Training bond case law.

[teacher]

Training Bonds. Or how companies brain washed pilots into thinking they were a necessity. Imagine. Pilots having the gall to leave for greener pastures. Happens in EVERY industry. Most industries have training expenses. Aviation ain't special.
Training bonds are here, simply because pilots don't have the BALLS not to sign them!
I say again....for every pilot YOU can name that left a company with a fresh PPC, I can name five companies that have fucked over a pilot...or several pilots.
Stop signing these things, you jam-tart wimps!

A company that treats their pilots properly, needs no stinking bond!

Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cncpc]

I think Doc summed it up nicely.

I do believe that the solution to this is for Transport to change the regs so that a PPC is issued only for the operator that trained the pilot, or another operator who may purchase time remaining on a PPC from the training operator at a pro rata basis. If that's the way it was set up, pilots would not be able to change jobs for a job offer based on their PPC somebody else paid for in good faith.

[cncpc]

I think Doc summed it up nicely.

I do believe that the solution to this is for Transport to change the regs so that a PPC is issued only for the operator that trained the pilot, or another operator who may purchase time remaining on a PPC from the training operator at a pro rata basis. If that's the way it was set up, pilots would not be able to change jobs for a job offer based on their PPC somebody else paid for in good faith.

[Cat Driver]

Or better still get rid of the PPC and go back to the way it used to be, let the chief pilot decide if a pilot is competent to fly a given airplane.

[Doc]

Or better still get rid of the PPC and go back to the way it used to be, let the chief pilot decide if a pilot is competent to fly a given airplane.

We'll never see that happen. It IS the best solution, though. We both know that. To dispense with the PPC (or any other brain dead carp idea, for that matter) would be to admit it was a bad idea in the first place, and our government is very happy to let stupidity continue, than admit it was a stupid idea in the first place. Witness the long gun registry.

[Cat Driver]

Yeh Doc the PPC requirement has resulted in the one or two trick pony pilot pool.

Seems few can grasp the fact that a properly trained pilot can fly a broad range of aircraft without a PPC.

[Doc]

Yeh Doc the PPC requirement has resulted in the one or two trick pony pilot pool.

Seems few can grasp the fact that a properly trained pilot can fly a broad range of aircraft without a PPC.

I'd be interested in picking your brain as to how many different types of aircraft a pilot should be, shall we say, "competent" in operating at one time?

[Cat Driver]

I'd be interested in picking your brain as to how many different types of aircraft a pilot should be, shall we say, "competent" in operating at one time?

I assume " at one time " means during a period of time such as one day?

Doc that will depend on the complexity of the aircraft being flown.

Heavy jets and heavy helicopters can be very complex and require not only regular time flying them but also recurrent check rides to identify problems that may creep into daily operation of the systems.....

....however at the 703 / 704 end of commercial aviation one can safely fly quite a broad range of aircraft in a given day without compromising safety as long as you know what you have in your hands at a given moment.

( I am sort of out of the loop with how you Canadians segregate your types of flying but I think 703 and 704 are small aircraft operations? )

Anyhow lets use the following examples of different aircraft that one can switch back and forth on quite safely.

Single engine piston airplanes , nose wheel and tail wheel.

Twin engine airplanes, nose wheel and tail wheel.

Small single engine helicopters.

Assuming you have been properly trained on above and have recent flying time on same.

[Slats]

So long , im done with this.

Thank god.

[Louis]

Bit of a thread resurrect, but here's another court case I recently read about, this one occurring in Quebec:

http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/20 ... cq607.html

[frankfrank]

Nobody's commented on all those CanLII quotes. They have all sided with the Employer. A contract is a contract. Whether it's ethical or not it is still a contract signed by adults and legally must be adhered to.

All those CanLII quotes have shown is that those pilots were idiots. It was written in black and white that they will be responsible for the monies if they left employment before their due date.

Doc, I get it, you don't like training contracts. I'm sure you're a highly skilled and competent pilot but you are certainly a horrible businessman. Eating $30000+ so some guy can fly a 1900 in YYZ and be close to mommy (and reneg on his word) is not a "cost of doing business". A business man allowing that shit to happen on a regular basis would be putting all his employees on unemployment in quick order.

Do you want to know who agrees with me??? According to the CanLII quotes the Judicial System of Canada.

Yeah yeah, if employers treated their pilots well then we wouldn't need bonds, well on the flip of the coin if certain pilots acted with honor we wouldn't need them also. These bonds didn't just appear, they started because of pilots reneging. Remember?

I've been a commercial pilot for 15 years. I worked at an excellent company way back, that didn't have bonds. Then one asshole got PPC'd and a week later took his brand new PPC to the big city. A month later another guy did the exact same thing. After that, the company was forced to protect them selves with bonds.

[Tiny Tyke]

Pilots need federal legislation like Truckers have that outlines the business relationships that are allowed between Employee and Employer. It would cover the following problems:

1. Pilots that are asked to be 'on contract' but only working for one employer so that they can save on EI, CPP etc...

2. Training Bond limitations that are fair. Some of the clauses that are out there are ridiculous.

2 cents.

[George Taylor]

I know this is an old thread, but just wondering if someone did pay their bond are they issued a receipt?
Is this an allowable employment expense regarding deductions?

[Meatservo]

That's actually an interesting question. I assume you're talking about a situation in which a person signs a contract agreeing to stay at a company following some specific training, and then decides to leave and voluntarily pays out the remainder of the agreed-upon pro-rated sum.

If this training facilitated or enabled the individual to get his next job, then I would agree that the paid-out portion could be considered a personal education expense. It would be interesting to hear if this was the case.

By the way guys, I just finished reading an article in McLean's about university students who are experiencing depression at the prospect of having to work menial jobs after graduation to feed themselves while working a succession of unpaid short-term internships in order to find career work. Apparently this is commonplace. I guess it's not just aviation, but a fairly widespread expectation in the business world overall, that recent graduates work for little to nothing. In fact, given the fact that pilots who work for free are so looked-down-upon, I would hazard a guess that the practice is more commonplace outside of aviation. Not that I find this at all acceptable, but it seems that aviation is NOT actually the only industry that perpetrates this BS. Seems like a pretty well-entrenched business principle.

[scopiton]

I know this is an old thread, but just wondering if someone did pay their bond are they issued a receipt?
Is this an allowable employment expense regarding deductions?

ask for a receipt and present it to your accountant, he should be able to put it in your prof expenses, as this is an expense related to your professional activities for training purposes. the object of the expense should logically be written on the receipt as "training on such type etc..."
you'll see if it works.
there's no reason to leave xxxx$ behind simply because it's a "training bond". every expense and "windfall" within a company has to be justified, and every amount of money retained by the employer on the employee's paycheck should be justified in written to the employee and authorized by the employee in written - hence the "training bond".
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/emplo ... _wages.pdf

[Doc]

I know this is an old thread, but just wondering if someone did pay their bond are they issued a receipt?
Is this an allowable employment expense regarding deductions?

ask for a receipt and present it to your accountant, he should be able to put it in your prof expenses, as this is an expense related to your professional activities for training purposes. the object of the expense should logically be written on the receipt as "training on such type etc..."
you'll see if it works.
there's no reason to leave xxxx$ behind simply because it's a "training bond". every expense and "windfall" within a company has to be justified, and every amount of money retained by the employer on the employee's paycheck should be justified in written to the employee and authorized by the employee in written - hence the "training bond".
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/emplo ... _wages.pdf

Like pilots (at the level that this would be an issue) have accountants! Sorry mate, it ain't deductible. Because you get it back. Thus you would have to treat it as income! If you were dumb enough to sign it, it won't get you a tax break.

[George Taylor]

Doc, you mention that you get it back. How exactly? If its an agreement and no money exchanges hands until you leave, isn't it an employment expense?

[spaner]

The answer is yes, but depends on the details, in how you would go about doing it.
For example,
You singed a 12month bond in Jan12, for a PPC.
You were paid monies during the year, but in Nov12, you stopped working there.
You then payed to the employer 1/12th the value of the bond (on your credit card, of course) in Dec12.
You did this to complete your employment contract.
Hopefully, and you suggested this to your employer, he just pulled it from monies owed to you. Vaca etc.
If he did so, then you never earned that money, and will not pay tax on it, cu'z it's not there.
If you payed on the card, then you would claim it as "monies payed back to the employer".
Again, it comes right off the top, Gross to Net, as part of your "earnings contract".
CRA, is all about the earnings. The monies you payed back...were earnings from the employer.

If you used that PPC, or portion there of, to secure NEW employment for the last month of 2012, then, it becomes a new claim under employment expenses, which can only be applied to the earnings from the new employer, in that month only...Pay and receive, same year TAX.
You may come up short in that case.

If you try to do it both ways, or the wrong way, CRA will just deny it, then you will have to appeal.

Basically, ANY monies, of any kind, should be seen somewhere in a T4.
You receive, income and tax goes up.
You payout, income and tax goes down.

Accountants aren't worth a hill of beans. Back in 04, a house mate had me explain to his accountant about the "Northern-Living-Allowance", which at the time, was worth about a 4grand deduction.
5 Internet credits, if you can tell me why this cost ME money. Live and learn..

[spaner]

Not a clue?
Well, I don't want to kill the thread, and that's what I usually end up doing; so,

Just to keep the thread on track, Avcanada Gnomes are about...(Thread-deleting-happy-b@stards).

I usually don't give my opinion on such things, cu'z it just gets "shot-down"; but I've had some experience here...

Case law as pertaining to Training bonds.
Firstly, anybody can sue anyone, for anything, at anytime. That's just the way it is.

If you signed a contract, then this gives merit, to a claim brought forward by your employer.
This does not mean that you have already lost though. YOU, in court, will recognize the contract (you signed it), BUT, it is...[CLAIM]

You could claim that you were mentally incompetent, at the time of signing. Not likely though, and self defeating for your future endeavors.
You could make the counter claim though, that value to the contract holder was NOT lost. This is why the contract was brought to the attention of the court in the first place; value.

This is where case law comes into play. I could site a few, but the basics, is that the courts currently accept the premise of value received, as well as a pro-rata system, for such value.

Let me explain.

A company bonds all their guys for $30,000 over a 2 year period.
You prove that the training and/or cost to the company is actually $10,000, (Cu'z they get a BULK deal) AND, is only valid for 12 months.
Depending on when you left, a pro-rata, of actual "value lost" by the employer, would be determined by the court.
Ruling, $5,ooo, in favor. Court costs, and lawyer, are yours to pay; as well as the $5,ooo.

Lets look at a real world example.
Company X, signs all pilots to two year bonds.
Copilots get a PCC.
Captains get a PPC.
However, Captains also require Simcom training every 24 months.

A captain and a copilot both start Jan 1, Dec 31, they both quit.
The copilot would win any claims against, and the captain would lose.
As, the employer could prove "value lost" based on the Simcom training requirement of "24 months".
Unless you can prove to the court actual expense difference; you'll have to pay one half.
The flip side is, the copilot could counter sue for expenses. Up to $10,000, I believe.

I guess the WCS would be an employer asking for the full bond payout, on a local (TC) PPC after 12 months,
Off a 24 month training contract, from a pilot that refused re-training, in lieu of signing a NEW 24 month bond; at the 12 month mark (contract renewal).
AND was then, terminated.
It would never make it to court. Even if action were brought.
The court would just throw it out.

The 12 month value, in consideration of the training, was fulfilled. PPCs and associated training, are only enforce, for 12 months duration.
The case has no merit.

Hope that's helpful.

Are you taking "value" away from the employer?
BTW; the courts do not consider "life-long-experience" to be "transferable Value", THAT, belongs to the employee (The Pilot). Time sensitive training differs (type ratings, may be included).

Then you are lible. If not, then you are not lible.

Premiss, the contract was fradulent. Countersue for expenses; but, only if action was brought.


Also,
The same claim could be made without a written contract. AKA, "a verbal contract". You agree to stay for a certain amount of time.

The same case law applies, and the courts would treat any claims brought, as the same.

A "written contract" is for the understanding of the parties involved, unless, a verbal contract was brought under "dispute".
Which is rare. Training was given, and value was lost. That is the claim, regardless of the type of contract.

"Resolution", is another matter.
Say you wright a cheque for 1/12 the value of the bond; and print "EMPOYMENT CONTRACT PAID IN FULL", at the bottom of the cheque, and the company cashes it.

Case dissmissed; no merit; "The Employer" accepted "final payment".

Get yourself a good lawyer. That's how to understand case law, as it pertains, specifacly, to training contracts and pilots.

I try my best to avoide such situations.
Buy out your contract, if it seems resonable; at all.

Court costs, lawyers...are a b!tch...

Employers will consider this cost as well...So, pay out, what seems reasonable...

[Zoo till Two]

Haven't read any posts other than the first one. I have been sued in the queens Bench court of Canada, or on the Queens bench don't know don't care. For a $2500 bond. Just ended up paying. You sign, you pay. Not really a big deal

[George Taylor]

Haven't read any posts other than the first one. I have been sued in the queens Bench court of Canada, or on the Queens bench don't know don't care. For a $2500 bond. Just ended up paying. You sign, you pay. Not really a big deal

I don't think anyone is concerned about a $2500 bond, more like the $25000 bond.

[Zoo till Two]

Haven't read any posts other than the first one. I have been sued in the queens Bench court of Canada, or on the Queens bench don't know don't care. For a $2500 bond. Just ended up paying. You sign, you pay. Not really a big deal

I don't think anyone is concerned about a $2500 bond, more like the $25000 bond.

RTFQ