reimburse a training fee

kokolino23

Hello,

I've been successful at an interview and the company sent me the contract to sign, however one thing caught my attention. Due to the nature of my job, I will require some technical training and the contract mentions the below.

If you terminate your employment within a two-year period of completing any training course that were subsidised by the company, you will be contractually obliged to reimburse the full training fee.

My previous employers didn't have such a lenghty period of time, some of them didn't mention anything like this at all because it's their duty to train the employees if they want them to perfom well in their role.

Other ones had a much more sensible approach regarding this, something like full training fee if you left the role within 6 months of completing a training course, 50% of the cost if you left the role within 6-12 months after the training and 25% for leaving the role after 12-18 months.

2 years seems way too much for me and won't look good if I'll enquiry this because they might think that I didn't even start with them and I'm thinking about this issue?!

I'm not sure how to approach this or if it's illegal to mention such a long period for recovering the training fee.

Thanks

Mark_d

In my view it is not uncommon for the employer to recover the training fee if you leave within 2 years.  This fee is for professional training/qualification which the employer pays - it is not simply guidance on how to do your job.

Are you planning to start this job, get trained by them and then leave within 2 years?

FlorayG

I think they can put whatever they want. Two years does seem a long time but if it is certified training that would enable to you get a job elsewhere and forego the training with the new employer it seems reasonable to me. If it's specific to that company and not useful elsewhere I  would think it less reasonable

Undervalued

kokolino23 said:

Hello,

I've been successful at an interview and the company sent me the contract to sign, however one thing caught my attention. Due to the nature of my job, I will require some technical training and the contract mentions the below.

If you terminate your employment within a two-year period of completing any training course that were subsidised by the company, you will be contractually obliged to reimburse the full training fee.

My previous employers didn't have such a lenghty period of time, some of them didn't mention anything like this at all because it's their duty to train the employees if they want them to perfom well in their role.

Other ones had a much more sensible approach regarding this, something like full training fee if you left the role within 6 months of completing a training course, 50% of the cost if you left the role within 6-12 months after the training and 25% for leaving the role after 12-18 months.

2 years seems way too much for me and won't look good if I'll enquiry this because they might think that I didn't even start with them and I'm thinking about this issue?!

I'm not sure how to approach this or if it's illegal to mention such a long period for recovering the training fee.

Thanks

Properly drafted and subject to a specific agreement these sort of clauses can be enforceable, providing the amount reclaimed is proportionate and reasonable.

From a practical point of view they can stop the amount they feel is due from your final salary payment, right down to zero, meaning you would have to sue them to reclaim any amount that a court might consider excessive.

Marcon

kokolino23 said:

Hello,

I've been successful at an interview and the company sent me the contract to sign, however one thing caught my attention. Due to the nature of my job, I will require some technical training and the contract mentions the below.

If you terminate your employment within a two-year period of completing any training course that were subsidised by the company, you will be contractually obliged to reimburse the full training fee.

My previous employers didn't have such a lenghty period of time, some of them didn't mention anything like this at all because it's their duty to train the employees if they want them to perfom well in their role.

Other ones had a much more sensible approach regarding this, something like full training fee if you left the role within 6 months of completing a training course, 50% of the cost if you left the role within 6-12 months after the training and 25% for leaving the role after 12-18 months.

2 years seems way too much for me and won't look good if I'll enquiry this because they might think that I didn't even start with them and I'm thinking about this issue?!

I'm not sure how to approach this or if it's illegal to mention such a long period for recovering the training fee.

Thanks

Sensible from whose perspective? If a company is going to invest a lot of money in training an employee, it's not unreasonable they should want to reap the rewards of that improved knowledge.

There's nothing 'illegal' about spelling out their intentions in your contract - you know exactly where you stand and it's up to you to decide whether or not to take the job.

But even so, there is nothing to stop you querying it, diplomatically, with your potential employer and seeing if there is any flexibility.

TELLIT01

I would think this is a standard item in the contracts with the specific company.  Alternatively, if the OPs CV shows that they move job frequently it may have been inserted to protect themselves.

lincroft1710

As far as the company is concerned, they understandably don't want to waste money training someone who promptly leaves within a few months. By inserting the 2 year clause they are hoping to get some commitment from the employee.


Decades ago I worked for a High St bank. After being there for about 11 months I was sent on a 5 week in house residential course. 7 months after returning from the course I left the bank. Thank heavens they didn't have such repayment clauses then, it would have probably cost me 6 month's salary!  

TELLIT01

I did read somewhere, probably a previous post on this site that, although they can put the clause in the contract, the company still has to get written agreement from the employee for each course they are to attend to which the clause will be applied.

Grumpy_chap

These types of clauses can be difficult for an employer to enforce if assessed as "restraint of trade".  The trouble with that for the OP is it cannot be tested until leaving after which it is too late if the clause is enforceable.  It is also difficult for the OP to query now without risk of the job offer being withdrawn.

The flat nature of the clause as quoted is harsh - it is more common that the training fee repayable reduces on a sliding scale.

There is a big difference between courses that result in a transferable qualification and training that is specific to the employer but limited value elsewhere - for example specific product or system training.

It may, of course, be a very positive sign that the employer has a progressive scheme for investing and upskilling their staff - who would leave such a committed employer?

It may equally be pretty much moot if the employer never pays for any training anyhow.  [I note the OP commented there is some training on joining.]

DullGreyGuy

Grumpy_chap said:

There is a big difference between courses that result in a transferable qualification and training that is specific to the employer but limited value elsewhere - for example specific product or system training.

There is also a big difference between mandatory training (eg H&S, AML etc) and discretionary training

Grumpy_chap said:

It is also difficult for the OP to query now without risk of the job offer being withdrawn.

They'd have to be an absolute edge case to have an offer withdrawn simply for raising a query. Trying to negotiate it out or introduce a sliding scale could be more likely to have an offer withdrawn but even then it depends on how much hardball the OP tries to play. 

Flatfacedcat

@kokolino23 :
Based on my personal experience finding such statements in the contract may be an indicator that the company treats its employees badly and that is better to stay away from it and choose another company. My corporate experience suggests also that most companies don't include such statements in their employment contract - it's quite rare to find a company that this includes such statements.
Companies where people generally have a good experience working for, know that there are always people who come, people who stay, and people who will go away after few months, because they understand that not every job is for everyone and people must feel on their own skin what is like before deciding to stay or to leave so they know that this "filtering" which happens in both ways from the employer's side and employee's side, is a game of numbers and the optimum way to handle it is to allocate a proper budget for it and structure the training in such a way that even if some employees leave after a month or two the company still has a profit.
For your own curiosity, why not go to Google Maps and read the reviews of previous employees of this company - usually the bad things about the company mentioned in these reviews are true
I learned to stay away from companies that demand any sort of reimbursements from their employees.