Employer claiming back cost of training on resignation?!

MarkNewby

Hello,

My boyfriend has just been offered a job which has much better working conditions than his current one. He spoke to his manager today, who said that he would have to repay the costs of the training he has received since he has been in the company for less than 12 months.

Am I right in thinking that this company is being a bunch of shady scaremongerers? The contract he signed did state this (he's only just noticed this part), however surely it's an unenforcable area basicaly designed to try and bankroll the companies recruitment.

He has spent 3 months sat around doing nothing but being told to read books from a company library while others in the company kept getting given a lot more to do; naturally there's only so much of that he can take!

Any advice is greatly appriciated,
Mark.

dmg24

The clause is quite standard, and quite legal. Indeed it is quite generous, some companies enforce such a clause for three years.

simpywimpy

Have to agree with dmg24, it is enforceable. He will have to have a word and see if they will let him off!

Hemel_2

Hi Marknewby,

Unfortunately it is perfectly enforcable, and I have previously enforced it as the employee literally wanted to leave straight after their course (they handed in their notice after we forked out £1500 in their development), we reclaimed the monies from their final salary. :sad:

LittleVoice

If he's just been reading books from the company's library, how are they working out the cost of his training?

MarkNewby

That's what I was wondering - also I think a key word might be cost? If he's attended a seminar held by a member of staff with 20 or so colleagues in the room, surely the highest 'cost' they can ask for is:

- member of staffs' pay for the time he was in the room
- printing and ink for any handouts and the time taken to prepare them
- heating, electricity, water and rent for the specific room in the specific time.
(all divided by 20 (as he was one of 20 attendees)).

Had they have said 'price', they could then claim more, couldn't they?

Also the things in the company library - he can't keep the literature the company wrote itself, meaning they aren't his copies. Therefore he'd only have to pay for the 'cost' of borrowing these; a nominal fee of £2 each like a library?

Thanks for the quick reply to the first post guys, really is a great website this.

Conor_3

I think that what he's been doing the last few months is reading - not that that was his training.

Recovering costs for training if you leave early is commonplace in the haulage sector too.

cazziebo

company I worked for had a three year term for this. How great did it feel when you reached that three year threshold knowing you could leave without paying it all back.

Very normal and very enforecable.

Hemel_2

sorry, i didnt read your post properly...

If he has just read books, I find that hardly training in the same respect as a development course etc...

can he speak to HR or his union rep for advice?

Sorry for misreading your earlier post.

Zazen999

Hi Mark

This clause is usually used for reclaiming back monies spent on training someone up who then uses that knowledge/experience to gain a better position.

I would ask within the resignation letter to clarify the recently mentioned 'training' as he cannot recall being sent on any courses. Keep it pleasant and inquisitive; rather than accusatory; as if it had slipped your bf's mind. I would suspect he won't get an answer as they would have to break it down and detail all training activity and put a cost to each intervention.

Darth_Trader

Hi

I presume the training referred to is 'external' training courses - which can be very expensive! So I agree with Zazen and Hemel regarding the company's position for simply 'reading some books'; best to enquire.