An FDI company sends two R&D engineers to Korea for four months of training on a new production process, costing over VND 1.2 billion, under training contracts committing them to three more years of service. After ten months, both resign to a competitor and are believed to have taken undisclosed process documents. Management wants all training costs back and the rival stopped from using the documents. The two goals follow two different legal routes and must be handled separately from the start.
Governing legal framework
The training-cost route rests on Article 62 of the Labour Code 2019: where a worker is trained at the employer expense, the parties must sign a vocational training contract; a worker who unilaterally terminates unlawfully or fails the committed service period must reimburse training costs, comprising expenses with valid vouchers such as course fees, materials, salary and insurance during training. The secret route is fully independent: process documents meeting Article 84 of the IP Law are trade secrets, and taking and using them for a competitor is actionable under Article 127 with civil measures, regardless of whether a training contract exists. Merging the two routes into one vague claim is the mistake that makes many companies lose both.
What this means for an FDI employer
An Article 62-compliant training contract must record: the occupation and training content, duration, location, a projected cost table by voucher-backed item, the committed post-training service period, a reimbursement formula proportional to the unserved time, and waiver cases. The common FDI weakness is having only an assignment decision and an oral promise — in which case the training-cost route loses almost all ground, though the secret route remains intact. On the reimbursement level, sound practice is repayment of the cost portion matching the unserved commitment, not an unconditional 100 percent: demanding full repayment after the worker has served most of the commitment is easily adjusted by a court as disproportionate, and the contract should state this linear formula in advance to avoid argument.
When the incident occurs, the handling order is to lock access and fix evidence of the documents taken via system logs, while computing the reimbursement from original vouchers under the training contract. The company may not withhold salary, allowances or the worker papers to force payment outside the statutory deduction mechanism — holding a worker identity papers or diplomas belongs to the prohibited group under the Labour Code. If the worker does not reimburse voluntarily, the correct path is a civil suit combining two distinctly argued claims: training-cost reimbursement under the contract and Article 62, and cessation plus damages for the secret part under Article 127. Proving the documents were secret rests on access control, confidential marking and the confidentiality agreement signed during employment.
Recommended sequence of actions
- Sign the Article 62 training contract before training starts, with a cost table, commitment period and a pro-rata reimbursement formula.
- Keep original vouchers for every training expense and file the training dossier separately from the secret dossier so the two claims stay independent.
- On resignation: lock access at once, review document-download logs, and compute the reimbursement in writing.
- Claim by minuted negotiation; failing that, sue civilly with the two claims argued separately.
FAQs
After costly training, the employee leaves with secrets — can training costs be recovered?
Yes, if a vocational training contract was signed under Article 62 of the Labour Code 2019 before or at the time of training and the worker has not completed the committed post-training service period. With only an assignment decision or an oral promise, recovery is very weak for lack of an agreement basis. The taken secrets are an independent matter: the company may still demand cessation and damages under Article 127 of the IP Law based on the confidentiality agreement and the secrecy measures applied, regardless of the training-cost outcome.
What clauses does a training contract need?
The training contract must record the mandatory contents of Article 62 of the Labour Code 2019: the training occupation, location and duration, training costs itemised by voucher, the committed post-training service period, the reimbursement duty and the concrete reimbursement cases. Beyond the statutory parts, the company should add a reimbursement formula declining with time served and a dedicated confidentiality clause for documents and processes accessed during training — these two points decide practical winnability when an employee leaves mid-commitment.
What is the maximum recoverable amount?
The grounded maximum is the total valid voucher-backed training costs — teaching fees, materials, training travel, salary and insurance contributions during training under Article 62 — multiplied by the unserved fraction of the commitment. The law does not let the employer invent a penalty figure above actual costs; a clause fixing reimbursement above provable costs risks being cut down by a court to a reasonable level. The practical answer is therefore: recovery tops out at real costs, pro-rated to the unserved part, and only where the training contract was properly signed from the start.