This is where a training reimbursement contract is concluded – it`s a way for companies to make sure they don`t lose financially if they pay for the development of their employees. In addition, the emphasis on learning and development can help increase employee engagement and retention. However, it is important for employers that it can also be used to indicate when a worker might be responsible for reimbursement of these training costs and how that reimbursement would work. In particular, it can determine whether these costs are reimbursed when an employee leaves the company shortly after the end of the training. If the cost of the course is relatively low, the training contract could come from the employee`s last salary. If it costs more, employers could establish a more structured payment plan. As has already been said, the other basis on which reimbursement of training costs cannot be imposed if it is restreignable. Courts will allow employers to protect their legitimate business interests, for example by imposing well-developed and reasonable post-employment restrictions, but they will not allow employers to unduly warn a worker who changes jobs if they wish. The provisions relating to the reimbursement of training places, even if it is a real estimate of the injury, can be considered a commercial restriction if they prevent the worker`s change of employment. Certainly, it seems likely that the type of provisions allegedly introduced by people like Capita would lead to workers leaving their jobs, so that they can be considered unenforceable. Under the act, a provision that a party of the other party must pay a specified amount in the event of a particular event. For example, an offence or a worker who would clear his employment, a specified amount is enforceable only if the amount the party must pay is a real estimate of the loss of the other party.
With respect to the impact of this doctrine on an agreement on the reimbursement of training costs, it will be up to the employer to demonstrate that the amount it wishes to reimburse by the employee is a real estimate of its loss. However, in some situations, small businesses also need to protect the investments they make in their employees. D-D doesn`t always cost Earth, but some courses or job qualifications can be very expensive – if an employee ends up leaving his company just after completing a training that your company has paid for, he could seriously pull you out of your pocket. If a training agreement has the practical effect of “capturing” an employee in his or her current role, it may well be considered unenforceable. Some training agreements operate in a kind of sliding scale, where the longer the employee stays in the company, the less he must be reimbursed if he decides to continue. For other companies, the training contract is a little black and white, with a set deadline indicating when the employee is no longer responsible for refunds. The second thing to think about when implementing training agreements is the idea of “trade restriction.” As we have already said, training agreements are designed to protect businesses from losing their investments – but the law will not allow an employer to use them to unreasonably prevent someone from changing jobs. A training agreement is a written agreement between an employer and its employee, which defines the conditions of each training that the company pays for them. It defines the cost of training, who is successful in training and who is the primary culprit.