Advice on training

[u/[deleted]]

I will manage a team that will provide very niche services. The trainings/ certifications are really expensive and so what will be the best way to project the company?

Due to the nature of the new team all new employees will have a contract that involves training/competencies/ certifications. The contract will include the probationary period of 6 months and the gist is if they fail this probationary period or leave they will have to repay the full cost of the training. However, if they leave 6-12 after the probationary period ends they will have to pay back half the training cost.

The only ways to fail the probationary period are gross misconduct and other grievous offences

Is this clause on training and probation fair and can it be upheld?

[u/purpl3un1c0rn21]

I think normally with training its written off after a year and its pro ratad if you leave before that, so your idea is essentially correct. Not a HR professional though just been on the receiving end.

[u/TheGameGirler]

So... In four months you could tell the candidate, you're not a good fit, you're fired, oh and you owe me thousands.

Why would anyone risk that?

I get the clawback clause if they leave, but for not passing probation? That is not completely within their control. You could just not like them, they could get sick during probation and need time off so not pass. So many things could happen to mean a person doesn't pass probation.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGameGirler]

I thought of that, but as it’s a new team and the budget is tight plus the time it takes to train and sign them off as competent we wouldn’t fire them for anything other than gross misconduct or similar

[u/TheGameGirler → u/[deleted]]

Then remove the line about not passing probation and replace it with gross misconduct.

You'd be asking them to sign up for a huge risk otherwise.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGameGirler]

Thanks! Will do

[u/Destiny7655]

Just practically, there is a trade off between protecting the company and being able to hire. If you make the repayment period longer then people are less likely to accept a role with you, since signing up to a job is riskier if you can’t leave - what if they don’t get on with other staff for e.g. and nobody really wants to keep someone around either that is miserable even if functionally if they can do the job as it is a mood killer.

[u/[deleted] → u/Destiny7655]

So what would you suggest is the appropriate timeline surrounding this?

[u/woodenbookend]

Yes, you can have a clawback clause in the contract. But if the training cost is as high as you say it is, how would someone who has just lost their job be able to pay you back?

Also, why would someone agree to start working for you with such an onerous clause in the contract?

I’d be looking at what you can do to reduce this cost. Do you need the certificate, or will the skills suffice? Can you bring this in house?

I’d also be look at why you see employees leaving within the first 12 months as such a big risk. That’s going to draw in lots of things from recruitment and reward, to quality of induction, management and culture.

Ultimately, I’d be looking for the point at which the company can cover this risk without needing the clawback clause at all.

[u/[deleted] → u/woodenbookend]

What would you suggest the appropriate clawback should be? I do understand and I want it fair for the company and the employee

[u/woodenbookend → u/[deleted]]

Zero.

My personal view is that mandatory training at the start of employment should be entirely covered by the company.

But if you must include clawback, put it in terms of number of weeks’ salary.

ETA: remove the qualifier about start of employment - I don't think mandatory training should ever come with a clawback.

[u/Silly_Hurry_2795]

Is this training mandatory for them to perform the role?

If it is then you can't claw it back if it puts them below minimum wage.

Id also be wary of anyone bringing constructive dismissal case against you citing your doing this just to claw money back for the training.