So a friend of mine is being asked to sign a training bond AFTER the training was completed. at the time of the PPC he also held the type rating and a valid VFR PPC.
I understand the training is expensive, and the company has lost a few pilots lately, but really??
This was not brought up when the pilot signed his contract, or before training started, just after training was completed.
And before we get into the fight whether bonds are morally sound, I am of the opinion that sure, when new type training is given, we can bond you, but when you already hold the ratings?? Nope.
Anyone want to comment? I did notice that there are someone on here who used to practice who can put me in the right direction.
It seems fishy to me to require a bond for training that is required by law...
Cheers
W.
Training bond after the fact with current type?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
Re: Training bond after the fact with current type?
Have heard/seen it happen as well. Just don't sign the bond in that case.
What are they going to do? Fire you and throw away their training money, which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place?
What are they going to do? Fire you and throw away their training money, which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place?
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-
tired of the ground
- Rank 5
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:38 pm
Re: Training bond after the fact with current type?
I'm not a lawyer and thus this is worth what you paid for it.
There are 2 things that apply. For a contract to be valid, both parties must get something out of the deal. Secondly, you can't be forced to sign a contract under duress.
If you already have completed training, signing a contract would be of no benefit to you. To the second part, if the company tells you that you'll loose your job if you don't sign, that's duress. Being asked to sign prior to the job however isn't duress because you don't have anything and there is benefit to you signing the contract (back to the first point).
The person should ask the company what benefit signing the bond would confer upon them. If the company can't come up with something then tell them that's why they're not signing. If the company tells you that it's required for your continued employment then tell them that constitutes duress and there's no reason to sign because it's not an enforceable contract.
Having a current type or not has nothing to do with whether a person can be asked to sign a bond. By completing training the pilot has received value and could be asked to sign a contract. The pilot must be asked to sign prior to the completion of training or else the above is applicable.
At the end of the day it depends on what the pilot is willing to do. Are you willing to walk away from the job if they say sign it or you're out. Do you have the funds to fight a wrongful dismissal case? Generally, companies get away with it because justice is only available to the rich. The average person doesn't have the time or funds to force a company to follow the rules.
There are 2 things that apply. For a contract to be valid, both parties must get something out of the deal. Secondly, you can't be forced to sign a contract under duress.
If you already have completed training, signing a contract would be of no benefit to you. To the second part, if the company tells you that you'll loose your job if you don't sign, that's duress. Being asked to sign prior to the job however isn't duress because you don't have anything and there is benefit to you signing the contract (back to the first point).
The person should ask the company what benefit signing the bond would confer upon them. If the company can't come up with something then tell them that's why they're not signing. If the company tells you that it's required for your continued employment then tell them that constitutes duress and there's no reason to sign because it's not an enforceable contract.
Having a current type or not has nothing to do with whether a person can be asked to sign a bond. By completing training the pilot has received value and could be asked to sign a contract. The pilot must be asked to sign prior to the completion of training or else the above is applicable.
At the end of the day it depends on what the pilot is willing to do. Are you willing to walk away from the job if they say sign it or you're out. Do you have the funds to fight a wrongful dismissal case? Generally, companies get away with it because justice is only available to the rich. The average person doesn't have the time or funds to force a company to follow the rules.
Re: Training bond after the fact with current type?
pretty much what I said to my friend.
I agree with the premise of paying for the cost, but it has to be presented prior to, not after completion. In this case the training was completed and the PPC passed a week before the company came up with the bond.
The guy had a current ppc on the aircraft type in question as well, only VFR not IFR, and IFR is not required till October...
Also, the company in question is also NOT requiring bonds from current employees receiving type training on new types if they have been with the company a while...
I agree with the premise of paying for the cost, but it has to be presented prior to, not after completion. In this case the training was completed and the PPC passed a week before the company came up with the bond.
The guy had a current ppc on the aircraft type in question as well, only VFR not IFR, and IFR is not required till October...
Also, the company in question is also NOT requiring bonds from current employees receiving type training on new types if they have been with the company a while...
-
SuperchargedRS
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1485
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:30 am
- Location: the stars playground
Re: Training bond after the fact with current type?
Your friend would have to be a complete sucker/idiot to sign that.
Tell them you're happy to fly for them, but you won't be signing anything.
I HIGHLY doubt they are going to fire him, I mean the whole point of the bond is to force him to not leave their company for a better job, paying for his training and firing him makes zero sense.
So yeah, that's a whole lot of
Tell them you're happy to fly for them, but you won't be signing anything.
I HIGHLY doubt they are going to fire him, I mean the whole point of the bond is to force him to not leave their company for a better job, paying for his training and firing him makes zero sense.
So yeah, that's a whole lot of
Re: Training bond after the fact with current type?
As the above posters have said, there needs to be consideration prior to the formation of a contract. Generally speaking, a contract for past performance is not enforceable.
There's an example of this exact situation in the case of Northern Thunderbird v. Van Haren 2010 BCPC 192 http://canlii.ca/t/2c715 and affirmed on appeal in 2011 BCSC 837 https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=2
What is important on the facts is that the court found that there was still an oral contract between the parties that the pilot would stay for a reasonable amount of time after the training. So while the court did not find the precise terms of the bond were enforceable, as the pilot agreed that the company should get some compensation for the training, the court still found he owed one month's salary for the training.
There's an example of this exact situation in the case of Northern Thunderbird v. Van Haren 2010 BCPC 192 http://canlii.ca/t/2c715 and affirmed on appeal in 2011 BCSC 837 https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=2
What is important on the facts is that the court found that there was still an oral contract between the parties that the pilot would stay for a reasonable amount of time after the training. So while the court did not find the precise terms of the bond were enforceable, as the pilot agreed that the company should get some compensation for the training, the court still found he owed one month's salary for the training.
