Can an employer reclaim training course costs if you leave within 2 years of the course?

Undervalued

Savvy_Sue said:

I think that part of the answer is that if it's just a general statement in the t&c it's not enforceable, it has to be a separate agreement: "we're paying for this training, you'll have to repay us if you leave within two years". 

So, the learning agreement mentioned above. 

And the questions above: what does she get for the training, is it transferable?

If it IS transferable, it is sometimes possible to get the new employer to pay something for it - if they're getting the benefit of your accountancy qualification, that seems entirely reasonable, no?

As I understand it, an agreement like this can be incorporated as part of the employment contract but, unlike other aspects, there does need to be evidence that the employee has positively agreed to it. For that reason it is often a separate agreement which the employee is asked to sign.

Even then a court would only enforce a reasonable a proportionate amount regardless of what percentages are stated in the agreement agreement.

From a practical point of view the employer can simply withhold whatever amount they feel is due from the final salary payment leaving the employee to take action to reclaim the money if they feel it is excessive.  

To answer the OP's original question......

Are such clauses fair and enforceable?

They can be if correctly drafted and are proportionate.

EnPointe

Grumpy_chap said:

Whether such clauses are fair and / or enforceable is a matter of debate and / or the detail of the contract.

It does depend on what the training is or might be, and how transferable the skill is from the training.
I always use two examples
 - First Aid at Work is required in most jobs that I will get.  If an employer pays for my FAaW and I leave, I am taking with me a transferable qualification.
 - Most jobs also require that I do some training on their in-house processes.  Well, this has no transferable element and of no value to me if I leave.

I would not object to repaying a part of the FAaW fee.
I would object to repaying a part of the in-house processes fee.

exactly this  

typically  it's transferrable  qualifications, often 'licences'  or NQF accredited short courses  ( which many FAW are now  )  which are subject to these kinds of claw backs  although sometimes where a 'course'  and then   consilidation + portfolio is the structure of an apprenticeship  - havign the course  in itself can be transferrable  even if you  left  before completign the rest of the apprenticeship 


also if the employer  dismisses  you ( withthe possible except ion of a clear GM dismissal)   in the 2 years  it a  crass for them to  require you  to pay back 

EnPointe

Grumpy_chap said:

Just a note to add.

A year or so back, I was speaking with a company that were offering to sponsor an MBA.  By any definition, this is highly transferable and I would normally have expected a retention / claw-back clause, however there was none.  The reason given was that as the potential employer had structured the MBA to fit within the Apprenticeship framework and, therefore, funded by the Government, it was not permissible to include a retention / claw-back clause.

becauseo f this loophole in apprentceship rules,  the government was funding these Master;s courses  rather than the  organisation using it;s apprentceship levy for  early  to mid career  and/ or initial  Professional qualification education and training 

michaels

EnPointe said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Whether such clauses are fair and / or enforceable is a matter of debate and / or the detail of the contract.

It does depend on what the training is or might be, and how transferable the skill is from the training.
I always use two examples
 - First Aid at Work is required in most jobs that I will get.  If an employer pays for my FAaW and I leave, I am taking with me a transferable qualification.
 - Most jobs also require that I do some training on their in-house processes.  Well, this has no transferable element and of no value to me if I leave.

I would not object to repaying a part of the FAaW fee.
I would object to repaying a part of the in-house processes fee.

exactly this  

typically  it's transferrable  qualifications, often 'licences'  or NQF accredited short courses  ( which many FAW are now  )  which are subject to these kinds of claw backs  although sometimes where a 'course'  and then   consilidation + portfolio is the structure of an apprenticeship  - havign the course  in itself can be transferrable  even if you  left  before completign the rest of the apprenticeship 


also if the employer  dismisses  you ( withthe possible except ion of a clear GM dismissal)   in the 2 years  it a  crass for them to  require you  to pay back 

Thanks, agree with the points around transferable qualifications vs in house training and also the unfairness if for example the firm downsizes and lets go some employees through no fault of their own, then demanding the training budget back seems pretty unfair and possibly gives the firm perverse incentives.

Hoenir

michaels said:

EnPointe said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Whether such clauses are fair and / or enforceable is a matter of debate and / or the detail of the contract.

It does depend on what the training is or might be, and how transferable the skill is from the training.
I always use two examples
 - First Aid at Work is required in most jobs that I will get.  If an employer pays for my FAaW and I leave, I am taking with me a transferable qualification.
 - Most jobs also require that I do some training on their in-house processes.  Well, this has no transferable element and of no value to me if I leave.

I would not object to repaying a part of the FAaW fee.
I would object to repaying a part of the in-house processes fee.

exactly this  

typically  it's transferrable  qualifications, often 'licences'  or NQF accredited short courses  ( which many FAW are now  )  which are subject to these kinds of claw backs  although sometimes where a 'course'  and then   consilidation + portfolio is the structure of an apprenticeship  - havign the course  in itself can be transferrable  even if you  left  before completign the rest of the apprenticeship 


also if the employer  dismisses  you ( withthe possible except ion of a clear GM dismissal)   in the 2 years  it a  crass for them to  require you  to pay back 

Thanks, agree with the points around transferable qualifications vs in house training and also the unfairness if for example the firm downsizes and lets go some employees through no fault of their own, then demanding the training budget back seems pretty unfair and possibly gives the firm perverse incentives.

If the organisation is facing financially challenging times. Then training budgets are some of the easiest areas to impose immediate cuts on. Likewise recruitment of new count. 

itsthelittlethings

I think if I was told I would have to repay a first aid at work course I would decline to be a first aider. Other courses are worth it.

Grumpy_chap

itsthelittlethings said:

I think if I was told I would have to repay a first aid at work course I would decline to be a first aider. Other courses are worth it.

That varies between roles though.

An office-based employee where the requirement is to have a certain ratio of First Aiders to total staff, the course might be entirely optional.

A site based employee may be in an environment where everyone is required to hold a First Aid qualification or not work.

FWIW, I would always take an opportunity for First Aid training.  It might mean I can really help someone one day in a way that is proper life-changing for them.  It might be a stranger.  It might be a dear friend or loved one.

itsthelittlethings

Grumpy_chap said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I think if I was told I would have to repay a first aid at work course I would decline to be a first aider. Other courses are worth it.

That varies between roles though.

An office-based employee where the requirement is to have a certain ratio of First Aiders to total staff, the course might be entirely optional.

A site based employee may be in an environment where everyone is required to hold a First Aid qualification or not work.

FWIW, I would always take an opportunity for First Aid training.  It might mean I can really help someone one day in a way that is proper life-changing for them.  It might be a stranger.  It might be a dear friend or loved one.

I am biased as I have been first aid trained and hate doing it. I don’t think employers should be claiming back first aid training as it’s really for their benefit.

DullGreyGuy

itsthelittlethings said:

Grumpy_chap said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I think if I was told I would have to repay a first aid at work course I would decline to be a first aider. Other courses are worth it.

That varies between roles though.

An office-based employee where the requirement is to have a certain ratio of First Aiders to total staff, the course might be entirely optional.

A site based employee may be in an environment where everyone is required to hold a First Aid qualification or not work.

FWIW, I would always take an opportunity for First Aid training.  It might mean I can really help someone one day in a way that is proper life-changing for them.  It might be a stranger.  It might be a dear friend or loved one.

I am biased as I have been first aid trained and hate doing it. I don’t think employers should be claiming back first aid training as it’s really for their benefit.

In most places I've been there are always more volunteers for being a first aider than is required to maintain the required levels of coverage. This was very different for "Floor Marshals", esp after they removed the fire extinguisher live exercise from the training. 

Many seem to just want it as a skill in general, some places also offered a token payment for all qualified first aiders which always attracts a few more. Never been anywhere where people have been forcibly made to do FA in an office environment. 

Hoenir

itsthelittlethings said:

Grumpy_chap said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I think if I was told I would have to repay a first aid at work course I would decline to be a first aider. Other courses are worth it.

That varies between roles though.

An office-based employee where the requirement is to have a certain ratio of First Aiders to total staff, the course might be entirely optional.

A site based employee may be in an environment where everyone is required to hold a First Aid qualification or not work.

FWIW, I would always take an opportunity for First Aid training.  It might mean I can really help someone one day in a way that is proper life-changing for them.  It might be a stranger.  It might be a dear friend or loved one.

I am biased as I have been first aid trained and hate doing it. I don’t think employers should be claiming back first aid training as it’s really for their benefit.

I doubt that this wil fall under the guise of recoverable training.