Training Contract

[arewethereyet]

I will tell you right now that the contracts DO HOLD UP IN COURT. You had better have a very good file of PROOF to even think about getting out of it.

The contract I had was the most basic you have ever seen and they won.

HAP

 

[cherry20's]

Doesn't Republic and Shuttle America now require you sign a contract? I thought I heard something about that last week from a friend. Its gonna suck if all the Regionals start doing this too!

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Its gonna suck if all the Regionals start doing this too!

That is the way it was about 8 years ago. I knew a guy that got on with Continental Express through some hiring pool thing with FSI. He went down for training, but actually had to fork over $10 grand or something in that neighborhood. Was told at some point he was not likely to make and if he wanted to quit that he would get half his money back. He elected to continue on and washed out and got nothing but 1.8 hours of time in a Brasilia (might have been a 1900, it has been 8 years). So at least now you don't have to actually pay for the training. In some ways it has gotten a little better.

Just in case anybody is wondering, he continued on with his career and last I heard he was an American Eagle guy.

 

[Van Hooydonk]

I will tell you right now that the contracts DO HOLD UP IN COURT. You had better have a very good file of PROOF to even think about getting out of it.

The contract I had was the most basic you have ever seen and they won.

HAP

I think a more accurate description is that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. There are many variables that effect the outcome of these matters. I ran across this case last month that had a favorable outcome for the pilot. The outcome depends on the laws of the State where the contract is seeking to be enforced and the specific facts of the case. Every case is different. I would suggest consulting with at least one more attorney before shelling out 12K to get out of a contract. Since you never said what state the matter is in, there is little more I can tell you. Good luck.

The case is quoted in two parts b/c it would not all fit in one post.

Excelaire Service Inc. v. Wolkiewicz, 04-20047
Decided: August 26, 2006

SUFFOLK COUNTY
Supreme Court

For Plaintiff: Gutman & Gutman, LLP

For Defendant: Bracken & Margolin, LLP

Justice Doyle
Click here to see Judicial Profile

ORDERED that defendant Scott Wolkiewicz 's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is granted.

Plaintiff Excelaire Service, Inc., commenced this action against defendant Scott Wolkiewicz to enforce a provision in its employment contract with the defendant entitling it to reimbursement for the cost of pilot training he received while working for the corporation. The contract provision provided that Excelaire Service, Inc., ("Excelaire"), an aircraft charter company, would be entitled to reimbursement for the cost of training its employees to become pilots in the event that the employee received such training and resigned prior to the end of their first year of employment with the corporation. Excelaire alleges that it is entitled to reimbursement from defendant Scott Wolkiewicz ("Wolkiewicz") because he successfully completed pilot training and worked as a pilot with Excelaire from July 7, 2003 until February 9, 2004 when he resigned prior to the end of the one year period required by the contract after finding more lucrative employment elsewhere.

Defendant Wolkiewicz is now seeking summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that Excelaire breached their employment contract when it eliminated the position for which he was trained and significantly reduced his salary, thereby constructively discharging him from his employment with the corporation and forcing him to resign prior to the one year period specified in the employment contract.

In support of his motion defendant Wolkiewicz submits, inter alia, copies of the pleadings; an affidavit in support of his motion; a copy of his employment contract with Excelaire; a copy of the plaintiff's response to written interrogatories, as well as copies of portions of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations governing pilot training.

In opposition Excelaire argues that defendant's summary judgment motion should be denied because contrary to defendant Wolkiewicz's assertions that he was forced to resign, Wolkiewicz breached the terms of his employment contract by voluntarily resigning prior to the one year period designated in his contract because he found more lucrative employment elsewhere. Excelaire also contends that it acted within the terms of its employment contract which did not guarantee defendant a particular salary and required employees to return to work even if they are furloughed and then recalled to work.

In his supporting affidavit defendant Wolkiewicz indicated that he officially went on the payroll of Excelaire on July 7, 2003 at a salary of forty-five thousand dollars per year until September 20, 2003 when he was informed that the aircraft to which he was assigned would be out of service indefinitely and that his salary would be cut by sixty percent. Defendant Wolkiewicz also indicated that he ended his employment with Excelaire on February 9, 2004 and sought alternate employment due to economic hardship and difficulties in his working conditions.

The Pilot Training Contract submitted by defendant Wolkiewicz provides that Excelaire would pay for its employee's pilot training on the condition that the employee agrees to work with Excelaire in the capacity of pilot for a minimum of one year. The contract further provides that if the employee resigns prior to the minimum one year period, he or she will be required to reimburse the employer for the costs of their training. The contract also states that after the employee's six-month anniversary, the reimbursement amount owed will be prorated on a decreasing basis. For example, if the pilot resigns halfway through the term of the agreement, he will be responsible for the full training costs. After the twelve-month anniversary, the reimbursement costs will have decreased to zero. The contract also lists five exceptions under which the pilot will not be required to reimburse the employer for the training costs. The Pilot will not be required to reimburse the employer if: first, the pilot fails to complete the training through no fault of his/her own; second, if the Pilot's skills are judged by an instructor or check airman to be inadequate to pass the required FAA check ride; third, if the Pilot cannot obtain, or loses the FAA medical certificate required for the trained position; fourth, if the position for which the pilot was trained is eliminated; or fifth, if the Pilot is fired.

In its response to defendant's written interrogatories the plaintiff states that the aircraft to which defendant Wolkiewicz was assigned went down for maintenance on September 19, 2003 and Mr. Wolkiewicz was then notified that he would be converted to part time status and would be paid 40 percent of his salary due to the loss of the aircraft. The response also gave a break down of the cost of pilot training which included $18,000.00 for Aircraft and Simulator, $750.00 for Traveling expenses and $1,050.00 for lodging.

In opposition to defendant's motion, Excelaire submitted the affidavit of its Director of Operations, George Kyriacou; a copy of a letter from Excelaire management notifying defendant Wolkiewicz that the aircraft he piloted would be grounded from service for maintenance and that he could only continue his employment with Excelaire on the condition that he accept a demotion from a full time pilot to a part time status. Excelaire also submitted a copy of defendant Wolkiewicz's letter of resignation.

In his affidavit George Kyriacou, Director of Operations at Excelaire indicated that defendant Wolkiewicz was notified that the aircraft to which he was assigned was grounded for maintenance and that he would be converted to a part time status and receive only 40 percent of his starting pay as a pilot during the maintenance period. Mr. Kyriacou also indicated that while Wolkiewicz's employment contract contained a clause requiring him to work with Excelaire for a minimum of one year, the employment contract did not contain any specific agreement regarding the amount of money Wolkiewicz would be paid during this period. Mr. Kyriacou indicated that the employment contract also contained provisions requiring pilots to return for duty even if they are furloughed and then recalled, and that if they failed to return thereafter they would be responsible for repayment of the pilot training costs pro rata. Mr. Kyriacou also denied the defendant's assertion that he was forced to leave, and indicated that unlike the defendant, Excelaire complied with the contract and is now entitled to the pro rata costs of the defendant's pilot training.

In its letter dated September 19, 2003, Excelaire's representative Steve Carroll informed defendant Wolkiewicz that due to its need to minimize overhead, Excelaire could not afford to continue his employment as a full time pilot during the aircraft maintenance period unless he agreed to be reduced to a part time employee and have his salary reduced by 40 percent. The letter also informed defendant Wolkiewicz that he was being offered an alternative agreement wherein he would be re-instated as a full-time employee with full pay once the aircraft was out of maintenance and able to fly again. The letter also stated that the alternative offer was conditioned on Wolkiewicz agreeing to return to Excelaire on a full time basis for at least six months thereafter once the company advised him that the aircraft was fixed and ready to fly. The letter further stated that in the event Wolkiewicz failed to return after the six month maintenance period, or leave the employ of Excelaire during that time, upon demand he would be liable for all monies paid to him and paid on his behalf during the maintenance period.

In defendant Wolkiewicz's resignation letter to Excelaire he states that his reasons for leaving include the cut in his salary, unpleasant working conditions and finding a more lucrative position elsewhere.

[continued in next post.]

 

[Van Hooydonk]

Part 2

In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish his cause of action or defense sufficiently, by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form, to warrant the court to direct judgment in his favor as a matter of law. On the other hand, to defeat a summary judgment motion, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. Thus, on a motion for summary judgment the court's function is not to resolve issues of fact or to determine matters of credibility but rather to determine whether issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment (see, Roth v. Barreto, 289 AD2d 557, 735 NYS2d 197 [2001]; O'Neill v. Fishkill, 134 AD2d 487, 521 NYS2d 272 [1987]). Nevertheless, mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient to raise triable issues of fact (Zuckerman v. New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]).

An employer may be deemed to have constructively discharged an employee if the employer breaches the employee's contract to fill a particular position by unjustifiably reducing the employee's rank or salary, or materially changing the employee's duties under the employment contract (Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 30 NY2d 1, 330 NYS2d 33 [1972]; Aurielen Lintermans, Inc., v. Resca, 222 AD2d 253, 653 NYS2d 23 [1995]; Lynch v. Pharmaceutical Discovery Corp., 208 AD2d 906, 617 NYS2d 883 [1994]; Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, 210 AD2d 318, 619 NYS2d 782 [1994]; Hondares v. TSS-Seedman's Stores Inc., 151 AD2d 411, 543 NYS2d 442 [1989]). Constructive discharge may also be evidenced by the fact that the employer has made the employee's working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign (Batra v. D'Youville College, 2001 NY App Div LEXIS 1750; Romano v. Basicnet, Inc., 238 AD2d 910, 661 NYS2d 135 [1997]; Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 195 AD2d 222, 607 NYS2d 309 [1994]).

Notwithstanding Excelaire's contention that the defendant voluntarily resigned because he found more lucrative employment elsewhere, defendant Wolkiewicz has demonstrated that Excelaire unilaterally and materially changed his duties as pilot under their employment contract and made his working conditions so intolerable that he was forced into involuntary resignation (Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., supra; Aurielen Lintermans, Inc., v. Resca, supra; Lynch v. Pharmaceutical Discovery Corp., supra; Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, supra; Hondares v. TSS-Seedman's Stores Inc., supra; see also Romano v. Basicnet, Inc., supra; Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, supra). The employment contract explicitly stated that Wolkiewicz would be hired as a pilot and work in that capacity for at least one year. Although Excelaire's September 19, 2003 letter notified defendant Wolkiewicz that his aircraft would be downed for maintenance and he would be placed on a part-time status with a sixty percent decrease in his pay for four to eight weeks until the aircraft was repaired, the uncontradicted evidence indicates that during the four months that followed the defendant was neither reassigned to another aircraft nor notified of any efforts to find him another commission or reinstate him in another full time pilot position. Excelaire's letter also advised defendant Wolkiewicz that his position would be terminated if he did not accept the "alternative arrangement" outlined in the letter. After eight weeks passed and without any improvement of his working conditions in sight not only did Excelaire breach the terms of its own purported "alternative arrangement", but defendant Wolkiewicz was constructively discharged and forced to resign due to the intolerable work conditions under which he found himself (Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, supra; Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, supra, Romano v. Basicnet, Inc., supra; see also Hondares v. TSS-Seedman's Stores Inc., supra). The plaintiff has also failed to raise any triable issue of fact warranting denial of defendant's summary judgment motion (see, Zuckerman v. New York, supra). Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is granted

 

[aussiefly]

My advice is put together a counter suit alledging misrepresentation in the employment contract and sue them. You will need to state what youq quantum of loss is so include the training contract as well. Put together a really rock solid case and get a decent lawyer to file it.

This will hopefully give you some leverage in reaching an out of court settlement. You are basically saying that they breached their emploment contract and conditions causing the contract to lapse under an essential breach therefore costing you $ with the training contract breach.

Your case needs to be well founded and solid that way you can reach some sort of settlement with their lawyers. Leave the FAR/REG violations out of it as its likely you wont be able to prove that anyway. Focus on work contract violations and essential breaches.

The law is a little bit like a paper chase game. There are more ways to skin a cat and your attorney should really be coming up with these ideas.

p.s dont ever sign a training contract.

Cheers

 

[Nolife]

I wonder if we as pilots could have a counter employment contract that the employers would have to sign before we signed their training contract?

Also as far as keeping or breaking my word goes... the fact that there is a training contract means that the employer doesn't trust me from the get go so why should I trust them. So far every company I worked for has had a contract and I've signed and honored them... one to the exact day... but I can see how conditions of employment can change and now you're stuck with a job for which you'd never have signed an agreement.

There must be some legal recourse for us little guys other than "shut up and take it like a man."

 

[rthepilot]

For what it's worth-I have been told by 4 different Aviation Attorneys' that Training contracts are legally unenforcable, unless it is somehow worded to make you liable. If the words "Promissory Note" appear, you're definitely obligated; otherwise most employers will try to intimidate you into repayment.

 

[Van Hooydonk]

For what it's worth-I have been told by 4 different Aviation Attorneys' that Training contracts are legally unenforcable, unless it is somehow worded to make you liable. If the words "Promissory Note" appear, you're definitely obligated; otherwise most employers will try to intimidate you into repayment.

Not to split hairs, but all contracts at least attempt to make you liable for any breach of the agreement, it is the nature of the beast. And there are no magic word that automatically makes an agreement enforceable. However, there are remedies if a situation arises that was not anticipate by any of the parties, or if one side is not upholding his or her end of the bargain. Obviously, if one said breaks the contract they cannot force the other side to perform their end.

That said, if you want to leave your employer simply b/c you found a better paying or more favorable position somewhere else, you can likely expect to have the old employer successfully come after you for the cost of the training. Litigation is costly, and you might be able to strike an agreement with your employer to settle any potential claim for a fraction of what is owed. Also, many pilots are judgement proof. So if your old employer is successful in his suit, he next has to figure out how he is going to collect the money and how long he/she is willing to press on. Therefore unless the training amounts to 20K or more, many employers are not going to jump through all the legal hoops to come after you. They may hire an attorney to send some threatening letters, but then not file suit.

But, if you are leaving because you signed the training contract in Florida for a flight job in Florida, and the company tells you they are transferring you to Alaska for the next year to work as a refueler, you probably have a pretty good shot at having a judge find the contract unenforceable.

Often, it is the issues that the contract does not address or foresee that will provide the most material for an attorney to work with. I think the biggest problem for pilots who have been handcuffed by these agreements is that the potential legal fees can almost match the financial cost of repaying your employer. So it then becomes a question of paying your old employer the cost of training, or paying an attorney, or paying an attorney who then tells you to pay your employer and him or her!

Also, the law varies widely on these issues from state to state. So the exact same contract that was enforceable in Texas, may be readily dismissed in Louisiana. So if you had a buddy who had a similar agreement in a different state, and he won his suit against his employer, that is no indication that your outcome will be the same.

I think some sound advice is that if the employer is making you sign an employment contract, you have to ask yourself why? This should raise a flag. While I'm sure there are many great places to work that require these contracts, you should nonetheless be suspicious. Conduct your own investigation. Ask to talk with pilots who have been there for more than a year. Ask how many pilots have left in the last year when their training contract expired? Ask people on an internet forum what they know about ABC Aviation. Do your own investigation/ due diligence. You may be saving yourself a year or more of headaches and thousands of dollars. If an employer doesn't hire you because they think you were asking too many questions, it is likely a place that you would be better off not working at.

But if you are really desparate for the job/training and worried the employer will not live up to their end, keep copious notes and records. If you only get paid while flying and the plane is in the shop 3/4 of the time, record the dates that the plane is out of service. If you are hired as a pilot, and the boss has you driving his kids around most of the day, keep records of the dates and time. All this information will be extremely valuable should you decide to leave.

Remember, when you sign any contract read the fine print and if you have any questions ask for a copy of the agreement to show your lawyer. If the employer doesn't appear open to having you have an attorney look over the agreement, that is a very troubling sign.

 

[FL420]

Not to split hairs, but all contracts at least attempt to make you liable for any breach of the agreement, ...........................But if you are really desparate for the job/training and worried the employer will not live up to their end, keep copious notes and records. If you only get paid while flying and the plane is in the shop 3/4 of the time, record the dates that the plane is out of service. If you are hired as a pilot, and the boss has you driving his kids around most of the day, keep records of the dates and time. All this information will be extremely valuable should you decide to leave.

Remember, when you sign any contract read the fine print and if you have any questions ask for a copy of the agreement to show your lawyer. If the employer doesn't appear open to having you have an attorney look over the agreement, that is a very troubling sign.

Excellent post! Thank you!