Is this Employment contract legal?

[Lrjtcaptain]

Well, I don't see any gray area here, lets examine this:

you signed a contract that said "You will pay the company back the training costs if you don't stay and fly with them for 1 year."

----you stay six months

You signed a contract, you stayed six months.
did the contract say for every month you can take away 1/12 of the training cost? probably not. I highly doubt they will agree to allow you to pay half.

This legal aspects of a contract are pretty straight forward. If it says you will pay them the training fee's if you don't stay a year, then a judge is going to require you pay that money. You signed your name saying that is what you were going to do if you left. You can have verbal contracts if there is a witness and this one is on paper, with your signature. The company already has there money because they went to the collection agency. I don't think the collection agency is going to agree to take half of the money and they usually have good lawyers on there sides.

Bottom line, you owe the money and probably owe some points on it by now, and your credit is in jeopardy and you should take care of it as soon as possible.

 

[TonyC]

This legal aspects of a contract are pretty straight forward.

I was under the impression that once one involves a lawyer, nothing is straightforward.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

I was under the impression that once one involves a lawyer, nothing is straightforward.

Good point, but Ill make a gentlemens bet to say he pays the money.

 

[TonyC]

Good point, but Ill make a gentlemens bet to say he pays the money.

I'll decline the bet, but I'll agree that a gentleman would pay.

 

[bobbysamd]

Back wages

Now listen to what Eagle did to me. I turned in my two weeks notice and dropped a 4 trip the same day. Well the way the pay system worked there (two weeks to a month behind) Eagle over paid me by $800. They sent me a notice saying that if I did not repay them they would send it to collections. I told them to take it out of my sick accout (which was approximately $5,000 because I had only called in sick twice in 6 years). They said "no way, pay us". If I had just called in sick instead of dropping the trip I would not had to find $800 buck while I was on training pay. That's what being honest gets you with AMR.

While I have no legal grounds as a basis, I don't think I would have paid them the $800. Screw 'em. In fact, you could have argued the $800 was for pay they owed you because their pay system is behind. Moreover, was the "sick account" some kind of cafeteria plan where you accumulate funds to pay for illnesses? It might be that they owe you money.

Hope your new company is better.

 

[Timebuilder]

First of all, it depends on what state you are in.

Second of all, probably not. It was a non-negotialble contract.

I offer you a job. You move here. On day one I say you have to sign this contract which says you will wrestle howler monkys in the nude every day for an hour and pay me 1 million dollars if you quit. You sign and then leave.

It was a non-negotiable contract. You didn't have a choice when you signed it. Its not enforceable or legal.

If however, before you moved and when I offered the job I said this contract goes with it, then it would have been negotiable and enforceable.

Bingo.

Because you had already moved and comitted to the job, and if what you indicated is true about there being no previous mention of this agreement, then you signed it under duress. While it is unethical for you to sign the document and then leave without performing your part, it is also unethical for the employer to leave this little tidbit to the last minute, when you are like a cornered animal with no place to go.

Get a lawyer, get the contract declared void in a cort in that jurisdiction, and get a copy of the order to the three major credit reporting agencies.

And don't sign one of these again unless you intend to keep your part of the bargain.

 

[Timebuilder]

Seek testimony or an affidavit from previous employees of this company. If a pattern of behavior emerges, then you can credibly suggest that the same thing has happened to you.



Good luck.

 

[Checknsix]

I can tell you that my company specifically tells you about the training contract and it's terms, BEFORE you come to initial ground, to make sure that their training contract is enforceable and that it does not come under the category of being signed under duress.

- Checknsix

 

[Publishers]

smells

The whole defense here is based on what was told to the individual and when.

First of all, if you are hired to be a 135 pilot for someone, it is a given that they have to pass check rides, pass the D&A test, background tests, and any training.

Now he might have been hired subject to a good deal of this but I find it hard to believe that you move and do all this before all the i's and t's are crossed and you have successfully passed the testing.

Training contracts are enforceable and part of the business especially with smaller companies who cannot afford the turnover.

The point is that if you want this job so bad that you take it over the phone and have not even passed anything yet, you then move and they want to assure themselves you do not leave, you sign and live up to the contract.

 

[I'm42]

The following was a comment on a previous thread with a similar subject, though it had no associated reference:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=32838

(posted by "Country Wild")
The US Supreme Court ruled on a case a few months ago that was over a training contract. Training contracts are not enforceable due to the fact that it violates "indentured servant" status. If you are finacially and legal binded to a job that you can not leave because of this then that contract is illegal an non enforceable. This case also involved a collection agency, the collection agency is being sued now in civil court and some individuals are headed off to criminal court. Seven of the seven judges ruled against the contract.

 

[ThomasR]

Opt for a jury trial.

 

[RichardFitzwell]

What if a company has employed the pilot for a year and now the employer wants a contract? Would that change the enforceability of the contract?

I have worked for my current employer for a year now. They recently purchased a jet and now want me to sign an 18-month employment contract for training costs. The contract is reduced by 1/18th for every month I stay. The cost of the recurrent will be rolled into the total contract amount at the 12-month mark. Recurrent will increase the amount I owe if I should leave at say 13 months.



I am the only full time pilot currently and feel like I have no choice but to sign this bullsh!t contract. This company makes other employees sign employment contracts as well. They have sued three former employees so far. Two settled for half the amount owed and the third got his new employer to payoff the contract.



Any advice? Thanks.

 

[Publishers]

position

There are a number of factors at play here. They bought a jet so I assume that this may be an opportunity for you to get type rated.

What that also tells me is that you are not qualified to work there if what you were flying is now gone. Is that correct?

The fact seems to be that you did not neet this kind of trainng before and hence did not have an existing contract.

Your position is difficult because of all the reasons discussed on this thread. On the other hand, if it is a type rating, and, you want the job, why would you be so reluctant. Your market value will go up and they want protection that if they pay the money, you will not type rate and skip.

Do what you think is right. If you want the type and to leave, then do not do it.

 

[TonyC]

I have worked for my current employer for a year now. They recently purchased a jet and now want me to sign an 18-month employment contract for training costs. The contract is reduced by 1/18th for every month I stay. The cost of the recurrent will be rolled into the total contract amount at the 12-month mark. Recurrent will increase the amount I owe if I should leave at say 13 months.

I'm wondering what would happen if you accepted the initial training with the 18-month contract, but then declined to pay for your own recurrent training.

It seems to me that recurrent training is a cost of doing business, and it will always be incurred unless there is turnover... and a training contract is supposed to reduce turnover?

I'm confused.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What if a company has employed the pilot for a year and now the employer wants a contract? Would that change the enforceability of the contract? I have worked for my current employer for a year now. They recently purchased a jet and now want me to sign an 18-month employment contract for training costs. The contract is reduced by 1/18th for every month I stay. The cost of the recurrent will be rolled into the total contract amount at the 12-month mark. Recurrent will increase the amount I owe if I should leave at say 13 months. I am the only full time pilot currently and feel like I have no choice but to sign this bullsh!t contract. This company makes other employees sign employment contracts as well. They have sued three former employees so far. Two settled for half the amount owed and the third got his new employer to payoff the contract. Any advice? Thanks.

Like most other questions of this type, the answer is "maybe."

In the absence of an agreement, employment in most states is what is called "at will." That means that either the employer or the employee can call it quits at any time.

One of the results of the "at will" doctrine is that many state courts will enforce a change in the terms of employment on the theory that the employer could tell you to just leave. The new terms are in exchange for your continued employment. It's the reverse of you saying that you want a raise or you'll leave.

Is it a reasonable contract? Well, if you look at it from the employer's side for a moment, how much would you say it costs to train someone in that airplane to PIC quality? Now suppose every single pilot left as soon as they reached that stage of competence?

As others have said throughout the thread, at bottom there is nothing wrong with a company recouping it's training costs by requiring that you reimburse it in part if you leave early.

BTW does it say that you only have to pay them back if you leave or are fired for cause, or do you also have to pay them back if you are simply laid off?

 

[Publishers]

Tony

Tony

This is not jsut a case of recurrent if I am reading him correctly. It is a new aircraft type.

 

[flyifrvfr]

There are a number of factors at play here. They bought a jet so I assume that this may be an opportunity for you to get type rated.

What that also tells me is that you are not qualified to work there if what you were flying is now gone. Is that correct?


If you look at the guys profile, it indicates he has 6500 hours and has flown heavy iron. Going by the profile, I would say hour wise, he is qualified to fly there.

 

[Publishers]

reading

Was not trying to question that but it sounded like they had not had a jet before. That is why I framed the question about the type rating.

There was no statement that this was recurrent so I was asking if the aircraft he had been flying was a piston twin or say a King Air 90, was he rated in what he would now be flying.

This is a question that comes up often. Not in this case but in others, pilots have talked the boss into a bigger aircraft. The problem is that then the insurance company says that he is not qualified to fly it (sometimes even if he gets a type). He is then terminated. Is that fair?

The type question goes to the training being offered adding to his value and being something he will take with him. If it is, then he has to make a decision. The job he was supposed to do is gone along with the King Air. In effect, he is being offered a new job for which the company is willing to invest in him if he states he will stay or pay them back. A fair proposal, a decision to be made.

Forgetting that he already was working there, how many would take the deal if you were offered it?

 

[TonyC]

Tony

This is not jsut a case of recurrent if I am reading him correctly. It is a new aircraft type.

He said the cost of recurrent would be rolled into his obligation at the 13-month point. That sounds like recurrent training 1 year after the Initial Training.

The cost of the recurrent will be rolled into the total contract amount at the 12-month mark. Recurrent will increase the amount I owe if I should leave at say 13 months.

There was no statement that this was recurrent ...

Read more carefully. I've quoted the pertinent sentences above.

 

[RichardFitzwell]

Maybe I should have made myself clearer.

The turboprop I was hired to fly is still here. They are adding a jet, which requires a type rating. I will now be flying the turboprop, the jet and doing office work when not in the air. I have several other type ratings and I am qualified to fly this aircraft as PIC for the insurance company and our Ops Manual.

One thing that appealed to me about this job was there was no training contract in the beginning. The turboprop initial training was very inexpensive as I had a lot of time in the same model with another company.

Not flying the jet is not an option. I am expected to go to jet training very soon. I am also expected to sign a contract for the type rating (which I really don't care if I have or not). The contract outlines the terms, which clearly state the recurrent training (an FAA requirement at the 12 month mark) will be added to the contract amount once completed. My problem is with the 18-month contract term and recurrent being added later. To me, like T.C. said, recurrent is the cost of doing business. I can understand a 6 or even a 12-month contract to “recoup” costly training, but not 18 with recurrent added.

It seems to me that because I took the job to fly the turboprop, and have done so for a year, it should be clear I had no intentions to get training just for the experience and then leave. That still isn't my intention but I am furloughed from the airlines and I had this crazy idea they might recall one day. Then again, they may not. Who knows?

Mark, it doesn't address a lay-off.

Is this contract enforceable?