Workplace Learning Agreements Enforceable

For example, if an employer sends someone on a course that costs the employer $2,000 and the worker leaves his or her job immediately after the end of the course, the employer has not benefited from his investment and could, through a duly drawn-in agreement, legally recover the $2,000. However, if the worker left his or her job after 3 years, then the employer clearly has the benefits of the training for 3 years, so that if they try to recover the $2000, that would be unenforceable, because it would not reflect the loss of the employer. It would probably not be applicable either, given that these are trade restrictions, and we will look at that below. However, if the agreement is properly developed, the employer can generally recover some of the costs of a magnitude that decreases over time, so that after one year after the price closes, for example, they must repay 50% and nothing after 2 years. The numbers on the sliding scale depend on the costs associated with them, and we can discuss them when developing agreements. As the court proceedings mentioned above show, recovery is an ongoing struggle. But, as they show, these agreements are sometimes applicable. Employers will have to determine whether the cost of the procedure and the possible consequences of employee morale are worth it. For many companies that want to develop staff and skills in response to talent shortages, investment in learning can be considerable. What happens when a company invests in staff training, when it stops before the employer sees an advantage of training? Can companies recoup their investments? Compliance with federal, regional and local laws. Employers must ensure that refunds do not lead to minimum wage or overtime violations.

Even for exempt workers, „incorrect deductions“ can cancel their exemption, which throws the employer into the long term for employees. Employers must also consider all applicable collective agreements. In some cases, employers try to recover the cost of „workplace“ training, which is much more difficult for them to quantify. It has been reported that some large companies, such as Capita and FDM, bring some employees through training programs that cost very little, but the company requires people to leave their jobs after the end of the course to pay back much larger sums, allegedly up to $18,500. On the face of it, it would be a punitive clause and also a commercial restriction and therefore illegal and unenforceable.