Lawyer Inputs on Training Contracts (Time Sensitive)

[SoundBarViolatr]

Anyone have any intel on what the real world deal is on Training Contracts? AND the weight of such contracts on an expat scenario (overseas company and US pilot)? In a nutshell, the true colors of the company started showing while the pilot is undergoing training including playing with pay and he wants to know if he can walk away without getting dinged for the cost of the training.

Please PM if you know of any decent aviation lawyers in CA that will work with a low (currently NO) income pilot. Thanks fellas.

SBV

 

[landlover]

does he have a copy of the contract. often times the people that write these contracts use the date that training is completed as the start date of the term of the contract in hopes of squeezing out as much time out of the pilot as possible. if this is true he should be able to quit before he completes training and be fine.

 

[CitationUltra]

Anyone have any intel on what the real world deal is on Training Contracts? AND the weight of such contracts on an expat scenario (overseas company and US pilot)? In a nutshell, the true colors of the company started showing while the pilot is undergoing training including playing with pay and he wants to know if he can walk away without getting dinged for the cost of the training.

Please PM if you know of any decent aviation lawyers in CA that will work with a low (currently NO) income pilot. Thanks fellas.

SBV

You should Google for aviation practice specialties in your local area.

There are so many variables in this that no one would be likely to advise based upon your post, but in general, a contract is what it is, in the U.S. legal jurisdictions. However, from your post, you indicate that this dispute will likely not be adjudicated within U.S. jurisdiction, which makes it very much more complicated.

Did you (or whomever is the subject of your post) complete all of the training required to become qualified for the company? Were they terminated or did they voluntarily quit? Was there any memorialization of the payment arrangement, in the contract? What exactly changed, after the agreement, whether verbal or written, was entered into?

 

[SoundBarViolatr]

Training is about a few days from completion. And it's a voluntary resignation by the person (the guy has not been paid in well over a month).

The blanket contract states that a person will incur a one year commitment after the completion of any type rating training course the person undergoes for the job.

I understand that the battle will be a little bit easier to fight and win if he ejects prior to course completion. However, if he finishes the course, how hard of a battle would it be then? (not to take to consideration that he has not been getting paid as of yet).

 

[CitationUltra]

Training is about a few days from completion. And it's a voluntary resignation by the person (the guy has not been paid in well over a month).

The blanket contract states that a person will incur a one year commitment after the completion of any type rating training course the person undergoes for the job.

I understand that the battle will be a little bit easier to fight and win if he ejects prior to course completion. However, if he finishes the course, how hard of a battle would it be then? (not to take to consideration that he has not been getting paid as of yet).

OK, well, in that case, in the event that the person quits prior to the completion of the training/qualification as set forth in the contract, then the condition has not been met to create the contract.

At the same time, if the employee has not been paid in accordance with the agreement as to when he/she would be paid, then the employee (or prospective employee, see below) is not obligated to continue employment or conditional employment activity.

A question is whether or not the person is actually an employee, i.e., was it a part of the agreement that the person become an employee upon the commencement of training, or upon successful completion of the training and qualification? If the latter, then the person is not an employee in any case and is thus likely not obligated.

 

[SoundBarViolatr]

OK, well, in that case, in the event that the person quits prior to the completion of the training/qualification as set forth in the contract, then the condition has not been met to create the contract.

At the same time, if the employee has not been paid in accordance with the agreement as to when he/she would be paid, then the employee (or prospective employee, see below) is not obligated to continue employment or conditional employment activity.

A question is whether or not the person is actually an employee, i.e., was it a part of the agreement that the person become an employee upon the commencement of training, or upon successful completion of the training and qualification? If the latter, then the person is not an employee in any case and is thus likely not obligated.

The person is an employee and has another legal document indicating commencement of employment prior to training. Yes, the company has not paid per the pay schedule set forth in that employment contract.

So comes the golden question. If he finishes the training and is STILL NOT paid by then, would he then have the law on his side to be able to walk away from the company without being sued for the training received?

 

[CitationUltra]

The person is an employee and has another legal document indicating commencement of employment prior to training. Yes, the company has not paid per the pay schedule set forth in that employment contract.

So comes the golden question. If he finishes the training and is STILL NOT paid by then, would he then have the law on his side to be able to walk away from the company without being sued for the training received?

That is a very good question, indeed. His not being paid is a justifiable reason for withholding services (e.g. quitting).

But beware of one aspect of this: The employee knows he is not being paid under the agreement, yet goes ahead and completes training anyway, receiving a valuable credential, which is consideration under the contract, then quits. The company pays the employee, then sues to collect the cost of the type training pursuant to the contract. Now in theory, the company has the now-ex employee over a barrel in relation to the contract. The employee then has to mount an expensive defense of a lawsuit he may well loose.

If I were advising this person, I would say that he or she has a duty to mitigate any loss under the contract, and if he contemplated quitting for the reason of mot being paid, he do so prior to, not after, the completion of training and qualification.

 

[SoundBarViolatr]

That is a very good question, indeed. His not being paid is a justifiable reason for withholding services (e.g. quitting).

But beware of one aspect of this: The employee knows he is not being paid under the agreement, yet goes ahead and completes training anyway, receiving a valuable credential, which is consideration under the contract, then quits. The company pays the employee, then sues to collect the cost of the type training pursuant to the contract. Now in theory, the company has the now-ex employee over a barrel in relation to the contract. The employee then has to mount an expensive defense of a lawsuit he may well loose.

If I were advising this person, I would say that he or she has a duty to mitigate any loss under the contract, and if he contemplated quitting for the reason of mot being paid, he do so prior to, not after, the completion of training and qualification.

Very well stated Sir. At the same token, there has to be compliance with the schedule of pay and as such, a timeframe as viewed by the law to be justifiable for an employee in such circumstances to quit. Even if the person continues and receives credentials from trianing, that person is merely doing his/her job and what has been asked of him/her, whether it was flying the line or completing training?

 

[CitationUltra]

Very well stated Sir. At the same token, there has to be compliance with the schedule of pay and as such, a timeframe as viewed by the law to be justifiable for an employee in such circumstances to quit. Even if the person continues and receives credentials from trianing, that person is merely doing his/her job and what has been asked of him/her, whether it was flying the line or completing training?

Yes, I agree. My only caution is 1. Proceeding despite the non-payment and completing the training and qualification, thus acting to ratify the contract and accept the consideration, and; 2. Accepting payment, despite its being late, then making the argument that quitting was justifiable due to late payment.

If the employee has not been paid in accordance with the original deal and a reasonable time has elapsed, and just to be safe, the employee has brought the non-payment to the attention of the employer in writing, then he can quit, and likely prevail in the event that the employer files a follow-on action.

 

[SoundBarViolatr]

Yes, I agree. My only caution is 1. Proceeding despite the non-payment and completing the training and qualification, thus acting to ratify the contract and accept the consideration, and; 2. Accepting payment, despite its being late, then making the argument that quitting was justifiable due to late payment.

If the employee has not been paid in accordance with the original deal and a reasonable time has elapsed, and just to be safe, the employee has brought the non-payment to the attention of the employer in writing, then he can quit, and likely prevail in the event that the employer files a follow-on action.

Please check you PM.