OGH: Signature Required for Training Reimbursement Agreement

Jun 14, 2024 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) has explicitly clarified that an agreement to reimburse training costs according to Section 2d of the Austrian Employment Contract Law Amendment Act (Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz, hereinafter AVRAG) must be signed by both the employee and the employer.

In the case at hand, the defendant had been employed by the claimant and signed a ‘declaration of repayment of the costs of training courses’, which was then not signed by the plaintiff. On the basis of this agreement, the plaintiff claimed reimbursement of part of the training costs after the employee’s dismissal. The defendant argued that because the mandatory written form requirement had not been met, the declaration of repayment was not a valid agreement within the meaning of Section 2d AVRAG. The requirement of ‘in written form’ must be understood as requiring a signature.

The OGH ruled in favour of the defendant.

According to Section 2d(2) of the AVRAG, reimbursement of training costs can only be claimed on the basis of a written agreement between the employer and the employee. This leads to the conclusion that the lawmakers assumed that the agreement would be signed by both the employer and the employee.

Section 2d of the AVRAG is a protective provision in favour of the employee. However, there is no basis for restricting the interpretation of the written-form requirement (i.e., signatures) in Art. 2d AVRAG to the employee alone.

The plaintiff also failed to convince the court with the argument that the reimbursement of training costs had already been provided for in the employment contract in the form of a framework agreement and that the ‘declaration of commitment’ signed by the employee was merely a concretisation of this reimbursement agreement, which did not require the employer’s signature. According to the OGH, if the law provides for a certain form of agreement, it must in any case contain the essential bases of the contract. However, since the employment contract did not include any specific training costs, the mere signing of this basic agreement did not satisfy the written-form requirement.

OGH 9 ObA 57/23g (24 April 2024)