Please note that below, is just my opinion..
Training bond is a means for a company to recover their training investments. When they send people to training and the employees acquire important skills, they naturally increase their market value. However in my opinion, implementation should be REASONABLE for both parties.
I was told basically, employment trainings excluding self financed trainings can be categorized as 2 types:
1. Trainings that are essential to qualify for a required process or work certifications. Usually the required process or work certifications are in house requirements meaning trainers are also in house. Although true that such training do cost money to employers, they do have specific employees designated to conduct trainings (e.g. manufacturing process certifications, company specific call center certification, etc.). Since this is an in house requirement, the cost in my opinion, should not be shouldered by the new employees. Take note that the employer, usually for compliance reason, defined the requirement that a new employee must be trained to such process or work certifications. Training bonds in such type of trainings if used to prevent an employee from leaving, in my opinion, is against their right to resign from employment in general. However, despite this, the employee who decides to resigns, do still need to comply with the 30-day notice rule except in the following situations:
-Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the employee;
-Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his representative;
-Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and
-Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing.
Unfortunately, most often, this type of training is used to psychologically if not legally bind an employee from leaving like in the BPO due the fast transition rate in industry. BPOs conducts nearly identical training courses during new employment, despite the fact majority of the newly hired are already experienced agents. In reality, its not a matter of returning the training investment but a way to retain much needed agents that can easily be swayed to or by another company, due higher offers of compensation and benefits.
Training abroad under this type, is a different thing. Considering the high cost for travel, accommodation including the training itself. Although logically, it is the same as above. It would be unethical for any professional just leave the company hanging without any return of investment. If you feel that you already want to resign and a training opportunity such as this comes knocking, just decline it if you can and if you feel you won't be able to commit to the training investment provided to you.
2. Industry standard or skill based certifications including academic courses, often done outside the company. If an employee requested for such training out of his own volition to improve his qualification and the cost shouldered by the company. This would definitely merit a training bond since basically you are asking the company to invest in your self improvement. It is basically a loan and payment is done in expected length of service to the company. If however, it is done with the same condition as in number 1, meaning it was not your choice but for compliance reason, you had to qualify to a process or work, then that is another matter I guess. Again, If you feel that you already want to resign and a training opportunity such as this, comes knocking, just don't request for it if you feel you won't be able to commit to the training investment provided to you.
Again, Training bond should be REASONABLE for both parties.
After resignation, an exit clearance is afterwards conducted, this is usually when HRs enforces the training bond and can often lead to withheld salaries or COE, since implementation if discretionary from company to company.
If claim to withheld salaries or COE is elevated to NLRC, success would depend on how you would support your argument based on the reason you have leave along with why such training and its bond should not be held liable for training investment cost and inhibit you from resigning.
If the reason for leaving is indeed health related as mentioned on the opening of this topic.. it can be justifiable as "other causes" for resignation assuming one can provide proof (e.g. lab test, medical abstracts, certificates, etc.) when the need arises.
Home
