Ultimately, employers have to decide for themselves – but with the help of experienced consultants – whether they will take on the conditions for reimbursing the training. In some cases, employers try to cover the costs of “on-the-job” training, making it 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. This is an asset for employers. Reimbursement agreements for employer-sponsored education programs remain applicable. Usually, at least. The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from another set of cases, In re Acknowledgment Cases, where the same court refused the City of Los Angeles` attempt to recover certain training fees imposed by the employer on police officers who had resigned prematurely. The main differences were that the L.A. program was both mandatory and professional, while the USS-POSCO program was voluntary and the training was transferable to other jobs. So here`s the realization that employers can require employees to reimburse education costs if the employee resigns prematurely, as long as the education program was both voluntary and not specific to the employer`s operation. Floyd Case participated in a three-year, employer-sponsored voluntary education program that would allow him to become a Maintenance Technical Engineer (MTE).

Comments are closed.