Enforcing "Training Contracts"? Evidently, they are enforcible...

[FN FAL]

...so says the Nebraska Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/nebraskastatecases/sc/dec14/s00-221.pdf

NATURE OF CASE
Suburban Air Freight, Inc. (Suburban Air), sued Gerald J.
Aust for breach of an agreement for reimbursement of training
costs after Aust left his employment and refused to pay for pilot
training provided by Suburban Air. A jury in the county court for
Douglas County entered a verdict in favor of Suburban Air in the
amount of $2,916. On appeal, the district court affirmed, and
Aust timely appealed.

FACTS
In its amended petition, Suburban Air claimed that it suffered
$3,000 in damages when Aust left his employment with
Suburban Air and did not reimburse the company for pilot training
as required by the training agreement. Aust asserted in a
counterclaim that Suburban Air wrongfully withheld wages
from him although he continued to work for a short time after
informing Suburban Air that he planned to leave its employment.
Aust claimed he was damaged in the amount of $83 or $84
in bank charges.

Suburban Air provides air transportation for freight, and in
1996, it hired Aust as a pilot to be based in North Platte. In May,
Aust signed the first of two agreements in which Suburban Air
agreed to provide general indoctrination training and Aero
Commander 500/680 ground and flight training so that Aust
would be certified to fly the Aero Commander 680FL aircraft. A
pilot must pass oral and written examinations and an inflight
competency check for each type of aircraft flown by the pilot.

The parties agreed that the fair value of the training was $5,000.
This agreement provided that if Aust voluntarily terminated his
employment with Suburban Air at any time prior to or 1 calendar
year from the date of the agreement or if Aust’s employment
was terminated for cause, Aust would reimburse Suburban Air
for the training on a prorated schedule.

In November 1996, Aust requested a transfer to Omaha, and
he and his family moved to Omaha in February 1997 at Aust’s
expense. Aust continued to fly the Aero Commander 680FL and
began training on the Cessna 402.

On June 3, 1997, the parties entered into a second training
agreement which is the basis of this appeal. In the agreement,
Suburban Air agreed to provide training for Aust on a Cessna
402 in return for his agreement to stay in Suburban Air’s employ
for 1 year. The fair value of the training was set at $3,000. The
specifics of the second agreement varied from the original
agreement as to the deadlines and amounts of reimbursement.

Under the second agreement, if the termination occurred within 210 days of the agreement, Aust agreed to repay the entire training
cost of $3,000. If the termination occurred after 210 days or
before 240 days following the signing of the agreement, Aust
agreed to repay five-sixths of the training cost. The amount that
would be reimbursed upon early termination decreased by onesixth
of the training cost for every additional 30 days during
which termination did not occur. If the termination occurred
more than 330 days and on or before 365 days following the
signing of the agreement, Aust agreed to pay one-sixth of the
training cost. Aust was not required to repay any part of the
training cost if the termination occurred more than 365 days
from the date of the agreement.

Initially, Aust refused to sign the second training agreement,
but he eventually signed it in the presence of Louis Kuhn, Jr.,
senior line pilot and director of training for Suburban Air. In
October 1997, Aust quit his job with Suburban Air and took a
position with Silver Hawk Aviation in Lincoln, where he was
employed at the time of trial. Suburban Air sued Aust for
breach of the second agreement, seeking reimbursement of the
training costs.

On February 12, 1999, a county court jury found in favor of
Suburban Air and awarded damages in the amount of $2,916. In
addressing Aust’s motion for directed verdict or, in the alternative,
a new trial, the county court found that the evidence supported
the amount of damages and a finding of proximate cause
and substantial performance by Suburban Air. The county court
found that the purpose of the training agreement was not to
effect an assignment of wages but, instead, was to ensure that
Suburban Air would be reimbursed for its investment in Aust’s
training. The county court concluded that the provision of the
agreement alleged to be a wage assignment was severable from
the rest of the agreement and that the agreement should be
enforced even if it contained a wage assignment provision which
would not be enforced. The county court denied Aust’s motion
for directed verdict and/or a new trial.

Aust timely appealed to the district court, which found no
error appearing on the record and affirmed the judgment of the
county court. Aust timely appealed to the Nebraska Court of
Appeals, and the case was moved to this court’s docket pursuant to our authority to regulate the caseloads of this court and the
Court of Appeals.

CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in affirming the county court’s
judgment. Thus, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

 

[English]

The law is different state by state.

 

[Crimson03]

FN FAL
Ha ha Big rock candy mountain ... I love it. It is sad we have a couple of different 'modern' versions of that song on kids cds and they have all been politcally corrected in different ways. And that the NIH supports a webpage with the lyrics geez, I don't think the dept of labor has 'Hey, coal miner' I guess you can harm yourself at work just don't be a bum.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

The law is different state by state.

I've heard of several states that will uphold these agreements. The bigger question is, why would a professional pilot, with a long career ahead of them, not abide by something they signed? Unless, of course, they were coerced into signing something through fraud. Back in my day, your word was gold, and if you SIGNED something, well, you understand.

I've never walked on any deal of made, even if I ended up feeling it was unfair. My company has no training contract, and two years ago we had a new pilot get typed and leave after 4 months. He had a good reason (his mother got very ill back where he was from), but it still cost the company a pretty penny. I don't know how many of those they'd take before they instituted a different policy. Again, no easy answer to that one.

Ace

 

[ksu_aviator]

These are always enforceable. Think of yourself as a contractor. You sign a contract for one year of work, if you leave then you should have to pay the penalty. It isn't even close to being slavery as some have suggested in the past.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

For those of you that haven't worked in other industries, I have rarely heard of a training contract anywhere else. In many other industries, training is provided that is just as costly and yet there are no training contracts. People up and leave after a short period of time in many jobs after receiving training. There are so many options for an accountant, attorney or investment analyst for example, that if they don't like the job, they leave! And they make a hell of a lot more cash than a cargo pilot. Just the cost of doing business.

Sad that this goes on. Simply taking advantage of pilots needing experience.

Mr. I.

 

[jimpilot]

At least in the New England area doctors are often asked to sign similar agreements to cover the cost of training they may be sent to (after becoming doctors, this is additional training)

 

[mjs]

For those of you that haven't worked in other industries, I have rarely heard of a training contract anywhere else. In many other industries, training is provided that is just as costly and yet there are no training contracts. People up and leave after a short period of time in many jobs after receiving training. There are so many options for an accountant, attorney or investment analyst for example, that if they don't like the job, they leave! And they make a hell of a lot more cash than a cargo pilot. Just the cost of doing business.

Sad that this goes on. Simply taking advantage of pilots needing experience.
Mr. I.

It is just like a doctor must have a medical license in the state he wants to work in or a pharmacist or a lawyer or the list could go on and on. A doctor repays his training in residency by working 100+ hours each week and making $30,000---less than minimum wage. If I go into Walgreen's and want to be a pharmacist, they are NOT going to pay for me to get the training I need along with the license. That is my responsibility. They do offer scholarships ($3,000 per year) to workers (who continue to work for them while in school) to go to school and become a pharmacist, but then that person is obligated to work for the company for 3 years after licensure. Many people enter into contracts of employment, sometimes for training and sometimes as a sign on bonus, but regardless, most contracts have a specified amount of time that must be worked or money must be paid back.

I do not see this as taking advantage of the pilot needing experience. He only had to stay a year to fulfill his contract. If a company trains you, they have the right to want to not be used and taken advantage of. They made an investment in him and only asked that he stay with them one year. They upheld their end of the agreement. He did not have to sign the agreement and his reluctance to sign it shows that he was probably planning on getting the rating and then moving on. I would imagine that the training he got helped him get the new position.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Do the majors or top corporate departments require training contracts? I don't believe so although some may of course. Maybe because their jobs don't suck?? The pay and benefits are good possibly??

Doctors have to go thru residency. It's not as if the doc is saying to himself, "Hey, I'll be a resident at 30k in order to make 100k+, what a great idea I've come up with". He/She has no choice in the matter.

The only pharamacists I've known, few I'll admit, were hired out of college at d-a-m-n good $$$ with no contracts. I admit that this may go on however. Maybe someone doesn't want to sign a training contract because they don't want to be locked into a job where there isn't much to learn after the first few months and 12-18 months seems a bit excessive to them for flying a piston powered aircraft.

Just one man's opinion.

Mr. I.

 

[Corona]

At least in the New England area doctors are often asked to sign similar agreements to cover the cost of training they may be sent to (after becoming doctors, this is additional training)

There have been suits by rural communities who have sued doctors who refused to serve said communities after they paid for the doctor's school. It was quite an issue years ago.

Ironically, this company is the exact same one posting the B1900 job just a couple threads up. Co-inky-dink? I think not!

(I have no idea what my last comments meant, BTW.)

C