training bond agreement

Dear Sir/Madam:

Good day!!!

I am Andy, 24 years old and currently residing at
Antipolo City, Rizal. I was hired on October 1, 2012 and left the
company on October 11, 2013. My employment was subject to employment
bond and would expire on September 30, 2014.

In our employment bond contract, it states there that:
1. My employment is subject to employment bond and will expire
on September 30, 2014.
2. The amount of bond is Php 100, 000.00, representing the
total cost of pre-employment training provided by the company.
3.You shall liable to pay without need of demand and further
negotiation the value of the bond in the event any of the following
violations with in the bond period. (i)you are separated for a cause.
(ii)you resign from the company or (iii) you seek employment or become
employed (irrespective of the position) in another company engaged in
the same line of business as the company. For purposes of settling
cost of the bond and without prejudice to any other action that the
company may take, you hereby specifically authorize the company to
deduct or set-off the amount of the bond from any and all amounts may
due you by reason of your employment.

I resigned due to my health condition ‘cause I was diagnosed that I
have scoliosis, urinary tract infection and upper respiratory tract
infection. You can see the documents I submitted on our company clinic
or better see on our HMO partner( Medicard). It was also a doctor’s
advice to rest for a month or two and suggested that I needed to
change my nature of work.

The Operations Manager of Casino Table Games approved my resignation
and I’m already done with my company clearance and company exit
interview. Indeed, I legally and formally exit our company.

In line with this, I would like to apology for not completing our
agreement stated on our training employment bond. It was not my
intention to resign and it was an unexpectedly event that I would
suffer from the above illness. I would like also to request to waive
our employment bond since I resigned due to health condition and not
because I employed with the other company.

The company told me that they won't allow me to get my claims such as
my certificate of employment, income tax return 2316, my last salary,
and my 13th month pay because of our existing employment bond which
will expire on September 2014. They also told me that they would allow
me to get my claims if I can get a legal document stating that my
health condition can terminate our employment bond.

Can the company sue me due to not completing our employment bond? Can
I get my claims such as my certificate of employment, income tax
return 2316, my last salary, and my 13th month pay despite of the
bond? Is there a legal document I can use to terminate the bond? If
yes, can you please give me?

Thank you for taking time reading this query.

Advance Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!


Yours truly,

Andy,

Were you able to undergo training?

If yes, even if you legally and formally resigned, your bond is not waived. When you have a bond, basically you are not restricted to resign but you are liable if you do such.

If the company will not give you your last pay, 13th month, etc, you can file for money claims at NLRC.

Even if your contract states that: For purposes of settling
cost of the bond and without prejudice to any other action that the
company may take, you hereby specifically authorize the company to
deduct or set-off the amount of the bond from any and all amounts may
due you by reason of your employment.

The company must still file the claims in court in order to collect the bond from you.

Your HR is so mean to require you a legal document stating that your health condition can terminate your employment bond because you could never produce one. Only the court can decide to free you from your bond.

Having a background in medical field, I'm afraid your health condition would not give much gravity if you used it as an argument to release you from the bond. How did the doctor explain it to you that made you decide to resign?

I think this training bond should not be impose at all since employment the way I understand it is that each individual have the right to employment till such time that they feel maltreated, no growth in the company, bad management, too much stress and pressure, supervisors who abuse their authority, HR related incompetencies...etc. hence the bond is like putting an individual in a none settling position like illegal detention that they cannot get away with due to reasons stated above. I have worked in a recruitment agency before and I know how things are with recruitment and training. These training materials were brought in to be utilized and have already been paid upfront by employers, and having an entire shoulder that burden is unjust.

my contrary opinion is that this kind of bond is not legal. you can look up 'employment bond' in the forum

I couldn't agree more Atty.

MayoUno wrote:I couldn't agree more Atty.

So, you think I can get free from the bond and get my claims? Thank you for understanding my situation. I'm really afraid to go at NLRC because it might cause a reason that will lead me to jail and to have a civil or criminal record.

Wala naman nakukulong sa utang better ask Atty...

Atty,

If training is given, how come the bond becomes illegal? It is also a protection on the part of the employer since an employer spends much on training just to be served by few months. Rehiring and Retraining employees are also expensive in the part of the company


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/september2007/170928.htm

How can training material be expensive and cost 100k if even before the company putting up business they already know that training is going to be part of the hiring process... besides what training material could possibly cost as much as 10k... ginto ba yan? That's the problem with the law, nalalagyan kc ng malalaking kumpanya... this is an absurd practice and should be eradicated. Illegal and pag detain sa isang individual because of monetary bond. Kapit sa patalim ang usual na kalagayan ng mga employees.

The law should be protecting the employees more than the employers. Who works harder anyway...

And excuse me I worked for a recruitment company for more than 7 years I know how much is the cost for training. Mga bobo at tanga na lang magpapaloko sa ganyang sistema.

That is why employers cannot collect from the employees directly even if there is a contract because the court sees to it that the bond is justifiable. So even if it is written in the contract 100k but the court would only approve 10k, then the company can only get 10k and not 100k. So the labor is still protected even if the company was granted the prerogative to impose bond if they provide such training.

Also, it's not only the materials are being considered as training cost. You are also considering all other expense like venue, food, trainer cost and if training is done in other places especially overseas since training bond are not only limited to rank and file employees

Well companies know these things even before they operate so given those scenarios that you mentioned I still oppose on training bonds coz they are taking advantage of employees to stay when they're already getting psychologically mentally drained by all the metrices and time difference. Let alone the unusual eating habits and traveling at week hours in the evening. They are subjected to dangerous situations every single night. Would that training bond be sufficient as a security if something happen to an employee? Would the company shoulder their medical or burial expenses in case they die on the way or going back home from work? Did they even consider such? These companies are only after their own profits to think that their counterparts overseas gets paid $30 an hour compared to php600 per day. So tell me who's going to be at the losing end?

These employees are worth more than what their Medicard can offer. Human lives are at stake. You have to think human and not money.

Opposing to bonds is your opinion. And I don't want to argue other's opinion since everyone is entitled to having an opinion. I am just asking attyall how come the bond in this case is not legal if andro was able to get training? If an employee is drained, he could always resign. Anyways, bonds are pro-rated. If the court decides the actual cost of the bond is only 10,000 and the contract states two years and the employee was able to serve 6 months, that can be computed as 10000/ 24 * 18 = 7,500. Basically, it is a win-win situation. The company gets its training investment while the employee gets his freedom at a reasonable cost. It would also be unfair for the company if the employee would gain training, learn skills then walk-away.

Danger of losing life is everywhere. It can happen even in your own home. The law cannot also impose to companies who have graveyard shift to bring back and forth their employees from their residences just to ensure their safety. I'm sure there would only be very few companies who would invest in our country. I think logically not merely kapraningan.

My opinion is that there is a need to strike a balance between the investor and the labor. It is true the the investor cannot profit without the labor but it is also a fact that there is no labor when there is no investor. If you favor labor by not imposing bonds, why would company give training? there would be no return of investment if I train people only to leave after few months. Why would company maximize their human capital through training if the employees can go anytime as they wish? Training is something only the employees gain on the expense of the employer. When you are in training, you learn skills plus you are being paid so I think it would be just to serve the company for a number of years

One month training does not equate to years of hard labor and training bond...

ok. that's your opinion.

Yes and it's not just mine... coz some of my lawyer friends are helping me eradicate that practice...

Ok. good luck on your cause

Dapat wala sa forum na to yung si HR ADVISER na yan..seems employer lagi sya...para to sa mga employees na inaabuso ng employer nila..baka mali napasukan mo na blog site.

The narrow minded Alex is on the loose again. If you just try to broaden your mind, I am trying to balance the employers and employees. Neither should be favored because one needs the other. If our law would be pro-labor, investors would hesitate, and if the law would be pro-corporate, there would be poor output of products and services due to harsh environment. If you can't understand that, that's no longer my fault.

If I don't belong in this forum, neither do you. Individuals look for intellectual advises here and not some bitter-worker flabbergast

Ah ganun?
Englisherang froglets ka.
Kunwari kpang papabor sa employees, halata namang para kang sirang kamatis na sisira sa forum na to.
Kunwari kpang balanse ang employees at employer.

Couldn't you argue better than give barbaric feedback? Just in case you didn't notice that all of us commenting in this thread are speaking in English intellectually so I guess that doesn't make me the only englisherang froglet after all.  


Poor Soul.  

To Alexis - let's not put our main objectives off the page.. naiintindihan kita and I'm with you. Pero we have to show them that we are better individuals
To HR - since pumatol ka u lose,you may speak in whatever language you want and you can boast of your English then again with your attitude you certainly proved that you're standards are lower than what I've expected. Too bad, I'm pro employee.
And FYI we have a business but we treat our employees with respect. Oh by the way OFW din ako and I will always be on the employees side. P.S. I've been a project officer for international recruitment and I know the drill.

gud evening..in my case naman po, as dean of a department we have summer and national conventions to be attended in an academic year, sa pagkakaintin ko naman hindi ito training but this is an update of a development and future plans with regards to the discipline, at obligadong maging member ng association ang isang para ma update ang membership at makapag sign na cases ng mga graduating nursing students at makapag board exam...everytime na may convention nagbibigay ng budget ang school, pero meron itong MOA na ang amount given will be paid in years of service or once you resign or leave the institution you have pay the amount given...ang tanong ko lang po, kung ang convention ay for school purposes at hindi sa personal gain ko, obligado ba akong bayaran ng 100% ang budget na supposedly allocated ng institution for conventions, kasi hindi naman ito training and seminars na pweding magdagdag sa aking kaalaman...nag resigned ako gawa ng unprofessional ang trato ng nasa admin at nagkataong kailangan ko iprioritize ang aking family...kailangan ko ba talagang bayaran ang amount for school purposes, sa tingin ko naman po unfair sa side ko na ako na ang nag represent tapos ito ay required para sa department ako pa mag shoulder ng lahat...sana matulongan mo akong maipaliwanag at kung ano ang dapat kung gawin...salamat po