Posted By peter gotch John Section 9 deals with things provided in pursuance of any "SPECIFIC" requirement of the relevant statutory requirements. Your training is an attempt to meet general requirements; therefore you cannot expect to successfully argue that Section 9 prohibits your employer from the common (though not necessarily sensible) practice of applying "claw back" arrangements where staff change jobs during or soon after expensive development training. My own view is that claw back is counter-productive since many new employers will simply take the hit on behalf of their recruit, as a sort of golden handshake. What you are effectively saying to your staff is that you do not intend to motivate them to WANT to stay! Regards, Peter

Posted By John Murgatroyd Well, according to the employment rights act 1996 anything that they paid for BEFORE the amendment to your CoE cannot be charged for. AND you didn't NEED to sign the new contract anyway. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996018.htm And then there is the other problem, was the training necessary to enable you to carry-out your employment safely ? Or was it training purely to enhance your career prospects ? Or to enable your employer to offer a greater range of services ? In short, did the training enhance your career prospects or your employers services for sale ?

Posted By Sean Fraser I am stunned that there are companies that are so mean and money-grabbing and mean that they would charge their own people for essential training - but somehow, sadly, not surprised. If the training is specified as being required by the employer (either directly or indirectly through the provision of a business-to-business contract) then this must be free of charge to the employee - for the latter there would be an argument for the supplier to on-charge the costs to the client but that is between them. This is a moral as well as legal principle, but one like many that is openly ignored and flouted - they should be ashamed. However, I feel that the short-sighted approach being typified in the original post is endemic in certain industries, especially those that still seem to believe it is perfectly acceptable to charge employees and contractors for provision of PPE, which is in direct contrast to the spirit of the law. But as we have seen many times on this forum, there are many employers who argue the letter of the law by attempting to obfiscate the issue as to what constitutes an "employer" and so on. All this leads to is a short-term "win" but misses out on the opportunity for the longer term gains. An educated and informed workforce is a safe and hence profitable workforce - an ignorant blinkered workforce is heading for disaster for ALL concerned. Failure to grasp this simple tenet is sadly all too common. I thoroughly agree with the poster who said the company will, sooner or later, feel the negative impacts of such a policy through higher turnover and difficulty in recruitment, not to mention the increased exposure to litigation through their deliberate policy of discouraging training. I should make my stance clear on this issue - I have no objection to fair terms applied by employers who "support" continuing education of employees where fees can be clawed back if the employee then leaves within a specified period - after all, the objective of the employer was to benefit from the education of the employee which can no longer be realised. But once the period is up, they should not be expected to reclaim the cost of their "investment" - to do so is unfair and unscrupulous, downright disgraceful. As a proponent of W. Edwards Deming I firmly believe that corporations who fully support any and all training and education of their employees through time and money can only benefit in the long run. The term "any and all" includes subjects that are not even business related, directly or otherwise. Even just the process of learning motivates and encourages employees to be more enquiring and resourceful, general skills that cannot be taught, only fostered and encouraged. A learning workforce will be more flexible and responsive to change, as their world view expands and deepens. Take away the "cost" issue and companies would be suprised at the positive response it would engender. Conversely, constant griping and worrying over the cost sets up a negative impression that discourages people from even asking for it, let alone participate. So asking for the money back regardless means that the company will soon be assured of keeping their cost of training down to absolute zero - once they go out of business and have no employees at all!

Posted By Robert Paterson Just a wee thought here. What about Section 2(2) where the Act lays down a specific duty on Employers in relation to information, instruction , TRAINING and supervision. Any comments on that. Regards Robert Paterson