As state and federal agencies crack down on non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, private employers have turned to Training Repayment Agreements (TRAs) as an alternative way to retain employees and recoup onboarding and training costs. However, the implementation and enforcement of TRAs require careful consideration from HR professionals. In this article, we will explore the intricacies of TRAs, legal perspectives, potential drawbacks, and alternative approaches, while emphasizing the importance of balancing employer interests with employee rights.
Explanation of TRAs
TRAs, also known as TRAPs, are utilized by employers to protect their investment in training employees who may potentially leave after a short period. HR teams often present TRAs as a means to ensure employees do not jump ship after a few months. However, it is vital to keep certain factors in mind when introducing these agreements to potential employees.
Potential Drawbacks of TRAs
One of the significant issues with TRAs is the exorbitant training repayment fees imposed on departing employees. In some instances, employees have been burdened with hefty bills without a clear explanation from employers. This can be a costly mistake, as many employees may not possess the necessary resources to pay such exorbitant amounts. Employers should be transparent and strive for fairness when determining training repayment fees.
Legal Perspective on TRAs
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently confirmed that non-compete and non-disclosure agreements are unlawful as they violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), specifically Section 7, which protects employees’ rights to seek better employment and organize locally. Adding to the scrutiny, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed the Non-Compete Clause Rule, stating that TRAs, when overly broad, can function as de facto non-compete clauses, rendering them unenforceable.
Ensuring Enforceability of TRAs
To ensure the enforceability of TRAs, employers must clearly communicate the intent behind these agreements. If a TRA is explicitly designed to recoup costs related to specific training unique to the employer’s systems, it is more likely to be enforceable. However, if the goal is to restrict future employment opportunities, it may be seen as an invalid non-compete clause. It is crucial for HR professionals to carefully craft TRAs to stay within legal boundaries.
Alternative Approaches
Instead of relying solely on rigid TRAs, employers can consider collaborating with employees to design more flexible repayment schemes. Through open communication, both parties can reach a mutually beneficial agreement that acknowledges the employer’s investment while ensuring fairness for the employee. This fosters a positive work environment and minimizes the potential for costly and time-consuming litigation or recoupment actions.
Concerns Regarding TRAs in the Hiring Process
Detractors argue that presenting TRAs in the final stages of the hiring process puts employees at a disadvantage. They feel pressured to sign or risk losing the job offer, creating an unequal power dynamic. HR professionals should strive for transparency and fairness by discussing TRAs as early as possible in the recruitment process, allowing candidates to make an informed decision about their future employment.
Training Repayment Agreements serve as a means for employers to safeguard their investment in training employees, but they must be implemented carefully to ensure fairness and enforceability. By considering legal perspectives and designing more collaborative repayment schemes, companies can strike a balance between protecting their interests and respecting the rights of their employees. Transparency, clear communication, and early discussion of TRAs help create a positive and equitable work environment for all parties involved.