Posted By Adrian Clifton
We are all aware of the legal requirements to provide training for employees but what is the legal requirement for paying for this training?

I have become aware of an employer who will provide training but requires the employee to pay for it. Personally, I find this totaly reprehensible and demonstrates a complete lack of judgement and uncaring nature.

The question I am asking is, where is it written that training must be provided by the employer AT THE EMPLOYERS' EXPENSE?

Would it be possible to insist that a local authority bus driver has to provide his own bus?

Has any one else come across such an employer?

Adrian.

Posted By Stupendous Man
Sean,

From conversations I have had in the past, it would seem that professional H&S training is not covered by that piece of legislation. That is why you will find many threads on this forum explaining why it is legal to write clawback clauses into employment contracts to reclaim training fees when employees leave within a certain timescale.

It would be nice if it did apply though!

Posted By CFT
Great analogy Sean. And one I would whole heartedly support.

CFT

Posted By holmezy


I find it odd that a company would employ someone, or request of an existing employee that they are required to operate a forklift, then charge them for the training. In the case of FLT, however pays for the certification, owns it, ie the employee, should he decide to leave cannot take the certificate with him. But then its no use to the employer or anyone else.

If the company require you to do something, I would expect them to pay.
If an employee asks to do something that is not a direct benefit to the company, then the company may not pay, but could contribute.

Posted By DRB
The definitive answer can be found in the Framework Directive 89/391. Article 12(1) lays out what training is necessary and is identical to reg 13 of MHSW regs. Article 12(4) clearly states that the training must not be at the workers expense and must take place during working hours.

Posted By Adrian Watson
That's it exactly - Sect 2(2) is a general requirement.

I am not saying that I think it is right or proper; merely that an employer has the right to recover all or some of the costs of the training if they so wish.

Regards Adrian

PS Adrian, yes you can get a bus driver to provide his own bus!

Posted By Pete48
Adrian C, you are imprecise in your post about what type or nature of training we are talking about here.
Remember that as an employer I can employ people with the necessary skills or licences and not have to "pay" for their training. Or I can choose to train an existing employee; if I did that I would feel a pretty strong moral duty to pay for it but I might also be concerned about paying for the person to go elsewhere once trained. So I might have a clawback arrangement.
Finally I might have to provide training "in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevant statutory provisions". There I must pay so perhaps manual handling training might come into that area for example.
I do not need to pay for FLT training since I can adopt either of my first two options. That is, I recognise the duty to train FLT drivers but I can choose where I get them from.
I wouldn't want to work for me but I dont think I am acting unlawfully??

Posted By Simon Shaw
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 requires you to provide whatever information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of your employees.
This is expanded by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which identify situations where health and safety training is particularly important, eg when people start work, on exposure to new or increased risks and where existing skills may have become rusty or need updating.
You must provide training during working hours and not at the expense of your employees. Special arrangements may be needed for part-timers or shift workers.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg345.pdf

Posted By Catman
Hi Adrian

No. The employer cannot charge in either of these cases.

HASWA states that employees must "not charge for anything done or provided to comply with a specific legal obligation".

Your first example is training to comply with the MH regs, second is PUWER. Both specific legal obligations.

Cheers
TW

Posted By Descarte
Agreed in both of those examples employer is to foot the bill as it is a requirement of their job and as stated before, training has to be provided by the employer to ensure the employee can undertake their work safely. How could they do this if they dont know how to operate machinery, or are aware of manual handling issues/proper handling techiniques if their job involves manual labour.

Posted By Catman
Hi Alexander

In my opinion.......

The employer would need to pay in your example.

If you are instructing an employee to do work with gas installations under your corgi registration then you have an obligation to provide training 'to comply with a specific legal obligation'(HASWA).

If however you do not need the employee to do gas work any more (they are just general plumbing, bathrooms etc.) and they ask you if they can go on the course then you could charge them, provided you do not subsequently use them to do gas work.

So in this case the defining factor is whether the training is required to work safely and to comply with a specific legal requirement.

For the record i know there are companies who get round this by saying its occupational training and not safety training. I dont agree.

Cheers
TW

Posted By Martin Mulholland
Simon Shaw has identified the requirement precisely