- within Privacy, Technology and Finance and Banking topic(s)
Employers may provide training opportunities to their employees in order to develop a qualified workforce and maintain the competitive advantage derived from employing skilled personnel. In return, employees may be required to undertake to remain employed by the employer for a certain period, with training agreements stipulating that the cost of the training will be reimbursed if the employee leaves before the expiry of the agreed period. Where an employee terminates their employment before the expiry of the period for which they have undertaken to remain with the employer, the question arises as to whether the employer may recover the training expenses incurred on the employee’s behalf. This article examines, through frequently asked questions, the circumstances in which training expenses may or may not be recovered from employees, as well as the respective burdens of proof applicable to the parties in this process.
Can the Cost of Legally Mandatory Training Be Recovered from the Employee?
The clearest limitation in this regard concerns training that employers are legally required to provide. Any expenses incurred for training that must be provided to employees pursuant to applicable legislation cannot, under any circumstances, be recovered from the employee as training costs. For instance, the cost of occupational health and safety training that employers are required to provide under the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 cannot be passed on to the employee, as the provision of such training constitutes a statutory obligation of the employer. This principle is expressly set out in Article 17/7 of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, titled “Training of Employees,” which provides that:“The cost of the training to be provided under this Article shall not be charged to employees.”
Similarly, expenses incurred for training that is mandatorily required by legislation and/or intended to enable the employer to fulfil a statutory obligation may not be recovered from the employee in any manner. Such costs cannot be imposed on employees by way of deductions from their wages during the employment relationship or from amounts otherwise due to them upon termination of employment.
If the Training Is Not Legally Mandatory, What Determines Whether Its Cost May Be Recovered?
In such cases, the determining criterion is who primarily benefits from the training. If the training is provided for the purpose of carrying out the employer’s own business operations and primarily serves the employer’s interests, the cost of such training cannot be recovered from the employee.This principle was expressly recognised by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation in its decision dated 29 December 2011, E. 2011/50107, K. 2011/50232, in which the Court held: “the training provided to the defendant by the claimant company for the purpose of implementing the Oracle computer system purchased by the claimant constituted training provided in connection with the projects carried out and the software acquired within the business and was, essentially, intended to serve the interests of the claimant employer. Accordingly, the claim for reimbursement of the training expenses should be dismissed.” Accordingly, where the training is primarily provided for the purposes of the employer’s business operations and serves the employer’s own interests, the associated costs cannot be passed on to the employee. Conversely, where the training contributes to the employee’s own career and professional development, the employer may, in principle, recover the training expenses from an employee who terminates the employment relationship before the expiry of the agreed commitment period. For instance, foreign language training; professional certification or specialist programmes organised abroad; training that confers a professional qualification or certification and MBA or similar postgraduate programmes whose validity and value are independent of the particular employer may provide a lasting contribution to the employee’s individual career and overall professional qualifications. Accordingly, the costs of such training may, subject to the applicable conditions, be recovered from the employee.
Can Training Expenses Be Charged to the Employee Whenever the Employment Contract Ends Before the Agreed Period?
The reimbursement of training expenses may arise where the employment relationship ends before the expiry of the period for which the employee has undertaken to remain employed. However, not every form of termination gives rise to an obligation to reimburse such expenses.
Most typically, where an employee resigns without relying on a legitimate reason before the expiry of the agreed commitment period, the employee may be held liable for the training expenses incurred on their behalf. By contrast, where the employee terminates the employment relationship for just cause or where the employer terminates the employment relationship for reasons such as the employee’s health or operational requirements without any fault on the part of the employee, the employee should not, in accordance with the principles of equity and fairness, be held liable for the training expenses. The case law of the Court of Cassation also demonstrates that the circumstances leading to termination must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For instance, it has been held that an employee who was required to leave employment for compulsory reasons due to mandatory military service was not liable for reimbursement of training expenses1, whereas an employee who terminated the employment relationship on the grounds of marriage was held liable for such expenses.2
Can the Entire Cost of Training Be Recovered from an Employee Who Has Fulfilled Part of the Agreed Commitment Period?
Even if an employee leaves employment before the expiry of the agreed period, where the employee has actually worked for a part of the commitment period, such service is deemed to have contributed to the employer, and the employee’s liability should therefore be determined in proportion to the period not actually worked. In its decision dated 28 March 2019, E. 2017/13360, K. 2019/7080, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly established the principle of proportionality, stating that: “Rather than ordering the reimbursement of the entire training expenses incurred by the employer on behalf of the employee, the remaining amount should be recovered after applying a reduction based on the proportion between the period for which the employee has worked and the period for which the employee was required to work.”
Who Bears the Burden of Proof in a Claim for Reimbursement of Training Expenses?
Where a legal dispute arises concerning the reimbursement of training expenses by an employee, the employer will be the claimant. In accordance with the general legal principle that the party asserting a claim bears the burden of proving it, the burden of proof in such proceedings rests with the employer. The employer must prove not merely the existence of a written agreement, but also that the training was actually provided and the specific cost attributable to the relevant employee. In its decision dated 28 March 2019, E. 2017/13360, K. 2019/7080, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that, where training is provided to a group of employees, the portion of the expenses attributable to each employee should be determined by dividing the total training cost by the number of employees who received the training during the relevant period. The Court further accepted that an employee cannot be held liable for expenses where no connection can be established between those expenses and the employee in question. Accordingly, in addition to costs paid directly to the training provider, such as trainer fees and training venue expenses, other expenses incurred in connection with the training—including accommodation, transportation and training materials or equipment—may also be claimed from the employee, provided that such expenses are duly evidenced in writing.
In conclusion, in order for employers to recover training expenses from an employee, it must first be established that the training objectively contributes to the employee’s professional and personal development, rather than primarily serving the employer’s own business interests.
In such circumstances, it is important that the employee’s undertaking to remain employed in return for the training, together with any related obligations, be expressly regulated in a written training agreement. The commitment period should also be determined reasonably and proportionately in light of the nature and duration of the training. Furthermore, in order to facilitate proof in any future dispute, employers should maintain complete written records—including invoices, agreements, certificates of attendance and similar documentation—sufficient to establish the expenses incurred in connection with the training and, where applicable, to calculate the cost attributable to each individual employee.
Footnotes
1 Yargıtay 9. HD 2003/17487 E., 2004/6215, 29.03.2004 T.
2 Yargıtay 9. HD 2017/13360 E., 2019/7080, 28.03.2019 T.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
