If the boss finances further training for individual employees, this is usually a good thing for both sides. It usually only gets hairy when one of the employees promoted in this way leaves the company prematurely.
Supreme Court judgment: Company must refund ex-employee money for training This shows a recent judgment of the Supreme Court (9 ObA 121/20i). A secretary had sued her ex-employer for reclaiming the €560 cost of an accounting course after the woman resigned two months after completing the course. The woman then paid for the course, but later sued for the money. The OGH came to the verdict that the woman had complied with the claim due to a legal error and that the entrepreneur, who had only made an oral agreement on the further training, had to pay her back the money.
Reimbursement of costs after an employee leaves depends on the length of time until departure. But what does the legal situation look like in general and during the Corona short-time work in further education was strongly promoted by the state? In principle, the following applies: In every employment contract, agreements can be made with regard to further education or training. "It can be precisely determined how much the employee has to pay back if they leave the company prematurely after the training," says Philipp Brokes, a lawyer at the Vienna Chamber of Labor. It is not uncommon for such a cost sharing to be linked to the employee's loyalty to the company after the training. "But such cost sharing is not legally permitted for more than four years after completing the training or further education," explains the lawyer.
The Type of Separation for Expense Recovery is Crucial to whether the company can recover money from the employee is how one separates. The employer only sees money back for the part he has worked if the employee gives notice himself or there is a mutual termination. The employee is then legally obliged to reimburse the employer proportionately for the expenses. "Every month that goes by that the employer stays with the company after the apprenticeship, the costs go down," says Brokes. However, if the employer gives notice of termination, the training costs can only be reclaimed if there is a justified reason for termination.
Written agreement essential for later claims Without a written agreement, however, the employer's claims fall by the wayside. As the current OGH judgment shows, the employee must even be repaid the money already paid if there is no written agreement. A general repayment clause in the employment contract is not sufficient for this.
The state has financed further training in the Corona short-time work - the legal consequences of changing jobs The legal situation is completely different if the employer has financed a course or training during the Corona period. Even if the employee leaves the company shortly after completing the training, the employer no longer sees any money, even if a written agreement has been made. But it doesn't hit the entrepreneur quite as hard. During this time, the state assumed 60 percent of the training costs. In any case, during the negotiations, the social partners rated the probability that employees would change companies as low. After all, the opportunities to change are limited: there are currently only 50,000 vacancies, but around 450,000 are looking for a job. "Of course, there is still a residual risk for the employer," says lawyer Brokes. In addition, a cost sharing was classified as disproportionate. "On average, employees on short-time work earned 24 percent less than before," adds the AK expert.
However, during short-time work, employees must fulfill their further training obligations. "If the supervisor decides that a course should be taken, there is no legal right to refuse it," the lawyer clarifies.
