EMPLOYEE TRAINING AGREEMENT. RECOMMENDATIONS
The labour legislation of Kazakhstan allows employers to train their employees both within the company and through third-party organizations. For this purpose, employers conclude training agreements with employees.
We have analysed court practice in labour disputes related to training agreements and training-related expenses.
At present, it can be stated that court practice regarding training agreements is generally in favour of employers. In approximately 70% of cases, courts rule in favour of employers. When resolving such disputes, courts primarily rely on the terms of the training agreement. In 30% of cases, employers lose these disputes. We have carefully reviewed most of the available court decisions and would like to highlight key points to consider when drafting a training agreement.
Recommendations for employers regarding training agreements
The reimbursement clause should be drafted in more detail. For example, a company and an employee enter into a training agreement. Under the agreement, the employee is obliged to work for the company for three years after completion of the training.
If the employee resigns before the end of this period, the company may file a claim in court and recover all training costs, provided that the employee has failed to comply with the terms of the training agreement.
Absence of evidence of training
A company hired a university graduate and began training them in sales. The training agreement was concluded only formally. The employee resigned after 8 months.
Later, the company filed a lawsuit against the employee. In court, the employee argued that no actual training had taken place. The company was unable to provide sufficient evidence. The court ruled in favour of the employee.
We recommend including in the training agreement an obligation for the employer to issue confirmation to the employee upon completion of training, for example, a letter from the employer addressed to the employee.
Training plan or programme is required
When reviewing labour disputes, courts will always examine the factual circumstances of the case. For example, if an employer files a claim, procedural rules require the employer to prove that the training was actually carried out.
We recommend attaching a Training Plan or Training Programme to the training agreement, signed by the employee.
Work-off period
In each case, the employee’s work-off obligation period must be justified and must not be detrimental to the employee. For example, in a case involving an aviation company against a pilot, 10 million tenge was spent on training, and the required work-off period in the agreement was 5 years. The court found this period to be justified due to the significant training costs incurred abroad.
We recommend reviewing training agreements in light of the latest labour dispute practice, as labour disputes may negatively affect a company’s operations and consume labour, reputational, and time resources.