Can an employer make you sign a contract for an INHOUSE type

[bhmve]

My company wants me to sign a 2 year contract for an in house type course is that normal? I get it if they were to send me off to do an type course that would allow me to work anywhere, but an in house?
Anyone with experience on this?

I dont want to sign it but I also dont want to get fired? anyone have any ideas what labour laws are like with this kinda stuff?

[Bell206]

What kind of type and what's the cost?

My previous employer asked me to sign one after an endorsement they gave me. I said I would take a look and never heard about it again. I Had some friends sign the training bond and then leave the company with no money paid. Usually they are written up on a two year pro rated basis and if you leave early you owe what's left on the contract. What some companies do when you leave before your contract is up is take the wages owed to you that they haven't paid you yet. According to the labour code that is illegal and if they want the money back for the remainder of the training bond they will have to take you to court and cannot with hold any pay. Depending on what type and cost its probably not worth there time or money to take you to court. I was talking to a pilot a few weeks ago that is in court over the issue. All the training bonds I've seen including this pilot are pro rated at what the company charters there aircraft out for which the judge obviously thought was not to fair and it should be at a cost to the company not a profit. Plus if there is a shortage of work or you get laid off you cant be held to these training bonds. I think these rarely ever go to court. But In the end it comes down to if you want to leave on good terms. It's a very small industry. Legally the can't fire you for not signing a training bond although there are always other ways to get rid of a pilot.

[bhmve]

Its a Bell 212 course. It is in house so this is not through Bell or anything. They got approval to give in house type training on Bell 212's and give ACA's based on that type training. This course is not transferable. It would only apply to the company I work for and as long as I work for them. If I were to leave no one else would recognize it. As far as I am concerned, this training would cost the company zero dollars other than my wage for 3 weeks and our QA Managers salary.

I know I shouldn't sign anything for this but I am concerned they might fire me for not going through them for my type course.

I want to quit but I need 1 month left to get my AME license so I am trying to hold out until then. Anyway, just curious if anyone has ever had an in house type course and did they have to "pay" for it.

[azimuthaviation]

Im assuming you work in Canada, so therefore no one can make you sign anything. If I were you I would spend the weekend making up a good cover letter, good resume, get some references from people you work with and send them out. As soon as you get a couple bites, give your two weeks notice. What you want to be beholden to these jackasses for life because TC who will approve anything approved their OJT as enough to give an ACA? If you lose your job and are delayed a few weeks in getting an AME license but you find a better job when do you think your break even point will be? Six weeks? Two months? Hardly worth it.

[GyvAir]

I've heard of training bonds for type courses held in house, but don't know the specifics. Being in house, the cost to the company should be much, much lower than if they sent you to the factory, so the bond amount better be much, much lower as well and/or the bond length shorter. To keep it relative to typical factory course bonds, something around half the actual incurred costs. So basically: (your wages + instructor costs/number of seats)/2.
They're a touchy subject. Rear back too far at the mention of a bond and management will take that as a sign that you're not inclined to stick around regardless and will be reluctant to invest in the training even when you say you will sign.
As long as the terms aren't too binding and the amount isn't exorbitant, I say agree to it and worry about paying it when the time comes, should you decide to leave. And I say go for it even if leaving is heavily on your mind - unless you already know when and where you’re going. If it comes out that you already had arranged to jump ship before accepting a training course… well, as Bell206 said: It’s a very small industry.
There’s a good chance that you’ll find your overall work experience improves once you have a course and/or ACA. You’ll likely be getting better experience through the tasks assigned and required decision making; both added value when you do go looking at the other side of the fence.
Many prospective employers will also help you out with a training bond by paying it out for you (possibly with a new bond agreement with them of course) if they wish to hire you, especially if they are operating the equipment for which you’ve been on course.
Also, even if the bond gives you a feeling of being stuck with the company, the two years in bond will feel shorter than the years you’ll spend falling behind in experience, losing money and missing opportunities without the type training.

Edit after seeing last two posts: Non-transferable in house training... no, I wouldn't sign a bond for that. Absolutely not a 2 year bond. Unless it’s for a relative pittance and will serve to keep things smooth until you can make a clean exit on your terms.

[flingwinger]

Do not sign a contract for that. I'm in rotary as well, that is a ploy to rip you off. They are trying to secure you for two years because there is a lack of engineers.

I'd jut be honest with them, tell them that since its in house/non transferable you will not sign a contract because there really is no incentive to leave!. If they were to send you on a TC certified Bell course on the other hand, that you would be interested.

I paid for my first type course, although I wasn't licensed at the time. Haven't paid for one since. The demand is out there for AME's in rotary, you shouldn't have a problem finding a job where the employer is willing to train you. And I wouldn't worry about being fired by denying their training or contract.

[CID]

With respect to training bonds, ultimately the choice is yours. If a training bond is crossing your comfort level, find a job that doesn't have require them. If enough people refuse, the company may need to change it's policy. It's not just a matter of supply and demand, it's a matter of protecting your (their) investment. Which leads me to my next point....

I find it quite arrogant and a little misinformed of someone to dismiss the cost of training as though it is "free" when done in-house. I also have an issue with people who condemn business owners who use them.

It definitely DOES cost money to develop and deliver training. It is most certainly the right of an owner to try to protect his/her investment in you and to impose a training bond no matter what the circumstances.

I can't tell you how many small operators I've seen shell out big dollars on training just to see their newly minted licensed people jump ship. Small operators are tired of being the stepping stone without any benefit. So if you're unhappy with the bond, go somewhere else but don't smear the operator for doing something that you very likely would do yourself if you where in their position.

[GyvAir]

I don't think anybody is smearing anybody here. While the complete terms of the contract in question weren't listed here, I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss what we would and wouldn't be apt to agree to. Personally, I don't think the cost of administering in house training warrants a two year bond, regardless of the dollar amount. As you say though it's up to bhmve to weigh the terms and decide if it's something he can live with and work comfortably under in the given workplace environment.
As far as small operators being treated as stepping stones goes, in the long run, it's generally as much a circle as a straight line, in decent shops at least. For every guy they train and lose shortly thereafter, they usually hire another engineer that comes with a whole portfolio of training paid for by other shops. If a company finds that they are only on the losing half of that circle, maybe they need to take a look at their workplace culture and conditions. There's generally a reason for a well oiled revolving door, unrelated to the employees filing through it.

[Heliian]

An unrecognized in house course on the 212 is worth squat. If it was an approved airframe and engine course I would consider giving them the a year. The Bell cost is around 9000 for the airframe and then the engine would probably cost 2000 and then there is travel expenses for 4 weeks. But that's TC approved. How long is this "inhouse" course of yours? Will you learn all the important info? And how come TC will allow an ACA with your fake course but won't give it approval? CHC and ALPINE have approvals for their courses.

As a note, I've never had to sign for a course but I know of people who have signed a prorated contract for 1 year on an approved type course, doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but that's an approved course you get to keep with you.

[flatface]

Deleted

[KISS_MY_TCAS]

Type courses generally are a mutual benefit between employer and employee. I have never heard of an in-house non transferrable type course approved by TC, but with TC washing their hands of industry oversight it doesn't surprise me. Its either a TC approved course or it isn't, seems like you have someone in management that meets a TC inspector for beers every Friday after work. Operator specific course, no bond as obviously it is useless outside you're current employer, there is no mutual benefit. If they were to send you on am approved type course through Bell/FlightSafety/NEI which is awarded a certificate in your name, is transferrable and recognized by TC then a training bond is out of mutual respect between employer and employee. I think you should politely tell your DOM to '@#$! a sock' and move on.

[Bede]

If they fired you it would be a clear case of wrongful dismissal. What's in it for you to do this training?

CID,
Of course it costs something. It's just that employers want far more for these bonds than what it costs them.

[robertw]

I have never heard of an in-house non transferrable type course approved by TC, but with TC washing their hands of industry oversight it doesn't surprise me. Its either a TC approved course or it isn't, seems like you have someone in management that meets a TC inspector for beers every Friday after work.

TCCA allows AMO's to provide type courses to their own employees per CAR 571 Appendix M and are approved by TCCA. See the link. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... m-1903.htm
If they wish to offer them to persons outside of the company, they must hold an ATO certificate. Without holding an ATO certificate, the course is useless outside of the company that provided it.

[NeverBlue]

It definitely DOES cost money to develop and deliver training. It is most certainly the right of an owner to try to protect his/her investment in you and to impose a training bond no matter what the circumstances.

+1

It is one of the overhead costs in this industry that a lot of other trade industries don't even come close to.
It's one of the biggest costs in a "Maintenance hour" and a big reason why wages for apprentices are below other trade industry apprentice wages.

However, I have two friends that signed training bonds, left before they expired and the company couldn't do a thing.

It was "ruled" that the company required their personel to have training in order to carry out the work, the company knew the employee did not have the training at the time of hire so the employee was not responsible for the cost of training...period.

It's no different than being a First Aid person during your shift, quitting, and the company tries to charge you for the level 2 first aid course you had to take.

...it doesn't fly...

[KISS_MY_TCAS]

TCCA allows AMO's to provide type courses to their own employees per CAR 571 Appendix M and are approved by TCCA. See the link. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... m-1903.htm
If they wish to offer them to persons outside of the company, they must hold an ATO certificate. Without holding an ATO certificate, the course is useless outside of the company that provided it.

Good info, which I obviously wasn't aware of. Thank you!

[Krimson]

However, I have two friends that signed training bonds, left before they expired and the company couldn't do a thing.

It was "ruled" that the company required their personel to have training in order to carry out the work, the company knew the employee did not have the training at the time of hire so the employee was not responsible for the cost of training...period.

It's no different than being a First Aid person during your shift, quitting, and the company tries to charge you for the level 2 first aid course you had to take.

...it doesn't fly...

If this is true, wouldn't that invalidate every bond? ..As you require training (resulting in a type rating) to perform your duties.

Do you have a link to the case?

[NeverBlue]

Sorry Krimson, too close to home.

If this is true, wouldn't that invalidate every bond? ..As you require training (resulting in a type rating) to perform your duties.

It really depends on the wording in the contract you sign. I know in these cases the origninal job posting description (which didn't mention or ask for the training) and the fact that it wasn't a condition of employment at the time of hire...in writing...is what made it non-binding.

I also know that after these incidents the company no longer uses that practice.

[Possum]

Contracts for training aren't worth the paper they are written on. You can leave the company after taking the course and use your training elsewhere if you wish. No contract can prevent you from earning your living. Any lawyer will tell you the same. Just remember though that it is a small industry and keeping your word means something.

Both amo and ato type training are tc approved. The difference is amo's can only provide training to their own employees.
The type training your company gives you will be tc approved and can be used after you leave the company. I have never heard of type training that didn't work that way. Just make your sure you get a copy of your training certificate.

[CID]

Possum, perhaps you aren't familiar with how training bonds work. Generally, the employee must sign papers making them the person responsible for a bank loan. The company will make the monthly payments for the duration of the bond period unless the employee leaves. Leaving is a hit to the pocket book, not the reputation. It's a simple business transaction.

Back to the original question, no. An employer can't make you do anything you don't want to do. They are also not under any obligation to continue employing you if you are of no value to them.

[robertw]

The type training your company gives you will be tc approved and can be used after you leave the company. I have never heard of type training that didn't work that way. Just make your sure you get a copy of your training certificate.

I would be very careful about assuming this. Although the regulations / Standards do not specifically say that AMO provided type courses are not valid once an individual leaves the company, I think the Standard implies it when it limits the AMO to training only its employees. I just went through this with our local TC office and the response was that the training is not transferable once the employee leaves the AMO that provided the training. You may get a different answer from your local TC office as they sometimes give out conflicting info, but it's best to get them to make the call. Whatever they say though... Get it in writing.

[Ecco]

My company wants me to sign a 2 year contract for an in house type course is that normal? I get it if they were to send me off to do an type course that would allow me to work anywhere, but an in house?
Anyone with experience on this?

I dont want to sign it but I also dont want to get fired? anyone have any ideas what labour laws are like with this kinda stuff?

unlubricated assault .... just another way to build cash from the employees.

[dstechnical]

if you want to do any kind of international work later on, only factory approved training is recognized/ accepted. go to Bell take the 212 course, and the pratt course, the payback is a couple of months of work. not a big deal in the long run, and no employers holding the hammer over you.

[flatface]

Deleted

[Bede]

Contracts for training aren't worth the paper they are written on. You can leave the company after taking the course and use your training elsewhere if you wish. No contract can prevent you from earning your living. Any lawyer will tell you the same. Just remember though that it is a small industry and keeping your word means something.

That's really bad advice and completely wrong. If you think you can get out of a contract with some dubious legal reasoning you are wrong. There are only a few things to nullify a contract and they are very difficult to establish.

http://canlii.ca/t/20swz
http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abpc/doc/2009/20 ... pc219.html

[robertw]

Looks like those "unenforceable" training bonds aren't so unenforceable after all.