Paying training fees back

Undervalued

Malthusian wrote: »

Maybe. Just because you haven't signed a contract (at the time) it doesn't mean there isn't one. If, for example, the employee handbook says that you have to repay training costs if you leave within a certain time, that forms part of his employment contract. What does his original employment contract or the employee handbook (if any) say?

The fact that he signed the new contract six months after the fact does not help him much if it represented company policy at the time he started the course and the company can prove it.

How long ago was this? If he changed his mind about leaving, did the course, then left anyway six months later once he'd secured the qualification, he probably is liable to pay it back. If he isn't, the company has been very careless.

What you say about not signing contracts is true for almost all purposes except this one. For training costs to be recoverable there must be a specific agreement in place. That can form part of the general contract of employment but, for this purpose alone, it would need to be signed to be binding on the employee. Even then the amount recovered would need to be proportionate and reasonable.

The usual problem is that the employer just goes ahead and deducts the amount from the final pay leaving the employee to pursue a claim to recover it. Even if they are successful it inevitable sours the relationship and can adversely affect future references etc.

Rachylou1981

Undervalued wrote: »

What you say about not signing contracts is true for almost all purposes except this one. For training costs to be recoverable there must be a specific agreement in place. That can form part of the general contract of employment but, for this purpose alone, it would need to be signed to be binding on the employee. Even then the amount recovered would need to be proportionate and reasonable.

The usual problem is that the employer just goes ahead and deducts the amount from the final pay leaving the employee to pursue a claim to recover it. Even if they are successful it inevitable sours the relationship and can adversely affect future references etc.

We definitely would rather find a way to pay than have the last wage affected or go to court. Regardless of the dismissal and other issues, he is leaving amicably and they are really sad he is going.

steampowered

Yes, it is perfectly legal to have a contract which says training costs must be repaid if the employee leaves within a certain period of time.

Can't he just suck it up for the full 12 months?

Otherwise I suspect the employer will deduct everything it can from his final salary (perhaps the full month's salary), and ask him to pay back the rest.

There could always be a possibility of threatening to sue the employer for the unfair dismissal and/or the breach of contract, in an attempt to get them to agree not to ask for repayment of training costs if he agrees not to pursue the unfair dismissal. We'd need a lot more details about what happened to know if that is a viable option though.

Undervalued

steampowered wrote: »

Yes, it is perfectly legal to have a contract which says training costs must be repaid if the employee leaves within a certain period of time.

Can't he just suck it up for the full 12 months?

Otherwise I suspect the employer will deduct everything it can from his final salary (perhaps the full month's salary), and ask him to pay back the rest.

There could always be a possibility of threatening to sue the employer for the unfair dismissal and/or the breach of contract, in an attempt to get them to agree not to ask for repayment of training costs if he agrees not to pursue the unfair dismissal. We'd need a lot more details about what happened to know if that is a viable option though.

But only if the employee has positively accepted that term. As I understand it, unlike most other aspects of an employment contract, simply turning up and working is not sufficient to be bound by a training repayment term.

Savvy_Sue

If the qualification is of use to the new employer, it is worth asking if they will pay for at least some of the training costs.

Malthusian

@Undervalued: Thanks, I stand corrected.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

If the qualification is of use to the new employer, it is worth asking if they will pay for at least some of the training costs.

Costs already incurred? If he didn't have the qualification they probably would have given someone else the job. At a seniority level where qualifications cost five grand, he might be able to negotiate a golden handshake, but realistically it sounds too late for that.

I would actually be very wary of saying to a new employer "I got my previous employer to pay for this qualification so I could jump ship to this job as soon as I'd got it*, but now they want the money back. Could you pay it for me instead?" They're going to be loath to pay for the next stage of his professional development after hearing that...

*I entirely accept that this was not what the OP's partner was doing, but that is what it looks like.

Savvy_Sue

Malthusian wrote: »

Costs already incurred? If he didn't have the qualification they probably would have given someone else the job. At a seniority level where qualifications cost five grand, he might be able to negotiate a golden handshake, but realistically it sounds too late for that.

I would actually be very wary of saying to a new employer "I got my previous employer to pay for this qualification so I could jump ship to this job as soon as I'd got it*, but now they want the money back. Could you pay it for me instead?" They're going to be loath to pay for the next stage of his professional development after hearing that...

Obviously it needs to be a well worded request, but I know one accountant who did just that: moved on 'too soon' after completing his training, but his new employer agreed to pay what the old one was asking to be repaid.

steampowered

Undervalued wrote: »

But only if the employee has positively accepted that term. As I understand it, unlike most other aspects of an employment contract, simply turning up and working is not sufficient to be bound by a training repayment term.

Yes, but Op said "Yes he did sign a contract"

elsien

I don't think the "you have to pay it in one month" would be enforceable without taking it to court. At which point if he couldn't afford it, a payment plan would have to be agreed, and although it would stuff up his credit record it would also be a PITA for them.
So could he pre-empt that by saying that he can't afford to pay it back that quickly, and offering terms that he can afford and which they find acceptable - saves a lot of hassle all round.

sangie595

elsien wrote: »

I don't think the "you have to pay it in one month" would be enforceable without taking it to court. At which point if he couldn't afford it, a payment plan would have to be agreed, and although it would stuff up his credit record it would also be a PITA for them.
So could he pre-empt that by saying that he can't afford to pay it back that quickly, and offering terms that he can afford and which they find acceptable - saves a lot of hassle all round.

Yes they can enforce it - it is a final salary and the person appears to owe the employer the money. There is nothing to stop the employer taking the full salary, and it is not unlawful for them to do so. A payment plan for any remainder may be agreed, but that is up to the employer. And if the money is owed, then the person needs to be careful about it going to court - what the person thinks are essential living costs will not be what the court thinks are. Any payment plan enforced by a court could reduce their living costs to a very basic level - if you are in debt, you do not "need" satellite tv, days or nights out, and lots of shopping. Many employers no longer believe the "repayment offers" because they lost for a couple of months before the person Asos paying. So, from their point of view, taking that lump sum saves them haggle.