When an employee follows a training, course, or study, paid by the employer and/or during working hours, parties can correspond a supposedly study expense clause. In a study expense clause, there are agreements made about the conditions in which the employer will facilitate/pay the study. In practice, a study expense clause often includes a provision that the employee must repay (part of) the study expenses or wages that have continued to be paid without work being performed, for example, if the employment contract ends within a certain period of time. In practice, we get more questions about this supposedly study expense clause and then mostly about whether or not there is something like a repayment obligation.
Judicial framework
The study expense clause is not arranged by laws. However, this doesn’t mean that in this framework everything just can be agreed. The authority is limited by statutory provisions and by requirements of good employer ships.
In the Muller/van Opzeeland – judgment the Supreme Court has expressed themselves about the validity of the study expense clause. In the judgment, the Supreme Court decided that employment law isn’t without more resistance a clause where is decided that employees at the end of an agreement is held to pay back study expenses. There are a few conditions that need to be followed. Shorty viewed are the most important conditions:
- limiting the repayment obligation to the period where the employer is deemed to benefit the by employee knowledge and skills learned at the study/training/course (the so called benefit period);
- limiting the repayment obligation during the benefit period by proportions of continuing of the employment.
- (financial) consequences of the repayment obligation have to be clear for the employee.
Besides the prior matters, the reasonableness and the equity can cause for employers to not be able, under certain circumstances, to appeal to the study expense clause.
Pronunciation subdistrict court Limburg, January 20th 2021
In a recent pronunciation of the subdistrict court of Limburg, the subdistrict court comment on the requirement that the (financial) consequences of the repayment obligation have to be clear for the employee.
The case relates to the question if the study expense clause, agreed by parties, leads to a repayment obligation of the study expenses by the employee. In the employment agreement between parties there was a study expense clause included. When the concerning employee ended the employment agreement, the employer got back to the position where the employee needed to pay back the study expenses.
The subdistrict court considered that there was a big difference between the wage of the employee and the size of the expenses. The employer is, in agreement with the subdistrict court, demanded to be concrete about what has to be paid by the employee on forehand of a clause. This didn’t occur and the employer didn’t supply that this might not even be possible.
When the employer would get knowledge of the size of the expenses, during the study itself, then the employer had to bring this to notice by his employee, after demands of the subdistrict court. However, even when the employer, after some period of time, got the knowledge about the costs of the study, the employee was still not informed about this. If the employer did inform his employee, then the employee had known how much money he had to repay when the arrangement would end and then the employee could have taken it in consideration of ending the arrangement.
Because of the state of events, the employee learned about the financial consequences after ending the arrangement. The judge has, because of this, reached the verdict that the requirements for clearance of the clause aren’t fulfilled, that’s why the employer couldn’t fulfill the study expense clause.
