Can employer recover education fees?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.