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 new Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622), which came into effect on 3 March 2014, is a substantial rewrite of Hong Kong companies law.
Employment News — 14 April 2014: the final straw — employer entitled to take strict view in light of previous warnings
Before his dismissal, the claimant in Disotto Food Ltd v Carlos Santos for misconduct he had been given three warnings about his conduct.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump
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.