Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
ashley84  
#1 Posted : 18 August 2015 13:42:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ashley84


A former colleague left our company after completing his NEBOSH and signing a contract stating if he left within 2 years he would have to pay an amount back he stated he does not have to pay for his NEBOSH course due to it being health and safety training and that it was a necessity for his job role at the time
is this correct or is he still liable to pay.
Granlund40055  
#2 Posted : 18 August 2015 13:58:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Granlund40055

I expect he is still liable to pay as he did not need the qualification to ensure his personal safety at work.

eg a person stacking boxes by hand onto a pallet would require training on how to lift safely, but not how to do a manual handling assessment.
So he would not have to pay back the cost of the essential safety training he received.
But if carrying out assessments was a requirement of the job and the employer provided that training then it is not unreasonable for them to try to ensure a return on their investment.
Steve W1  
#3 Posted : 18 August 2015 14:01:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steve W1

This is not an uncommon request by a company, if they invest in a member of staff they may get the employee to sign to state that they will pay all or part of the investment back if they leave within a certain time span.
I think this is more an HR issue but if you sign a contract you can be liable to pay.
The Company may or may not pursue it and could be well within their rights to do so.
Invictus  
#4 Posted : 18 August 2015 14:26:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

He can't liable if he needed this level of training to do his job. What would be the alternative, lose his job if he didn't take it, so he had to sign.
pete48  
#5 Posted : 18 August 2015 17:54:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

I am not commenting from any legal expertise but from previous experience.
My understanding is that such contractual arrangements are common. They should , however, only cover formal training that enables an employee to gain a skill that will/could be useful elsewhere.
Any disputes as to unlawful deduction, should the clause need to be applied, would be tested against whether the costs/charges are seen as a genuine pre-estimate of the damages/loss that the employer has suffered. If this test is not met then it is considered a penalty on the employee and cannot be enforced. Many such contracts work on a sliding scale where the amount to be repaid reduces the closer to the two years the parting of ways occurs; the logic being that the employer has gained some benefit from the acquired skills/knowledge
Best to check with HR or legal as the matter, as usual, is not clear cut. The fact that it is OSH related training is unlikely to helpful to the employee in this case because the trainig does provide usable skills/knowledge. Hope this helps but please don’t take it as authoritative legal comment.

P48
westonphil  
#6 Posted : 18 August 2015 21:11:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
westonphil

ashley84 wrote:

A former colleague left our company after completing his NEBOSH and signing a contract stating if he left within 2 years he would have to pay an amount back he stated he does not have to pay for his NEBOSH course due to it being health and safety training and that it was a necessity for his job role at the time
is this correct or is he still liable to pay.


What was his job role at the time?

Regards
JoshuaX  
#7 Posted : 18 August 2015 23:56:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JoshuaX

The bottom line really is how much will it cost the company to try and in force it. Whenever I talk to our solicitor they put the clock on at 20 quid for a five minute chat the nebosh course won't take long to be wasted. How much do you think a day in the court will cost? I would ignore all communications unless I needed a reference !
walker  
#8 Posted : 19 August 2015 07:37:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

JoshuaX wrote:
The bottom line really is how much will it cost the company to try and in force it. Whenever I talk to our solicitor they put the clock on at 20 quid for a five minute chat the nebosh course won't take long to be wasted. How much do you think a day in the court will cost? I would ignore all communications unless I needed a reference !


My thoughts exactly
stevedm  
#9 Posted : 19 August 2015 07:37:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Again be careful with the words here...H&S Training it isn't in my mind this is career enhancement or career Training. If him keeping the role was dependant on the qualification then if he failed then he would have been out of a Job....so whatever he signed he signed as a career enhacement not H&S Training.
chris42  
#10 Posted : 19 August 2015 09:09:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

quote=walker]
JoshuaX wrote:
The bottom line really is how much will it cost the company to try and in force it. Whenever I talk to our solicitor they put the clock on at 20 quid for a five minute chat the nebosh course won't take long to be wasted. How much do you think a day in the court will cost? I would ignore all communications unless I needed a reference !


My thoughts exactly


Nothing they will deduct the money from final pay and let the person try and claim - a tribunal cost around £1,200 or something like that, paid for by the employee now.

If I had signed such an agreement say at the start of a contract and I was then asked by the company to gain the NEBOSH qualification, I would have agreed and exemption before I did the course. If I was the one that wanted to do it I would have said nothing and accepted the clause.

I think you have to play fair with the company or they will all never pay for training for anyone. We end up in a situation that they will only take on people with all the qualifications they will eventually need. If this person gained and is now doing a runner for more money? Then - play fair.

Chris




Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.