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 decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump