Can employer recover education fees?

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.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987193#Comment_117987193

they agreed to the text in the first post. they don't owe anything according to that text.

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987193#Comment_117987193

"A standard condition that you pay back the fees if you do not stay 3 years was part of the agreement"

That was not part of the agreement. There were other conditions attached.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987193#Comment_117987193

Nope.

You're arguing that the employer can enforce what they meant to say in the written agreement (that they drafted), rather than what they actually did say.

If they run that line in court, they'll be shot down in flames.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984875#Comment_117984875

This! Unless you're moving into a completely new field, you will be coming across the same people again and again. And even if you move field, there's google...

Yes, the contract is terribly written. Nonetheless, what would likely happen if you leave after 80% of the three years is:

* Your employer retains 100% of the course fees from your pay cheques.

* If you want to get any of it back, you're going to have to go to court.

* You simply do not know if you are going to win in court or not. You're taking a gamble.

* A judge or the WRC will look at all the circumstances, agree that the contract is indeed terribly written, but nonetheless has every chance of concluding that "any reasonable person" would have known that the contract and employer's intention was "leave early, you repay the full cost", because - as many have pointed out - such contracts are extremely common. If generally worded much better. (There's a reason "E&OE" appears on every quote, for example, and if you get a quote for a new car at €4 instead of €40,000, you're still not getting it for €4 even though it's a written quote, because everyone is clear what the intention was).

* Best case - you win, pay your solicitor their fees, feel vindicated, and find your interview opportunities and job offers drying up (because what employer won't google any prospective new hires)

* Worst case - you lose, pay your solicitor their fees, feel hard done by, and find your interview opportunities and job offers drying up...

Seeing as you say this is only over 20% of the course fees as you're willing to pay 80% - is this really worth it, or a wise course of action?!

Billgirlylegs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987253#Comment_117987253

more examples of multiple posters not reading text properly. I admit I jumped to the initial conclusion that OP was liable.

That is not the case, and while the poorly written contract was not what the employer intended, that is what was agreed.

Ball is in the OP's court who can decide if she/he wants to burn bridges or be out money.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987351#Comment_117987351

that is what was agreed.

But it isn't. there was no discussion beforehand. the agreement was presented to the OP and they were asked to sign it. they signed the agreement as stated in the OP.

PhilOssophy

Is there any chance of the OP telling us exactly how much money is at stake in this 20%.

It would be interesting to see if you can engage a solicitor to fight your case for less than the monetary value that is at stake.

JimmyVik

Looks standard to me.

My company send people on useless course that cost €3.5k and have a clawback like that.

In o9ur place its purely to have a hold over staff leaving.

If you got a decent useful course i wouldnt even do it at that price.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117988545#Comment_117988545

except the agreement as written places no hold over the employee

GM228

I would think that the fact that part 2 and part 3 relies on part 1 which is an invalid term would render the entire contract void ab initio, meaning any argument around the poor wording of part 2 or 3 does not arise anyway.