement with "in my experience"!