Legal question re traiing costs recovery by firm

[Psychobert]

Quick question. Friend of mine has recently started a new job and was asked to sign a contract which stated that if she left within a certain period, (180 days I think), she would have to refund the initial training fees to the company (£500 IIRC). The training was only a couple of days in front of an OHP, so hardly anything to be too excited about..

The job seems ok, but is really a way of keeping head above water until the right job is found, (i.e. 1st job out of college).

Is this sort of contract legally enforecable? I think not, (Eurpoean Human Rights and all that).

[Sparks]

Not sure if it is enforceable, but it is not uncommon. I have had it written into a contract before (although it was around 3K worth) on a decreasing basis over 2 years.
I think (well in my case) it is morally acceptable (I could have taken the training, and got a better job, without providing any 'return' to the company). 500 quid however seems a little petty.

Citizens advice' may be able to help

Sparks

[agent006]

Yes, bus companies do this if they pat for teh PCV test and training.

[edc]

It normally applies to extra or further training rather than induction style training. I think it's pretty tight of a company to charge you for training which is essential to carry out the job. Training which expands yur skilset so you can carry out additional work is a bit different.

[bobthebench]

Yep, it's enforceable unless excessive. Quite common and acceptable for up to two years. Can also be used to prevent taking a job in the same business for a period of time too.

[JamieBeeston]

bobthebench said:

Can also be used to prevent taking a job in the same business for a period of time too.

Doesnt the Bosman ruling affect this tho ?

Given that its illegal to restrict the flow of trade within the EU.

Was always my interpretation.

[Sparks]

JamieBeeston said:

bobthebench said: Can also be used to prevent taking a job in the same business for a period of time too. Doesnt the Bosman ruling affect this tho ? Given that its illegal to restrict the flow of trade within the EU. Was always my interpretation.

It doesn't prevent movement, just makes it damn expensive (as I found out!).

Sparks

[edc]

Restrictive covenants. I signed one at my old place about not doing business with any of my old clients. Did I really adhere to it? Er, no!

[bga]

It's pretty standard for firms who sponsor MBA's, you have to stay for x months or payback a certain amount. Lots of "Big" firms do it so would be surprised if it's illegal as they would have been sued by now.

[JamieBeeston]

aah, crossed wires here.

Yes I am sure they can demand repayment of fees, with menace.

But they cant say 'YOU CAN NOT WORK IN THE SAME SECTOR, OR FOR A CUSTOMER, OR COMPETITOR' was my point.

[bga]

Quite a few firms will insert a competitor clause if they are making someone redundant e.g. we will give you £xK blah blah but you can't work for a competitor. I suppose the you are agreeing that as part of the payout and therefore would have to pay some back if you were to go to a competitor??
IIRC in the US working for a competitor can violate the law in regards to passing on commercial information. I think it works on the premise that you pick up information that you don't automatically associate with belonging to company x. When you go to company y you may pass on some info which is sensitive.
I may be talking b0llocks but I'm sure I heard it somewhere and it was one of those "only in America" momnets.

[JamieBeeston]

hmm

it might be tied into the redundency, but then once paid, I cant see how they could demand it back. as technically your outside of their remit.. tho it might be enforcable as a seperate, over and above basic, redundency..

I dont know.. but I was just under the impression (and fought with HR Manager at my last job, previously when they tried to insert the same claue into my last contract) that it wasnt legal.

They consulted their ppl, and withdrew the clause unilaterally.