The lesson learned from Sands Appliance Services is that a signed agreement on reimbursement of training fees or reimbursement of tuition fees by an employee is valid if: Prepare a payment plan so that you do not stay with one large bill at a time. Put a specific date in the clause that ends it; If you. B stay more than three years after completing your training, you do not have to pay back your courses. Because employees leave companies for a variety of reasons, not all companies ask employees to reimburse their education. Check the wording of your agreement to see if you need to pay tuition fees in the event of dismissal, termination of cause or voluntary separation or any other specific situation. The Tribunal also rejected the worker`s argument that the study contract was contrary to public policy, as was the case in which an employer had provided a worker with tools for which the worker had to pay if he remained in possession after the termination of the employment relationship. If you are dismissed for reasons such as insubordination, non-compliance with your obligations, harassment, discrimination, theft or any other serious reason, you may have to pay back your courses. Employers rely on tuition fees to prevent employees from being intentionally fired, so they do not have to pay for master`s degrees, for example. If you are made redundant for reasons, remind your employer that refunding your tuition fees has tax consequences for the business if the refund is made in full or in part as a tax deduction.
If you think you have been pushed to leave voluntarily, talk to a lawyer who may be able to make sure you don`t have to pay back the courses. You may need to sign an agreement not to sue your employer for harassment in order to convince them to accept. Staff training and support or reimbursement programs can be very costly. The value of these programs is questionable when workers can freely change jobs before the employer has benefited from its investment. In a 2-1 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals authorized proceedings to provide the worker with a minimum term of employment after such an investment, penalizing an obligation to reimburse the employer`s training costs. When the employee left work after two and a half years, the employer began to recover the balance of the training debts. The evidence showed that the employee was receiving valuable training; He received specialized courses, studied books and accompanied other technicians on service calls to learn crafts. The employer stated that the purpose of the study contract was to recover some of the money spent on training the worker if the employment were to end prematurely.
The employee replied that the study contract was an unluecled easement and that it violated the Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act. Finally, the Court held that the study contract is not an accession contract, that is, an inappropriate agreement that cannot be applied because it was the result of unequal bargaining power imposed on the worker. The Tribunal found that the employer was discussing the study contract with the employee before hiring, and the worker could have refused to leave his existing job to be employed by that employer, and decided that the study contract itself was not inappropriate. Employers require that the reimbursement of education costs be an agreement to prevent workers who take advantage of their training to find new employment from working elsewhere. Companies protect themselves legally by encouraging employees to refund refunds when the employee leaves the company within a specified period of time after the completion of the training. The court also found that there were study contracts that did not violate the WFBA. This type of contract provides funding for training.