Repaying further training costs: What really matters before resigning

Professional further training can cost several thousand euros. If the employer covers course fees, examination fees, travel, or the salary continued to be paid during a leave of absence, a repayment agreement is often signed. At the latest when resigning, the question arises: Does the outstanding amount really have to be paid?

In Austria, such a demand is neither automatically effective nor fundamentally inadmissible. The decisive factors are the type of training, the specific agreement, the time of signing, the actual costs, the monthly reduction, and the way the employment relationship ends. Anyone who is supposed to repay further training costs should therefore not only look at the total of the final invoice, but check the entire legal chain. This guide shows the process for employees and applicants. It does not replace individual legal advice.

The first fork in the road: required further training or voluntary additional qualification?

Since March 28, 2024, Section 11b of the Employment Contract Law Adaptation Act (Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz) contains an important basic rule. If specific initial, further, or continuing training is a prerequisite for the agreed activity due to a law, regulation, collective agreement, works agreement, or the employment contract, participation counts as working time. In principle, the employer must bear the costs, unless a third party covers them.

This applies, for example, to mandatory qualifications without which the contractually agreed work may not or should not be performed. The Chamber of Labour on the repayment of training costs clarifies that these costs may not be passed on to employees. Before a classic training cost clause is examined, it must therefore first be clarified whether the training falls into this mandatory category at all.

The situation may be different for voluntary additional qualifications that go beyond the current activity and increase professional market value. If a company finances, for example, an externally recognized specialist course, an additional management qualification, or a usable technical certification, a training cost reimbursement agreement can be concluded under strict conditions.

Training is not the same as induction

§ 2d AVRAG definiert Ausbildungskosten als die tatsächlich aufgewendeten Kosten einer erfolgreich absolvierten Ausbildung. Sie muss theoretische oder praktische Spezialkenntnisse vermitteln, die auch bei anderen Arbeitgebern verwertet werden können. Eine betriebsinterne Einschulung fällt nicht darunter.

The distinction is important in everyday life. Anyone who only learns how to operate the company's ordering system, an internal filing system, or a specially adapted device does not necessarily obtain an additional qualification that is marketable on the labour market. The WKO on reimbursement of training costs calls, for example, a mere product presentation a non-reclaimable onboarding.

A genuine training, by contrast, can also exist if it takes place during the employment relationship and is useful to the company. The decisive factor is whether the knowledge acquired has real value outside the specific company. The name of the event alone is of little help: a "training" can be a transferable qualification, while an internal appointment labeled an "academy" may merely have the character of onboarding.

Four questions to determine classification

Was the qualification mandatory for the activity already agreed upon?
Were skills imparted that another employer could also use?
Was there a structured course, defined learning objectives and, where applicable, an examination?
Or were mainly internal products, processes and systems explained?

When a repayment agreement can be effective

A general clause in the employment contract along the lines of "All training costs must be repaid upon termination" is not sufficient. The agreement must be in writing and must relate to a specific training. Content, costs and the duration of the obligation must be so clear that employees can recognize the financial implications before the start of the course.

The Supreme Court emphasized in its decision 9 ObA 97/22p, that the written agreement must be concluded before the specific training and should also include the exact amount of costs to be reimbursed. A declaration submitted after the start of the course deprives employees of the opportunity to freely decide for or against the training in advance.

For any substantial training program, there should therefore be a separate document. An old clause in the employment contract is not a blank check for courses booked later. Before signing, the same care is warranted as when Reviewing the employment contract: Cost items, time period, termination cases and calculation must be clear.

What should be clear in the agreement

Checkpoint	What matters	Warning sign
Specific training	Course, provider, content and end can be specified	Blanket clause for all future training courses
Costs	Actual items and amounts are transparent	Unlimited or only estimated total amount
Timing	Written agreement before the start of training	Signature during or after the course
Binding period	Reasonable, clearly defined period from the end of training	Unclear term or automatic renewal
Proration	Repayment amount decreases every month	Annual tiers or unchanged flat amount
Types of termination	Triggers comply with legal limits	Repayment upon any conceivable termination

How long may the commitment last?

Under Section 2d of the AVRAG, a repayment obligation generally may not extend beyond four years after the end of the training. Only in exceptional cases is a binding period of up to eight years possible. A long maximum duration is not automatically appropriate for every course. The scope, costs and benefits of the training play a role in the assessment.

Equally important is the starting point: the binding runs from the end of the respective training, not automatically from the signing of the employment contract. If several courses are financed, there may be different end dates and outstanding balances. Employers should itemize these separately; employees should not accept that a later, minor course restarts all earlier deadlines without a clear agreement.

The amount must decrease month by month.

The repayment obligation must be reduced pro rata for each month elapsed after the end of the training. If this monthly reduction is missing, the agreement may be invalid in its entirety. The OGH confirmed in 9 ObA 85/24aIt again confirmed the importance of a transparent monthly pro rata allocation.

A simple example: The employer demonstrably paid €3,600 for a course. The agreed binding period is 36 months with a reduction of one thirty‑sixth per month. If the employment relationship ends 14 full months after the end of the training, 14 shares are used up. Mathematically, 22 of 36 shares remain, i.e. €2,200. A claim for the full €3,600 would not be compatible with this agreement.

In the review, the actual costs count, not an invented course value. Request the course invoice, proof of payment and a calculation for each item. If remuneration during a period of leave was included in the agreement, the concrete contractual and legal basis for that must also be examined.

Which type of termination can trigger repayment

Not every termination of employment leads to the same result. Repayment is legally excluded in particular in the case of termination during the probationary period, unfounded dismissal, justified early resignation, dismissal due to permanent incapacity to work, and generally in the case of dismissal by the employer. An exception may exist if employees' culpable conduct provided justified grounds for the employer's dismissal. Also, the regular end of a fixed-term contract before the expiry of the binding period does not trigger repayment under the law.

An effective agreement can typically become relevant in the case of resignation by the employee, justified dismissal, or unjustified exit. According to the Chamber of Labour, an amicable termination can also be covered. Anyone negotiating an amicable solution should therefore expressly and in writing include a waiver of reimbursement of training costs. A verbal 'That will be fine' is not sufficient protection for a four-figure sum.

Before the dismissal meeting, the potential remaining amount should therefore be prepared just like the notice period and handover. The jobspot.at guide to Dismissal meeting in Austriahelps with the organizational planning; the training costs additionally require a separate written assessment.

What happens if the training was not completed?

§ 2d AVRAG is tied to a successfully completed training. If the course includes a final exam, passing it is regularly an essential part of the success. The OGH held in 8 ObA 82/23afinds that, in the absence of a qualification there is generally no obligation to repay. Different rules may apply if the employee has culpably frustrated the success of the training. The employer bears the burden of proof for this; a failed exam alone does not in itself establish fault.

A clause that automatically demands full payment even in the case of non-culpable failure may be invalid. Therefore document illness, cancelled exams, lack of preparation opportunities or other causes. What matters is not only the result but why the qualification was not obtained.

Assess the claim in eight steps

1. Establish whether a training obligation exists

Check the employment contract, collective agreement, works agreement and professional regulatory requirements. If the further training was a mandatory prerequisite for the agreed activity, § 11b AVRAG and the employer's obligation to bear the costs argue against passing the costs on to the employee.

2. Distinguish training from onboarding

Note learning objectives, the qualification and external applicability. Internal systems and product workflows point more toward onboarding; a recognized certificate and knowledge usable across the industry point more toward formal training.

3. Search for a written individual agreement

Check whether a written agreement was concluded specifically for this course before it began. A general clause in the employment contract is usually not sufficient.

4. Have actual costs verified

Request invoices and a breakdown. Internal imaginary prices, flat-rate administrative expenses, or items that were not incurred should not be accepted without verification.

5. Check commitment period and monthly invoice

For each course, determine the end of training, the agreed-upon months, and the full months already completed. Calculate the reduction yourself.

6. Assign reason for termination

Resignation, termination by the employer, expiration of the term, dismissal, withdrawal, and mutual agreement are not interchangeable. Record the actual reason for termination in writing.

7. Document training success

Check the final certificate and examination result. If the training was not successfully completed, it must be clarified whether and why that happened.

8. Seek advice before payment or acknowledgement

Request the claim including the calculation in writing and do not hastily sign an acknowledgement of debt or an installment agreement. If you are unsure, the Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer), trade union, or employment law advice services can help. A practical case from the AK Vorarlberg shows that even a claim of over 11,000 euros can fail due to an agreement presented only after the start of training.

Three typical practical cases

Case 1: Mandatory training for the agreed activity

An employee must acquire a specific certification due to a function defined in the employment contract. The employer organizes the course and simultaneously presents a three-year repayment clause. Because the qualification is a prerequisite for the already agreed activity, working time and costs must first be assessed according to § 11b AVRAG. A classic shifting of costs to the employee is not simply permissible.

Case 2: Usable specialist course with a clean agreement

A technician voluntarily attends an externally recognized course. Before starting, the content, actual costs of 4,800 euros, a 48-month commitment, and the monthly reduction are set out in writing. He resigns himself after 30 months. Provided all other requirements are met, the pro-rata remaining amount of 18/48ths may be relevant. The full course fee may not be demanded.

Case 3: Flat-rate clause and internal training

An employee spends three days learning the company's internal inventory management system. The employment contract only generally states that training costs must be repaid on termination. After she resigned, €1,500 was charged. There is neither a specific individual agreement nor training that is externally marketable. The claim should not be accepted without review.

Frequently asked questions about training costs

Is a repayment clause in the employment contract sufficient?

A general advance clause is not sufficient. A written agreement for the specific training is required, which provides transparency about costs and conditions before it begins.

Can the employer always demand money if they terminate the employment?

No. Even when the employer terminates, the training, the agreement, the costs, the binding period and the pro rata allocation must be valid. Termination alone does not cure a defective clause.

Can internal training be charged?

No — mere induction/training costs are not recoverable training expenses under § 2d AVRAG. What matters is whether transferable specialized knowledge was acquired.

What happens in the case of a mutual termination?

An effective repayment clause can still take effect. If you negotiate a waiver, it must be expressly included in the written termination agreement.

May the full amount be demanded up to the last day of the binding period?

No. The obligation must be reduced for each month elapsed after the end of the training. A missing or unlawful pro rata apportionment can render the entire agreement invalid.

Should I accept the deduction from the final settlement immediately?

No. First request the agreement, cost receipts and a monthly calculation. Whether a deduction is permissible depends on the specific claim and other employment-law rules. Have disputed amounts reviewed promptly.

Conclusion: Review first, then decide on termination and payment.

Training costs can become relevant when changing jobs, but only within clear limits. Required training for the agreed role, mere onboarding, blanket contract clauses and claims without a monthly reduction are not a solid basis. The type of termination and a successful completion of the training also affect the outcome.

Anyone planning a change should therefore, before the Accepting the next job offer all training agreements collect and calculate the maximum remaining amount. If the employer demands money, ask for a written breakdown and have unclear clauses reviewed before you pay, have it offset, or sign an installment agreement. This turns an unexpected cost risk into a comprehensible decision.

Repaying training costs: What really counts before termination

The first fork in the road: required further training or voluntary additional qualification?

Training is not the same as induction

Four questions to determine classification