If you are trying to adopt refund agreements, there are a few important things to consider. As the court proceedings mentioned above show, recovery is an ongoing struggle. But, as they show, these agreements are sometimes applicable. Employers will have to determine whether the cost of the procedure and the possible consequences of employee morale are worth it. 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. “Reflection” is an exchange of things or promises of value. If the salary of your training is the consideration of them to you – it`s something of value.

And if you agree to repay that money if you stop or resign, you really agree that you don`t stop or resign, that is, you continue to work for them for as long as they want you. This implicit promise is a valuable thing, and therefore your attention to it. A written agreement in which the conditions are clear that you will re-reduce training fees if you leave voluntarily (i.e. you stop) will be an enforceable contract. If you stop but don`t pay, your employer could sue you for the money. The agreements to reimburse your employer for training costs are valid and enforceable. So if you have agreed to reimburse your employer, if you stop, you must do so. The courts have also gone the other way.

In Los Angeles in 2015, a fourth district appeals court made an unpublished statement that former police officers who left the LAPD could not be forced to repay their training to the city. Because the city implemented a larger and more expensive training program than minimum certification, it became an employer-imposed burden that the city had to bear, not public servants, the panel concluded. The refund contract was found to be unenforceable. Some training agreements operate in a kind of sliding scale, where the longer the employee stays in the company, the less he must be reimbursed if he decides to continue. For other companies, the training contract is a little black and white, with a set deadline indicating when the employee is no longer responsible for refunds. For example, if an employer sends someone on a course that costs the employer $2,000 and the worker leaves his or her job immediately after the end of the course, the employer has not benefited from his investment and could, through a duly drawn-in agreement, legally recover the $2,000. However, if the worker left his or her job after 3 years, then the employer clearly has the benefits of the training for 3 years, so that if they try to recover the $2000, that would be unenforceable, because it would not reflect the loss of the employer. It would probably not be applicable either, given that these are trade restrictions, and we will look at that below. However, if the agreement is properly developed, the employer can generally recover some of the costs of a magnitude that decreases over time, so that after one year after the price closes, for example, they must repay 50% and nothing after 2 years.