Reimbursement of training costs: these rules apply

Employers often cover training costs for their employees. However, employers do not have a statutory right of repayment against employees if employees leave the company shortly after training, for example. However, (labour) contract regulations on the repayment of training costs can solve this problem in an interest-oriented manner.

Training costs: Investment in employees!

Training costs for your own employees are a cost factor that should not be underestimated: the training itself is expensive, but there are often also travel costs, accommodation and meals as well as costs for lost working hours etc. This can cost an employer a lot of money, especially for training courses lasting several weeks or months.

In this respect, employers have a certain interest in ensuring that this investment in their own employees is retained by the company.

However, especially if training is not successful or employees leave the company shortly after training, this investment is wasted for the employer. This is because there is no legal entitlement to reimbursement of training costs in such cases.

Reimbursement of training costs must be regulated

Reimbursement or repayment of training costs – in full or in part – is only possible if it has been agreed between the employee and employer and the agreement complies with certain legal requirements.

Important! Such clauses are prohibited and ineffective in training contracts and comparable contracts – at least for the reimbursement of training (§§ 12 Para. 2 BBiG, § 26 BBiG).

Reimbursement clauses: in the employment contract or with subsequent agreement

It is possible that the repayment agreement with all the details is either regulated in the employment contract from the outset. Then there is clarity on this topic from the outset. However, employers and employees can also make arrangements for the reimbursement of training costs – in general or for an individual case – retrospectively and in addition to the employment contract. The only important thing is that the agreement is concluded before the training course to which the provision relates takes place.

When are refund clauses even possible?

In principle, reimbursement clauses are always possible if the clause is intended to apply in the event that

• the training objective was culpably missed,
• the employee has resigned for a reason for which the employer is not responsible, or
• the employer terminates the employment contract for a reason for which the employee is responsible, in particular without notice for good cause.

Such clauses are therefore only permissible if the employee’s behaviour is decisive for the reimbursement. However, reasons from the employer’s sphere, such as dismissals for operational reasons or due to illness (= personal reasons), etc., are not suitable as a starting point for reimbursement clauses.

Last but not least, if a reimbursement clause is too undifferentiated – i.e. does not specify the requirements for a reimbursement claim at all or not specifically enough – it is invalid. In this case, the exact wording is important.

What else do employers need to be aware of?

In addition to the fact that repayment clauses are only possible under certain conditions, certain aspects must also be taken into account when implementing them.

This applies in particular if the repayment clauses in the employment contract are unilaterally stipulated by the employer and are therefore subject to relatively strict general terms and conditions control in accordance with Sections 305 et seq. BGB.

For this reason, repayment clauses in employment contracts must, among other things, be formulated clearly and comprehensibly and must not unreasonably disadvantage the employee as a whole.

The following aspects must therefore be taken into account:

• The repayment/reimbursement of training costs is not in itself an unreasonable disadvantage only if the training has improved the employee’s labour market opportunities (e.g. new skills, additional qualification or greater specialisation).

• In principle, it is permissible to link the assumption of training costs by the employer to a certain length of time the employee remains with the company. However, too long a so-called commitment period is an unreasonable disadvantage. The Federal Labour Court ( Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) has developed guidelines on this, stating that the length of commitment, duration of training and training costs must be in the right proportion to each other. The repayment amount must also be reduced according to the length of time the employee remains with the company after completing the training programme.

• The claim for reimbursement may not exceed the total costs actually incurred for the training.

If the reimbursement of training costs is negotiated individually between employer and employee, these strict requirements of the GTC control do not apply directly. However, individual agreements should also be within this framework.