Clawback of training costs

[misssunshine4040]

Company offer a training course which required an application process.

This is a non accredited course run in house over a year.

The contract states full cost of training (which is over £1000 ) if employee leaves within 12 months and a sliding scale to 24 months.

if this was an professional qualification that was recognised and transferable, I believe that repayment is fair and just.
My issue is that it is not, and there is no opportunity to use the course towards further study or recognition in the industry and essentially only benefits the company by training their staff with the tools they need to effectively do their job.

IABU or is the company correct to charge upon early leaving?

Was the course compulsory?

If it’s in the contract and you agreed to it then yes they are.

The company have invested time out of your day job to do the course so that you can implement the skills in your current role. Frustrating I know but they are in the right to take the money back. We do.

YANBU. If the course can’t benefit you in any other way than if you work for them, then the cots should be all theirs. Investing in staff is a normal business cost. Clearly they can get away with screwing over staff like this, but that’s doesn’t make it right. Are they a horrible company to work for in other ways?

What wage are you on? They can’t take you below national minimum wage even if you agree to the claw back.

1K is very cheap for a course run over a year.
If the course isn't compulsory (needing 'application') then what's the issue?
If it is, my reply would be different.

This ^^

As long as you have a choice then I have no issue. They want to give the time and effort to the people that are planning on staying with the company.

I also find it hard to believe that the course offers no transferable skills, even if it’s not a recognised qualification.

Not all contracts are enforceable by law. Don’t know about this situation though.

If, as you say, the course only provides the participants with the tools to do their job, then it would be mandatory for those lacking those tools. The fact there's an application (and presumably a selection) process seems to indicate against your description of the usefulness of the tools/ skills taught on the course in the outside world.

That and the fact you agreed to repay the costs makes you unreasonable..

Yabu - the course will look good on your cv. It does cost money for the company. Even if the course is not accredited, it’s still something to show you’re learning something to other employers.

you don’t have to do the course - and would know the expectations before starting it.

It will still give you transferable skills, something for your CPD if you record it and go on your CV so it seems reasonable. Their take will be that even if it's only really usable within the company they want to prioritise people committed to staying, or at least cover their costs if they don't.

But actually they can, because that clause in the law excludes clawback from a final wage; and it also doesn't mean that they can't pursue a debt.

It may not be fair, but if the OP does not want to end up in this position then they don't do the course.

I haven't signed anything and I'm fully aware what I would be committing to if I did.

Thanks for the range of opinions. I am feel like it's the only way to get development and I'm annoyed it's not accredited if I'm having to pay if I choose to leave.

I'm annoyed it's not accredited if I'm having to pay if I choose to leave.

There is a very outside possibility that if the cost does not accurately and fairly reflect the actual cost, you could challenge it. But as someone upthread said, £1000 is not a lot of money in the scheme of such things if spread over a year, so I would not be sanguine that such a challenge would succeed.

I think it is reasonable. Once you start the course, the slot is taken and paid for. If you leave, the company cannot just slot another employee in to your slot on the scheme. The repayment scheme being sliding scale after 12 months sounds generous. I've known schemes admittedly higher values than this, where repayment would be required up to three years following course completement.

I think the company are right to try and claw back the money. Even if a course is offered by in house staff - their wages and yours need to be paid for the duration of the course. The company are seeking to avoid investing in training for staff who are planning to leave in the next 1-2 years and those who are planning to leave are less likely to take up a valuable training space. We do exactly the same thing - happy to invest in our team's development but we need to get some value back from the investment - we are a business - not a school. If you aren't planning to stay, don't apply.

Thanks for the input, I can see I am being unreasonable here and see why they are correct in their reasoning

This must be a private sector thing. I’m public sector and we get sent on all sorts of accredited training in order to do our jobs. If they can’t take place in work hours we’re paid overtime to do them and there’s no way staff would have an obligation to pay back costs if they left

That's not correct. I am public sector and much external training has clawback arrangements for a period after the qualification. The big exception is apprenticeships, because it isn't allowed.

I have never heard of a company clawing back the cost of internal training before. Investment in staff development is a normal business cost and they are being tight twats.

But the training OP is describing is not accredited it is internal training to do the job. I worked in the civil service for years and went in many training courses and was never asked to pay back the cost. If they paid for someone to do a degree or something like that then yes you would probably have to pay it back if you left but never internal training.
OP I don't think you are being unreasonable at all.

OP is the training optional and how much time does it take? And does it lead to a promotion - a higher salary? Why would a member of staff choose to go on this training with the prospect of having to pay it back?

Why would a member of staff choose to go on this training with the prospect of having to pay it back?

Thats a really good question. Will the training mean more money for you?

I guess potentially it looks good for being considered for roles in the business as they come up but there is no development path as such

I wasn't saying it was fair. I was saying that public sector employers do claw back, which the poster I directly responded to said they don't.

And nor dud I say the OP was unreasonable. But we don't get to make the rules for their employer. Nor do we make the law. If the OP signs up for this, it's a choice they make and there IS clawback. My opinion on the matter has no relevance. Nor does your opinion.