Can employer recover education fees?

rob w

Hi,

My employer paid for college fees for a course I completed 2 years ago.

At the time, I signed a poorly worded agreement, consisting of 3 bullet points with my employer which is worded exactly as below;

I hereby undertake:

(1) To remain in the employment of X for a minimum period of three years from date of graduation

(2) in the event of my leaving the employment of X, within the said three years

(3) to fully reimburse the fees to X if I (i) do not complete the full course of studies or (ii) fail to pass the overall course of studies to refund X all costs (other than costs of time off) incurred by X in permitting me to pursue the course of studies

[End]

So, if I leave within three years of graduating from the course, can my employer legally use this agreement to force me to fully reimburse fees for the course?

ohnonotgmail

did you complete the course of study? My reading of it is as stated is that reimbursement is only due if you leave within three years AND you fail to complete the course of studies. Is that what the contract says verbatim? It seems badly drafted if the intention is ensure you stay for 3 years after graduation.

.42.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983298#Comment_117983298

I dont see point to linking to point 3.

L1011

That also reads to me as you repay if you (fail or drop out) and leave within three years. So that passing and leaving is OK; failing/dropping out and staying is OK.

I suspect they wanted it to mean repay if you fail or drop out or leave within three years; paying back in any one situation.

If this is for any significant sum, talk to a real lawyer.

rob w

Thanks for the reply!

Yes, sorry. I completed the course successfully. That's my reading of it too, but I'm no legal expert, so don't know whether it's worth the paper it's written on or not!

That is the wording of the agreement verbatim. There is also a short preamble, which just names the two parties (Employer and I) stating that I am requesting the following from employer;

"support/sponsorship consisting of refund or payment of fees, book or other relevant allowances and time off to study and attend lectures"

el Fenomeno

The agreement is terribly worded.

Out of interest, was there any in-person discussion about it? Were you aware their intention was that you repay it if you leave within 3 years even if you passed?

rob w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983334#Comment_117983334

I've tried the FLAC today, but they are closed for the day now. I will get real advice, just thought I'd get some input here.

rob w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983361#Comment_117983361

It is very confusing, at the time I signed it, I didn't read in as much detail.

No in person discussions on it at all, just an email sent to me asking me to sign and return by a given date.

dobman88

That looks fairly standard to me.

They pay your fees. You pass the course and must work for them for a minimum of 3 years after graduating.

They "get their moneys worth" for want of a better phrase by you working for 3 years after graduating.

If you want to leave before the 3 years is up, just pay them back. All fairly standard stuff I'd have thought. They wont come looking for the fees if you leave after 3 years, only if you leave before.

el Fenomeno

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983396#Comment_117983396

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but if that was your assumption at the time then why question it now?

If you leave, they either ask for their fees back which you assumed would happen anyway, or they don't ask and you can just carry on with your new job?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983450#Comment_117983450

that is normally how it works but it is not how the agreement was written.

CreadanLady

If they want to come after you for the fees if you break that agreement, then let them off. Even if they do bring it to court and even if they secure a judgement against you, then good luck to them collecting the judgement from you if you just don't pay.

You see this all the time, courts making orders for compensation for such and such in civil cases. Many plaintiffs never see a penny of it. You cannot get blood from a stone.

It all depends on you being brass necked enough to just refuse and hold out. You can get away with nearly anything in this country if you are brazen enough.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983457#Comment_117983457

that is what they assumed the employer would do. The employer never said what their intentions were, they just sent an agreement to be signed. Looking at the agreement it is not what the OP assumed. what the employer did trumps any assumptions made by the OP.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983450#Comment_117983450

That's not what the clause states though. If he completed and passed the course then he is under no obligation to repay the course fees whether he leaves within 3 years or not.

FishOnABike

Is the layout of paragraph 3 you quoted exactly as it was in the original document? It could be very significant to the interpretation of the agreement.

If it involves a significant sum I would get professional legal advice. If you are moving jobs would your new employer consider paying all or part of the cost?

As it is worded and laid out (on mobile at least) it could be open to interpretation. Is it worth burning bridges over?

rob w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983749#Comment_117983749

That is the exact wording of the document.

New employer only willing to contribute a portion of cost, if it is to be recouped at all. Significant sum is involved, so I want to know where I stand. I am engaging a legal professional also, waiting to hear back from them.

I don't want to burn bridges, but I just want to know where I stand!

Rket4000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983500#Comment_117983500

This is true, but a judgment against you will be a matter of public record and could impact you if you want to borrow money or in some cases you may not be able to get some jobs in the future.

28064212

Poorly worded, but I'd be surprised if it had any significant impact. Forget about points 2 and 3 - you still broke the contract by breaking point 1. Even if there's no explicit statement of reimbursement in that clause, the employer can still sue for breach of contract. I suspect if it actually went to court, a judge would take a practical viewpoint and take into account things like actual length of service (if you're leaving after a week, the result would be very different to 2 years and 51 weeks).

Of course, this all an amateur take, listen to your legal professional

Blazer

You signed a contract and then broke it on the first point.

This is standard across the industry really. The company pays for your course and you get a new qualification out of it and they get 3 years of your service.

My employer does this as well and its across a load of companies.

Your new employer likely won't be forking out for any courses you want to take over the next few years.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984209#Comment_117984209

Forget about points 2 and 3 - you still broke the contract by breaking point 1.

you can't read it in isolation like that and if you do there is no remedy specified for breaking part 1. the only remedy is mentioned for breaking part 3.

Even if there's no explicit statement of reimbursement in that clause, the employer can still sue for breach of contract. 

breaching what exactly? do you expect their contract to specify that leaving is a breach of contract?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984232#Comment_117984232

There is no remedy specified for breaching part 1. It certainly does not specify that they need to reimburse for leaving before 3 years.

dotsman

Yeah, the above agreement is pretty standard in any employer - just badly composed in this scenario. You can try the legal route to try and get out paying what you owe due to the loophole of the badly worded agreement, but would likely be very expensive and tremendous hassle. But everyone knows what the agreement was and that you broke it.

Likewise, not sure what profession you are in, but your name will be dirt amongst at least a few prospective employers in your future, so you need to see if it is worth that. Similarly, your new employer may get wind of it and not be happy at all.

uberwolf

costs incurred should be net, not gross. As the employer will have received relief on the fees paid then they should not profit on any 'refund' that you do end up giving them

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984273#Comment_117984273

you're right, everybody knows what the agreement was, the text of it is in the first post. and the agreement is very clear.

starbaby2003

I broke mine and it was taken from my last paycheque. It wasn’t the full amount I think it reduced each year. My new employment reimbursed me though. This might be an option for you ?

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984292#Comment_117984292

Any refund they receive from the employee will be taxable, so the full amount would need to be received for the tax position to be neutral.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984254#Comment_117984254

What? The OP signed a contract that said "I hereby undertake to remain in the employment of X for a minimum period of three years from date of graduation". They didn't stick to those terms. That's literally a breach of contract. Just because there is no specific remedy mentioned doesn't mean a breach hasn't occurred.

There's still plenty of defences available to the OP, they could argue that the terms are unfair, or that it was signed under coercion (presumably they wouldn't have got the position if they didn't sign), or that refunding the full fees isn't a proportional punishment, but a breach of contract has almost certainly occurred

rob w

Just to be clear, I haven't breached any contract. I am still in employment in this role.

I am just asking the question as I am wondering how enforceable this is, if I did move onto a new employer in the next 12 months. Its a tricky question to ask directly to employer before resigning as it will open can of worms whether I follow through on it or not.

Somebody mentioned in a post there about terms being 'unfair', I was wondering about that too.

I know other employers might use a sliding scale for reimbursement in these cases and after 2 years I may be able to argue that 1/3 of the fees is a 'fair' reimbursement......but then again, I did sign that agreement......but then again its not very clear!!

FishOnABike

There's also the question of what it might cost you in legal fees if your employer sued for the cost of the course fees they have paid.

It might cost you as much in legal fees to defend a claim by your employer as you might save by avoiding reimbursing them for your course fees.

You might have a chance to gain financially on a legal technicality but at the cost of your reputation.

PhilOssophy

OP - I don't know what your industry is or your age but if I've learned one thing in this country, its that professional circles are TINY. Everybody knows everybody.

I have come across the same people in 3 separate jobs, people move around and reputation/network is everything. People talk. The first thing a potential employer will do is try see who knows you and find out what they can about you. If you burn bridges over a few thousand quid, don't think it won't have serious capacity to bite you on the ass in the future.

Whether or not you legally have a case is a moot point - unless it is a huge sum of money I'd say either wait the 3 years (which presumably isn't that far away) or pay the debt. Never burn a bridge as they say.

Just my thoughts, others might feel differently.

drogon.

I know a guy who left few years ago and was in the same position in a company that he worked with. Oddly his HR manager never brought this up when he was leaving, and just assumed they forgot about it (it was a large MNC)

Well when he got his final pay check they did take the money owned from him, which was a shock to him. But he knew he had to pay it when he signed up for the course. One plus side was it was taken before tax, so it ended up working to his favour.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984463#Comment_117984463

A contract to continue working for someone for three years is unenforceable. You can't contract out of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act; you can always leave your employment on giving the notice required under the Act. So, this is an unlawful or invalid contract term.

As others have pointed out, this document is appallingly drafted. Not having this drawn up by a lawyer was definitely a false economy for this employer.

The OP can leave his job on giving the statutory notice and, as he completed the course and passed the exams, he does not have to repay the employer the cost of the course.

The DayDream

Does it say what would happen if you got fired from the job?

whippet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986518#Comment_117986518

This isn't contracting out the min notice period. This is about repaying educational fees which the company paid for.

it is reasonable for an employer to expect either a reimbursement of the fees if the employee leaves within a couple of years.

i have had my employer pay for a masters and other professional qualifications... and I agreed to something similar

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986564#Comment_117986564

Reasonable or not, the poorly written contractual obligation to repay any fees is not simply subject to leaving within 3 years, it is qualified in that you are only liable if you:-

1. Leave within three years, and

2. (a) Do not complete the full course of studies or (b) fail to pass the overall course of studies.

Both 1 and 2(a) or 1 and 2(b) must be satisfied, not simply 1 in isolation.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986564#Comment_117986564

I was replying to 28064212, who posted that leaving within 3 years was a breach of clause 1 of the agreement all on its own. My point was that clause 1 of the agreement, preventing someone from leaving within 3 years, was unenforceable and illegal.

I agree that a contract to repay the educational fees if you leave within three years would be legal. But that's not what this contract provides. This contract only provides for repayment of the fees if you leave within three years and you have not successfully completed the course. The OP did successfully complete the course, so doesn't have to repay the fees.

It may be true that the employer meant to draft a contract which said that the employee would repay the fees (a) if they failed to complete the course successfully, or (b) if they left within three years of completing it. But the employer drafted this contract and presented it to the employee for signature. The employer is stuck with it; he cannot now turn around and say "but that's not what I meant!", and enforce different terms which the employee has never seen, did not sign and had no opportunity to think about or negotiate about. That would obviously be unfair to the employee.

Basically, if a contract is badly drafted, the party who drafted it can't take advantage of that and claim the right to enforce the contract terms that he would have drafted, if he had been thinking straight at the time.

The Mighty Quinn

Slight sidetrack here, I have recently finished a 2 year part time MSc which my employer paid for. Terms as above were outlined, I'd to stay in their employ for three years post completion. This was verbal, a written agreement was due to be forwarded to sign, but it never arrived and fees were paid anyway.

Morally I should repay if I leave within three years, but is it it anyway enforceable? Course fees were 15K, so more than 3 months gross salary for me.

Andrea B.

Would be interesting if anybody could post if it they know of cases it happened as per contract and cases where it went legal?

The latter i have definitely never heard of.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984708#Comment_117984708

Set aside the legalese. you know what you agreed, this thread suggests that whatever personal integrity or moral/professional ethics compass you have is beginning to diminish and if you allow that and walk away without honouring the spirit of the agreement, then every time you look in the mirror, will you be happy with who you see?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986600#Comment_117986600

There's no general rule that terms and conditions of a contract have to be in writing. The fact that a contract is an oral contract could give rise to difficulties in two ways.

First, if there's a row (and, if you find you have to take steps to enforce a contract, there is by definition a row) it may be difficult to demonstrate to a court what the exact terms of the contract are. Sure, you may be able to prove you lent me €100 by pointing to an electronic transfer from your account to mine, but if there is no written record of what we agreed about how long I would have to repay or what interest, if any, I would pay, you have a problem when it comes to enforcement. So there are compelling practical reasons for putting the terms of a contract in writing, even if its not a legal requirement.

Secondly, there are a few cases in which it is a legal requirement. Most contracts of sale, for example, don't have to be in writing - shopping would be a very slow business if they did - but a contract for the sale of land cannot be enforced unless it is "evidenced in writing". In fact, not only does it have to be in writing; it has to be signed on behalf of whoever it is you are trying to enforce it against.

When it comes to employment, I can offer you a job orally and you can accept with a handshake and that's fine, and sufficient to create a legal employment contract. But as your employer I have a legal requirement to give you, within two months of your starting, a written statement of the terms of the employment, which I must keep up to date if the terms of your employment change. (As your employer I have to sign it, but there is no requirement that you should sign it or acknowledge it; I just give it to you, and the requirements of the legislation are satisfied.)

The legislation has a long list of particulars that have to be included in the written statement, including details of the rate or amount of your remuneration, and when it is paid, and details of any pension or pension scheme. But there's no requirement to include details of fringe benefits other than a pension scheme, so if your employer provides you with a car, or education loans, or concessionary goods or services, details of those doesn't have to be included.

So, yeah, in theory the employer can recover an education loan from you on whatever terms were agreed purely orally. But we'd be back to the problem of him proving what those terms were. And he'd be doing this in a context in which, because of the terms of employment legislation, there is a strong culture of documenting these things in writing, and an expectation that employers will do so. Usually this is done separately from the formal statement of terms of employment - its included in an employee handbook, or I send you an email about it, or whatever. That's fine because, as noted, it is not required to be included in the formal statement of terms of employment, signed by me and given to you within 2 months of commencement. But if there is nothing in writing, yeah, your employer will have a big problem enforcing the repayment of the loan when you leave.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986645#Comment_117986645

He doesn't know what he agreed; if he did he wouldn't be posting in the thread asking us to tell him. He tells us he didn't read what was sent to him at the time and, now that he has read it, he finds it hard to understand. And who would blame him? It's very badly written.

rob w

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I have had some professional advice on the matter now also.

To anyone who thinks I am trying to swindle my way out of there without paying a penny is wrong. I am happy to repay fees on a pro rata basis relative to my time served. I will have served over 80% of the 3 years asked by the time I serve out my notice period. I have no problem paying the remainder, but would have a problem paying 100% as I do think it would be unreasonable after serving that time and it is a very significant sum of money.

screamer

It’s standard where I work. The company pay for very expensive courses for professional bodies for graduates. I’ve had people in my team leave and the fees were recouped from their final 3 months salary. It’s fair enough tbh why would any company pay so much money to get no value from it.

rob w

Also, the onus was on my employer to clearly state their intentions with this contract. I should have read it back then in the detail I am reading it in now, but I didn't and as other posters have said this is the agreement in place now!

My employer also has a seperate education policy in place too, and nowhere in that policy does it state that fees must be reimbursed in any event. The only relevant clause in that policy is that if an employee does receive sponsorship they must agree to stay for a period of time equal in length to the course of study following graduation.

As others (and the legal advisor I engaged) have pointed out, that is not a legally enforceable clause in a contract.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986762#Comment_117986762

Is the advice you received in line with what was said here i.e. that you have no obligation to pay based on the agreement signed

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986788#Comment_117986788

I hope the employer took more care in drafting that policy than they did your email agreement.

If badly written it could oblige the employer to continue to employ a person for the same length of time again after their sponsored course of study had completed. e.g. study part time over four years and an employee is guaranteed another four years employment. Could be interesting in a redundancy situation.

Morgans

This did happen me. I believe the terms are poorly written because in many companies it's not a huge concern. Maybe in more structured industries better and clearer policies are in place. I would be pretty sure that aren't going to come after you for it when you leave, (more hassle than its worth) nor are you burning any bridges if you voluntarily choose to not pay back the money. Depending the notice you have to serve, they can withhold payment. Once you have come to terms with that, I don't think there is any need to worry. If you want to repay what you owe, do so. If not, don't. They are unlikely to add you to a blacklist or have any consequence for you at all.

If you do pay the fees back to your employer, it is worth investigating if you can get tax relief from revenue on same.

silver2020

If this went to court, I would suspect it would be very much 50/50. Some judges are pedantic about how things are written, but many will look at the reasonableness and what a reasonable person would understand of the terms, so..

The main question is "did you understand what you were signing"

I reckon you did.

Also, is it unfair an condition

Answer is No.

and, is it an unusual condition?

Answer is No.

As for Free Legal Aid / FLAC. Why should the people's taxes pay for your misunderstanding and attempt to wriggle out of something good that your employer did for you?

Go pay for your own private solicitor if you want advice on this.

rob w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987070#Comment_117987070

You should have maybe read the rest of my posts before replying to the thread.

silver2020

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987093#Comment_117987093

I did. You are trying to wriggle out of something you freely agreed to. Pro rata doesn't come into it.

They paid for education, A standard condition that you pay back the fees if you do not stay 3 years was part of the agreement to pay your fees. You are trying to wriggle out of this.

This was not a condition of employment, it is a separate agreement for advancing your education fees and that education paid for by the company is probably the reason you are being offered a position by the new company.

If they go legal, they simply can create a debt and issue proceeding for the payment of that debt.

PhilOssophy

What is the monetary value of the remaining 20% you are so determined to potentially burn bridges and ruin your industry reputation over? How many thousand (surely you are talking thousands) are you talking? Because even if it was a 30k MBA, 6k is small money compared to reputational damage and how that could impact you.