I’m sure someone with a HR background will correct me…

I would say no. Why? Well, the first aid, for example. The employer has a legal requirement to provide this in the workplace. Whilst the employee might be walking away with a (circa) three year left on their ticket, the employer has fulfilled their legal requirement.
It’s a win – win as I see it. Effectively it’s an essential requirement for the employer.

All that said, it’s an opinion rather than any hard facts.

I beleive that if it was done in the interests of health and safety then you are sunk.
As already stated though, it is a HR thing.

Looking at it from a time management perspective....is it worth pursuing. Presuming you are CITB Registered and able to claim the grant your'e probably looking at a loss of around £300 - 350, time and resources to chase this wouldn't seem practical to me.

If you're a small company I would look at reviewing your recruitment process/pre-requisites for each vacant role. There are a lot of experienced people out there with said qualifications.

Just my opinion of course, and I'm told I've always got one :/

That sounds sensible to me.
maybe your management wants to look at ways of retaining the workforceI

Don't ask the barrack room lawyers, ask a real one.

Legal or not, as Walker said if the company take this route and reclaim costs from the individual it'll undo a massive amount of goodwill among employees when it comes to training to fulfill the companies obligations (Fire Warden / First Aid, etc), they may find it very difficult getting anyone on-board for future sessions.

mmmmm

So all your company need do is sack everyone every 23 months and the company will never pay safety training costs ever again.

I would refuse to sign any such paperwork, unless it was for training that the company didn't specifically need and I wanted to do to further my career (for which they would also get some benefit). That way if the company really wanted me to do it, they pay and no come back on me.

If it was in my contract at the start and I felt refusing would cost me a job I wanted, then I would refuse the training. I might be willing to negotiate that if I was to chose to go then a portion could be payable, but not if their choice.

Section 13 and 14 of the employment rights act dont allow such clauses or for yoy to re-coup and quite rightly so.

Im curious ast to why you ask this qestion on a health and safety website surely HR would be better but Im more curious as to why you would care what the training cost are surely as a H&S professional your only concern is the training is carried out. and just for the record feel free to tell your MD that there is no such thing as unemployment law!

Training contracts are relatively common place, especially where training is for ‘developmental’ purposes rather than statutory. A sliding scale is usual, something along the lines of the amount that can be reclaimed by the employer decreasing as time moves on.

Quote #16 – “Section 13 and 14 of the employment rights act dont allow such clauses or for yoy to re-coup and quite rightly so.”.

I would say that deductions CAN be made under section 13 (1) (a) & (b) of the Employment Rights Act if this forms part of the contract and the worker has signed and agreed to this. At least having read it, that’s what it seems to say to me! The link provided at #13 also seems to suggest the same!

However, the mere presence of a signed contract doesn’t in itself mean that the deduction can be made unless it is ‘reasonable’ (i.e. that it was a fair contract term). There is case law on this that might be relevant although I can’t recall the specific case, but in essence I seem to recall that the reclaim by the employer must be proportionate or commensurate with the ‘loss’ incurred, hence the use of sliding scales. i.e. if an employee (who has signed such a contract) decides to leave their employment shortly after completing training or qualification, then it might be reasonable for the employer to seek to reclaim all or most of the costs, although this wouldn’t be reasonable 5 years down the line.

This IS an HR/payroll issue and if necessary they will take legal advice.