Simply put, the terms of the borrowing clause will determine their applicability. For business-sponsored courses, there is a commitment period based on course fees, as outlined in the guideline. This will be announced to the employee before taking the course. The violation of the loan results in the disqualification of course fees by the employee. I would like to see if my company inserts in the Business Directive a clause stipulating that employees must compensate the full course costs to the company if employees resign by way of company funds within one year of the end of the training. Before enrolling in the training course, my employees did not sign any form of loan or agreement and the staff manager did not explain to the employees our corporate policy clause. Misrepresentation could be another defence. While the promised training, enhancement and continuing education has never taken place, staff cannot be expected to meet the employment commitment. At first glance, this seems fair and reasonable – the employer should have the right to demand compensation and reimbursement for the money spent on training, modernization and training. They should be protected from a worker who stops after training, upgrade and continuing education, in order to find a better job after the employer`s investment in the worker. Employers often want to take out a loan for the job in order to protect themselves against the departure of workers before spending a minimum period in the company. As a general rule, the Tribunal takes an approach to contractual freedom and the parties can include what they want, but the Court intervenes in cases where the contractual terms are illegal or abusive.
In recent years, the courts have made many clauses on employment obligations on the basis of the unenforceable, that it is a penalty and not compensation. There is no provision in the Employment Act for employment obligations. Any dispute over employment obligations is governed by the terms of the employment contract and must be settled in a civil court. In the absence of guidelines from the tripartite partners, the amount of damages must be for the time being, in accordance with the Dunlop decision of this Court, and in accordance with dunlop, which must be a genuine pre-assessment of the injury, in order to be enforceable. A employment obligation clause cannot impose a disproportionate secondary obligation, although it remains to be seen whether the courts will follow the new Cavendish approach. In this case, your employees are entitled to submit the matter to MOM if your company insists on paying the full training fee, as this has not been communicated to employees.