Payback: employer could recover recruitment expenses
A clause requiring an employee to repay training or other costs incurred by an employer if the employee leaves employment within a certain period of the costs being incurred may be a penalty. If it is a penalty, because the purpose of the clause is to stop the employee from leaving employment rather than a genuine attempt to compensate the employer for its loss, it will not be enforceable.
In Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a repayment clause relating to certain recruitment costs incurred by the employer in hiring the employee was unenforceable as a penalty. If so, the employer made an unauthorised deduction from the employee’s wages when it deducted the recruitment expenses from her final salary payment…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The FDA has distributed a revised draft guidance document titled ‘Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Unapproved New Uses — Recommended Practices’.
BIS has announced that the extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees with 26 weeks’ service will be ‘available’ from 30 June this year.
Analysis from The Lawyer
When a firm shouts loudly about a landmark merger, as SJ Berwin did when it joined forces with King & Wood Mallesons, departures are always likely to come under the spotlight.
The Lawyer’s latest Top 50 litigation firms list shows that business for dispute specialists is roaring along while new in-depth detail reveals the winning strategies