Not only would your company not be able to benefit from paid training in the short term, but it could also, in the end, pay again for the same training if it makes a replacement. Factor in the lower costs inherent in any recruitment process and you can see how this could possibly leave a small business in a really difficult position. In some cases, employers try to recover the cost of “workplace” training, which is much more difficult for them to quantify. It has been reported that some large companies, such as Capita and FDM, bring some employees through training programs that cost very little, but the company requires people to leave their jobs after the end of the course to pay back much larger sums, allegedly up to $18,500. On the face of it, it would be a punitive clause and also a commercial restriction and therefore illegal and unenforceable. We understand that there is a legal challenge to these types of clauses. According to estimates for 2012, 14 to 19% of employers declare a compensation agreement for training costs with one or more of their employees. This percentage is higher in large companies. Among employees, the percentages are 9 to 12%, the rates are higher for the youngest, Estonians (compared to other nationalities) and the most educated. However, it is important for employers that it can also be used to indicate when a worker might be responsible for reimbursement of these training costs and how that reimbursement would work.
In particular, it can determine whether these costs are reimbursed when an employee leaves the company shortly after the end of the training. Under the act, a provision that a party of the other party must pay a specified amount in the event of a particular event. For example, an offence or a worker who would clear his employment, a specified amount is enforceable only if the amount the party must pay is a real estimate of the loss of the other party. With respect to the impact of this doctrine on an agreement on the reimbursement of training costs, it will be up to the employer to demonstrate that the amount it wishes to reimburse by the employee is a real estimate of its loss.