Under the act, a provision that a party of the other party must pay a specified amount in the event of a particular event. For example, an offence or a worker who would clear his employment, a specified amount is enforceable only if the amount the party must pay is a real estimate of the loss of the other party. With respect to the impact of this doctrine on an agreement on the reimbursement of training costs, it will be up to the employer to demonstrate that the amount it wishes to reimburse by the employee is a real estimate of its loss. (i) the worker must have written consent to the deductions, in accordance with the agreement; and (ii) it must be made clear that the deduction of the worker`s salary must be made; and (iii) the worker`s agreement must relate to the deduction of that source. A training agreement is a written agreement between an employer and its employee, which defines the conditions of each training that the company pays for them. It defines the cost of training, who is successful in training and who is the primary culprit. As has already been said, the other basis on which reimbursement of training costs cannot be imposed if it is restreignable. Courts will allow employers to protect their legitimate business interests, for example by imposing well-developed and reasonable post-employment restrictions, but they will not allow employers to unduly warn a worker who changes jobs if they wish. The provisions relating to the reimbursement of training places, even if it is a real estimate of the injury, can be considered a commercial restriction if they prevent the worker`s change of employment. Certainly, it seems likely that the type of provisions allegedly introduced by people like Capita would lead to workers leaving their jobs, so that they can be considered unenforceable.
Since then, these agreements have become commonplace in the public sector. In 2004, Congress passed legislation that explicitly requires government employees who receive advanced training in continuous service agreements.