Employers do not have to pay all refresher training costs

Since August 2022, most study costs for employees must be paid by employers. As a result, many study costs clauses are now null and void. This means that these clauses no longer exist and that employers cannot rely on them anymore. This concerns study costs clauses for mandatory training. Mandatory training may follow from the law or from a collective labour agreement (CAO). 

As far as study costs are concerned, Dutch law was amended in 2022. This law amendment is a consequence of the Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU. It follows from the recitals of this Directive that professional qualifications and vocational training are excluded from the obligation mentioned above. This means that employers do not have to pay the costs for those courses and that a study costs clause may still be agreed for them. 

Professional qualifications and vocational trainings include, for example, training for attorneys, psychologists and physiotherapists. It is doubtful whether this exception applies in all cases. At present there is a lot of debate on whether these trainings should not be paid by employers after all, if they are necessary for the position for which the employee was hired. To settle this dispute, the Court of Appeal of The Hague asked questions to the Supreme Court in October 2024. 

On 20 February 2025, a ruling was published by the Court of Noord-Holland on the question whether the employer or the employee had to be saddled with the costs of refresher courses. In this case, the employer had agreed with truck drivers on study costs clauses about the repaying of costs for mandatory refresher courses for truck drivers. The mandatory refresher training was required to keep a professional qualification as a truck driver (also known as ‘code 95’). The employees in this case believed that the study costs clauses were null and void. 

The employees were not proved right by the court. The court held that this case concerned costs that were incurred for refresher training. Such refresher training is necessary to practise the position for which the employees had been hired. However, as this training is covered by the exception from the Directive mentioned above, the employer did not have to pay these costs. The exception from the Directive concerns vocational training or training required for workers to obtain, maintain or renew a professional qualification. This includes follow-up training too. The employer had deducted amounts between €180 and €553 from the most recent salary of the employees, which amounts the employer was allowed to keep. 

It means that if employers rely successfully on the exception for vocational training and professional qualifications, this will also include costs of follow-up training. In that case, employers can enter into a valid study costs clause, including an obligation to repay the training costs and the costs of follow-up training. Whether employers can (continue to) rely on the exception in the future will depend on the answering of the questions the Court of Appeal of The Hague has submitted to the Supreme Court. These answers are expected in 2025.