See our excerpt from a training refund clause below: This agreement contains the following sections: 1. Payment of course fees 2. Minimum 3. Refund of the tax in case of termination 4. Payment for maintenance 5. Minimum 6. Reimbursement of maintenance in the event of termination We are often asked to design and advise this type of agreement for employers, if applicable. As usual, the answer to the question is whether the agreement is applicable, whether it depends on the circumstances and how well the agreement was drawn up. The applicability of an agreement to reimburse training costs can be really called into question on two legal bases: firstly, because they constitute a penalty clause and, secondly, because they hinder trade. I will look at each of these data one after the other. This pre-employment training reimbursement agreement is intended for employers who wish to make an offer to pay all or a contribution to the costs of a potential worker as part of a training course.
A well-trained workforce is in the interest of all — employers, workers and for the good of the economy as a whole. Employers have long invested considerable sums in training their employees, but since the cost of training is increasing and employees tend to change jobs more often than in the past, many employers are reluctant to invest significant amounts of money in employee training, which then move forward and can allow a competitor to benefit from the skills, that the employee has acquired. One way to reduce the risk of workers leaving courses shortly after taking courses or, at the very least, to reduce the financial cost of leaving is to require the worker to reimburse some or all of the training costs to the employer. The law provides that in the event of a particular event, for example. B of an offence or departure of a worker, a Contracting Party must pay a specified amount, may be applied only if the amount to be paid by the Party is a true forecast of the loss of the other Party. With regard to the impact of this doctrine on an agreement to reimburse training costs, the employer is required to show that the amount it charges the worker to reimburse is a true forecast of his loss. It is not uncommon for employers to require workers to reimburse their training or other professional expenses incurred by the employer on their behalf when they leave their employment relationship. From time to time, an employee will argue that this type of clause is a penalty clause and is therefore not applicable. However, a clause is only interpreted as a sanction if, in some cases, employers try to cover the costs of training “in the workplace”, which is much more difficult for them to quantify the cost. It has been reported that some large companies, such as Capita and FDM, bring in some employees through training programmes that cost very little, but require companies to have people who leave their jobs at the end of the courses repay much larger sums, supposedly up to £18,500. At first sight, it would be a penalty clause and a restriction on trade and would therefore be illegal and unenforceable. We understand that a legal challenge to this type of clause is being initiated.
For example, if an employer sends someone on a course that costs the employer £2,000 and the worker leaves their job as soon as the course ends, then the employer has not benefited from their investment and could legitimately recoup the £2,000 with a duly elaborated agreement. . . .