{"id":6313,"date":"2024-11-12T16:58:06","date_gmt":"2024-11-12T09:58:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/?p=6313"},"modified":"2024-11-13T16:51:16","modified_gmt":"2024-11-13T09:51:16","slug":"tu-van-giai-quyet-tranh-chap-ve-hop-dong-dao-tao","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/tu-van-giai-quyet-tranh-chap-ve-hop-dong-dao-tao.html","title":{"rendered":"CONSULTATION ON RESOLVING TRAINING CONTRACT DISPUTES"},"content":{"rendered":"Matter in Brief<\/b>:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

RC Environmental and Engineering Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RC”), a company with 15 years of experience in the science and environment sector, has undertaken numerous large-scale environmental projects in Vietnam. Mr. Nguyen Thanh T, currently holding the position of Technical Director, has been employed at RC for over 10 years. On February 1, 2023, Mr. T notified RC of his intention to terminate his Employment Contract (hereinafter referred to as “EC”) on February 1, 2023. RC agreed to Mr. T’s request, but the two parties remain in dispute over the reimbursement of training costs for Mr. T’s equipment operation course in Germany.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the training, in June 2022, the two parties entered into a training contract. RC agreed to cover the costs for Mr. T to attend the equipment operation course in Germany, with a total cost of VND 60.000.000. Mr. T committed to working for RC for 20 months after completing the course. The two parties also agreed that if Mr. T breached his employment commitment, he would have to reimburse the company for the training costs corresponding to the period of the breach, equivalent to VND 3.000.000 per month of non-performance. The company paid the training costs as agreed. The course ended on July 1, 2022. Therefore, the commitment period is calculated from July 2, 2022 to March 2, 2024. Accordingly, at the time Mr. T terminated his employment contract, he had breached his employment commitment for 13 months, so according to RC, Mr. T must pay compensation of VND 39.000.000. RC informed Mr. T that they would retain the original training certificate until Mr. T had fully reimbursed the remaining training costs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. T argued that at the time of attending the training, due to the company’s involvement in a project that required personnel with equipment operation certificates, the company did not have any personnel with sufficient qualifications and certificates to replace Mr. T in the project, so Mr. T was forced to attend the course due to his job responsibilities, and he did not request the company to sponsor the costs. Therefore, Mr. T does not agree to reimburse the training costs and requests that RC return the original certificate to him.<\/span><\/p>\n

Client’s Request:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

RC is a recurring advisory client of TAPHALAW. RC has requested that TAPHALAW provide legal advice on a course of action to address the following requirements: (i) To compel Mr. T to reimburse the costs of training; and (ii) For the company to retain the original training certificates of Mr. T until such time as Mr. T reimburses the training costs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Attorney\u2019s Work Performed:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

TAPHALAW has requested that RC provide all relevant documents and evidence pertaining to the matter to address RC’s claims. After reviewing these materials, discussing with RC to clarify certain points, TAPHALAW has provided the following legal advice to RC:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. Regarding Mr. T’s obligation to reimburse training costs<\/b><\/p>\n

TAPHALAW has analyzed relevant legal provisions and concluded that in the training contract between RC and Mr. T, wherein Mr. T committed to work for RC after the training and reimburse training costs if he failed to do so, is valid and enforceable. Mr. T’s argument that he did not initiate the training and therefore is not obligated to comply with the agreement is unfounded. The attorney asserts that Mr. T voluntarily signed the training contract, which clearly stipulates his obligation to reimburse training costs if he terminates his employment before the agreed-upon period. Accordingly, RC is entitled to demand that Mr. T reimburse the training costs.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Regarding RC’s retention of Mr. T’s original training certificate<\/b><\/p>\n

Pursuant to Article 17 of the Labor Code 2019, it is unlawful for an employer to retain an employee’s original certificates. Furthermore, under Point a, Clause 3, Article 48 of the Labor Code 2019, upon termination of an employment contract, RC is obligated to return all original documents to the employee, including the training certificate. Therefore, RC’s retention of Mr. T’s original training certificate until he reimburses the training costs is a violation of the law. Additionally, according to Decree 28\/2020\/ND-CP on administrative sanctions in the labor sector, RC may be subject to an administrative fine ranging from 40.000.000 to 50.000.000 VND for such conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

Outcome of the case:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

After receiving legal advice, RC organized a meeting with the participation of TAPHALAW’s Attorney. At the meeting, the Attorney analyzed the legal issues that the parties were facing. After listening to Attorney’s presentation, the two parties exchanged views and reached an agreement on the following contents: Mr. T agreed to work for an additional 3 months and would be responsible for organizing training on the use of equipment for technical staff to ensure optimal operation; RC agreed to terminate Mr. T’s employment contract and reduce the training cost that Mr. T had to reimburse to 20.000.000 VND; The company will hand over the original training certificate to Mr. T immediately after signing the agreement.<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Matter in Brief: RC Environmental and Engineering Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RC”), a company with 15 years of experience in the science and environment sector, has undertaken numerous large-scale environmental projects in Vietnam. Mr. Nguyen Thanh T, currently holding the position of Technical Director, has been employed at RC for over 10 years. […]\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6314,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[90,92],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6313"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6313"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6313\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6325,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6313\/revisions\/6325"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6313"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}