Training Contract

[BoeingBaller]

Take the Easy way out ..I was drunk when I signed this your honor..

 

[youmustbejoking]

another state another decision

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.
SCOPE OF REVIEW

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 one-sixth 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.


ANALYSIS



Aust asserts that the county court should have granted judgment in his favor as a matter of law because paragraph 5 of the training agreement is an unlawful wage assignment which makes the agreement void and that the county court erred in finding the provision to be severable from the remainder of the agreement. Paragraph 5 provided:

Withholding from wages: All amounts due in reimbursement shall be paid in full by employee to Suburban Air Freight, Inc., within fourteen (14) days from any date of termination. In executing this agreement, Employee specifically authorizes Suburban Air Freight, Inc., to withhold from any wages or other sums of money due to him/her, any balance due under this agreement . . . .​

Aust suggests that this provision voids the training agreement because it violates state law, which requires that wage assignments be signed by both a husband and a wife, and Aust’s wife did not sign the agreement. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-213 (Reissue 1998) states: “[E]very assignment of the wages or earnings of the head of a family and every contract or agreement intending or purporting to have the effect of such assignment shall be void unless such contract, agreement, assignment, or transfer is executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife . . . .” The county court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Aust, finding that paragraph 5 of the agreement was null and void and unenforceable. However, the county court found that paragraph 5 was severable and that the agreement had a legitimate purpose independent of the assignment of wages.

We conclude that paragraph 5 was severable from the remainder of the training agreement and that the county court did not err in severing this provision from the agreement.

Aust also argues that the county court erred in submitting the issue of damages to the jury without sufficient evidence to support a verdict and in refusing to grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of Aust. Aust claims that Suburban Air failed to prove the existence or amount of damages by sufficient evidence or with reasonable certainty and that Aust’s alleged breach of the training agreement was the actual or proximate cause of any damages suffered by Suburban Air.

The evidence at trial included two training agreements signed by Aust. He fulfilled the first agreement by working for Suburban Air for more than 1 year. This case arises from Aust’s alleged breach of the second agreement, which he signed on June 3, 1997. There is no dispute as to whether Aust signed the agreements. The 1997 agreement was received into evidence without objection.

At trial, Geoffrey Gallup, treasurer of Suburban Air, was asked to identify the factors used by the company to determine the value of the training provided to its pilots. He stated that the figure includes the cost of airplane parts, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and inspection, as well as administrative costs for staff who maintain records on each plane. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that each plane be inspected after every 150 hours of flight, and these inspections cost between $5,000 and $25,000. Gallup also stated that Suburban Air must meet federal aviation regulations for its pilots, who fly solo, and must ensure that each pilot is skilled for the particular aircraft he or she flies.
The jury determined that the $3,000 figure set forth in the second training agreement was reasonable and was supported by the evidence. The $2,916 verdict reflects that the jury subtracted the amount of Aust’s counterclaim from the $3,000 value stated in the agreement. Viewing the evidence most favorably to Suburban Air, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and we find no prejudicial error which requires that the verdict be overturned.
Aust complains that the county court erred in refusing to invalidate the purported liquidated damages provision in the training agreement as an unlawful penalty clause and in instructing the jury that the “agreed upon value” of the training was $3,000.

Aust claims the county court erred in refusing to grant judgment in his favor because no evidence was offered regarding substantial performance of Suburban Air’s obligations under the training agreement. He asserts that Suburban Air did not show that it had provided the company indoctrination training specified in the agreement. The county court denied Aust’s motion for directed verdict on this issue.
CONCLUSION



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

Affirmed​

 

[Nolife]

Anyone ever hear of annual recurrent training contracts. That is every year before you go to recurrent school you must sign another training contact for that year. Under this agreement you would have to find a new job concurrent with the end of your currency for that airplane.

Doesn't sound fair to me. Example: after being with said company five years SWA calls and gives you a class date that is 6 months prior to the end for your recurrent training. Now you either turn it down until your contract expires or you buy it out. It seems to me that being financially beholden to your job in this way is not legal, kind of like indentured servitude.

At some point employers need to realize that career paths may part. I realize that it costs employers money to keep the staff current but that is part of the cost of doing business and unless I use their recurrent training to score another job in the same airplane I don't see how it's legal for an employee to be beholden to a job in this way.

Any other opinions?

 

[OldManPilot]

Many 135 operators work that way to keep their pilots hostage. They will force you to sign an agreement before you attend any training event.

Stay away from any operator that has continuing contracts!!!!!!

 

[oops!]

My question is...why do you sign something, agree to it, then after things so south, whine. quote]

thanks for answering any questions of his... I'm sure this really helped... the insight of the almighty has spoken and we should all listen to it... thanks soarby007...

the point is they didn't hold up their side how is he supposed to hold up his...
lawyer up

 

[Corona]

Anyone ever hear of annual recurrent training contracts. That is every year before you go to recurrent school you must sign another training contact for that year. Under this agreement you would have to find a new job concurrent with the end of your currency for that airplane.

Yes. Friend of mine was working for a bottom-feeder 135 charter/management group. He left the company; the customer who owned the airplane he'd been flying left a while later, and he ended up flying again with the same airplane/owner.

The company, even though there was not a signed contract for such, tried to get him to reimburse for recurrent training. His response? The owner already paid you for it, go F yourselves.

Basically, these types of a-holes want to maneuver employees into only being able to quit during about 3 days of the year. F 'em.

C

 

[Count Dracula]

I was with a company for 6 years and had never been asked to sign a contract even though they typed me on two aircraft. They then decided to purchase a new aircraft in July from the factory and send us (2 Pilots) to school in Nov-Dec. of that same year for delivery January 1st. Upon the first day of class over Thanksgiving weekend in Canada, we have a FedEx Overnite Letter sitting on our desk. Inside was a two year $50,000 training contract the company wanted us to sign. Both of us told them, basically, to shove it up their a$$. We don't sign one-sided contracts.
I thought how convenient this was being out of the country on a holiday I gave up to go to training on an aircraft they purchased 6 months ago? They sent us to company HQ to have a "pow wow" with the aviation manager and VP of HR. We got our 3 months of severance pay and started our job hunt.

Fellas, you are a fool if you think loyalty means anything in this business no matter how nice or well they treat you or you treat them. Both of us had an exceptional clean record with the company with many good reports in our files. Needless to say, they were scrambling around trying to find another crew to send for initial. The Multi-Billionaire CEO of the organization felt "guilty?" over the situation and kept asking the Chief Pilot for up to a year "how we were doing?" Pathetic.......

 

[hawkerjet]

If you speak the truth and can document rule violations that means it will come out in court and become part of a written record. I know of one pilot in California who won his case against former employer when the regulations that were violated were documented and proved and brought out in court ,the judge ruled in the pilots favor.
PS I just reread your initial paragraph and would add that nobody can force you to violate regs.