Training bond and fail PPC

[rookiepilot]

Next post someone will say, “Courts are corrupt too.”

https://ehlaw.ca/b-c-supreme-court-enfo ... ts-duress/

At trial, the Court dismissed all of the employee’s claims and allowed Carson Air’s claim for the costs of training. It noted that the employee could not establish that she signed the training bond under duress. Instead, she had signed similar training bonds in the past. The court found that the employer did not pressure the employee to sign the bond, and in fact made it clear to the employee that she need not sign the bond immediately and could seek legal advice prior to signing. Based on these facts, the Court enforced the terms of the Training Bond Agreement and allowed the employer’s claim.

[photofly]

I don't think I fully understand the distinction you're trying to make.

Why would that same court not ask the employer on what basis he claims a bond payout when the employee did not sign the bond agreement they required?

The court could, and would. And the answer would be, "I'm claiming the bond payout on the basis of the agreement I emailed to the respondent on such-and-such-a-date, which I know he received because in the same email I gave him the date and place of training, and he turned up for that training. "

And where the evidence is that the employee accepted the terms of the bond, even though they didn't sign it?

Because they turned up for the training which was offered in the same document. You can't pick and choose which parts of a contract you accept.

If it is referenced in the job offer, and the employee accepts the job offer but does not sign the bond, yet the company proceeds with hiring the employee and training him, why would the court then assume the employee accepted the bond?

Because they turned up for work, which was part of the job offer. Again, you can't pick and choose. It's all, or nothing.

What if the employee tells the court 'they wanted me to sign a bond, I declined, but they decided to hire me anyway because they needed a pilot'?

If the employee says, I returned a counter-offer where I emailed them explicitly I don't accept the bond, and I know they received the email because of <insert reason>, and they still let me attend the training then sure, the onus back on the employer. That's not the same as just not signing the bond, and turning up for the training anyway.

Whenever presented with a waiver or other document I don't want to sign, I cross out the clauses I don't like (or write clearly on it "I do not accept this document") and then sign it. If they still provide me the service, rent me the airplane, let me go skydiving or whatever, then now they've accepted my counter-proposal, demonstrated by their provision of a service, and I'm in the clear. For a training bond nothing stops you from editing the document or striking out the clauses that talk about a bond, and flinging it back. But that's different from just not signing it.

The point of a written contract is to stand as evidence of what the intentions of the parties were. When everyone signs the same bit of paper both parties find it very difficult to dispute, but it's not a strict requirement.

In fact, even if there is a written contract, courts have decided that sometimes terms written in the contract - agreed to by both sides - were actually a sham, and have reinterpreted the contract by removing, changing or adding terms that (the court decided) accurately reflected what both parties *really* agreed to, rather than just what they *said* they agreed to.

Acceptance of a contract can be signified in writing or by conduct.

What a signature does is make it harder (but still
not impossible!) for the trainee to claim they didn’t know there was an agreement or what was in it. But if there’s evidence you were given a copy of the agreement sufficiently in advance to have had a chance to read it and take advice on it that’s very easily rebutted.

I don’t say a signature is worthless. I just say, don’t hang your future on the peg of not having signed an agreement for evidence of your acceptance of which your simple conduct will do instead.

If we assume what that lawyer wrote in my link was correct, and a written agreement is required for an employer to recuperate training costs from an employee, does that then not mean a written signature is required?

I don't think that lawyer was right. A training bond is a contract, and there's no statute that requires any part of a contract to be in writing, other than a contract for the sale of real property (land). I think what they meant was that without a written agreement you have no realistic chance of enforcing what you (claim) the terms of your agreement were. There may even be case law to that effect, but I'm not aware of it.

Or, can you have a written agreement without a signature? Isn't a written signature an essential part of a written agreement?

Every time you park in an underground car park you're implicitly agreeing to the written terms posted on the wall, which say things like you're not guaranteed a parking space, the owner assumes no liability for damage, and explains the costs of failing to pay the fee for your parking time, and what-not.

That is absolutely a written contract - there it is in writing - but you don't need to sign anything to be bound by it. You signal your acceptance by leaving your car in the car park. If you try to repudiate the contract (and some people do) the court will say you saw, or ought to have seen the (written) terms, and those were the only conditions on offer under which you were permitted to leave your car. What leads you to believe there is another set of conditions that permitted you to park there? Of course it's possible that you do actually have a good answer to that. But you probably don't.

I understand and agree you can ty to prove an oral agreement with emails and documents etc that weren't necessarily signed. I just don't think you can do that for a written agreement.

But that's all based on google and reddit level lawyer talk, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just curious for a reference or an example

A written agreement isn't required for an employment contract. That may vary by jurisdiction, but I know it's not required in Ontario, the UK (I'm most familiar with UK law) or federally in Canada. The only contracts that have to be in writing (and signed) are contracts for the sale of land.

I know Wikipedia isn't a perfect authority, but sometimes it does have interesting stuff. Here's something relevant from the page on Offer and Acceptance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance)

For the acceptance, the essential requirement is that the parties had each from a subjective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent

I offer you training under a bond, you turn up for the training, and I provide the training. I'm pretty sure that meets the test.

[digits_]

@photofly

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand the points you are trying to make.

[digits_]

You’re also treating this as an equal power relationship, which it is certainly not. Any such belief is pure fantasyland.

Of course it isn't. Which is why I have a certain respect and sympathy for employees that manage to get out of the bond due to screw ups by the employer. Seriously, if the employer -which is in a much stronger position than the employee- can't even make sure their contracts are signed, I generally don't feel bad if an employee takes advantage of that.

If both sides of the agreement describe all duties from both parties, then it would be a dick move to try and find a legal loophole to get out of the agreement. But that's a fantasyland as well. I haven't read a bond that was truly honest about all working conditions the employee would encounter. Most of that info is only shared with the employee once they have access to the COM (often protected by a confidentiality agreement), during line idnoc (so once training is done) or during day to day operations. At all those times, it's extremely impractical and often too late for the employee to say 'hey, I didn't agree to do this for X years!'

Some possible real life examples:
- Pilot gets hired, airline tells him they can live wherever they want, but when on reserve you have to meet a 2 hour call out. Employee lives 1 hour from the airport, signs a bond, and is happy. Then finds out a 10 hour min rest is in place, which makes it impossible for him to get 8 hours of rest. Management's reply: 'Yes you can live anywhere, but if you live too far and don't get your min rest, that's your choice, not the company's'.
- Pilot gets hired for right seat, is being told he will upgrade to left seat, based on performance and seniority. Accepts crappy FO pay and a multi year bond. Gets a good review. Company hires DEC 'because we don't have time to upgrade you'
- Pilot gets hired for a medevac job and is told you work 14 hours, then have 10 hours of rest. Pilot accepts and signs bond, expecting a 14 - 10 - 14 - 10 - ... schedule. Only to find out your day actually only starts when you get your first dispatch, constantly mixing day and night shifts.

Companies that bond their pilots intentionally make it hard for future pilots to find out about the shitty side of their operation. After all, the existence of a bond proves that there is a dark side. Otherwise a bond would not be required. However, no pilot would ever get hired if they demanded to read the COM before signing a bond or job agreement, or if they asked for all employment conditions to be listed in the bond.

I certainly would have zero tolerance for it.

Which is your right. But that doesn't mean you can make things up and accuse them of things they didn't do. If you get a reference call and you tell them 'they said they would sign a bond, but we forgot, and after training they didn't want to sign the bond anymore', then that makes sense. If you tell them 'they stole from the company', that would be completely incorrect.


Unfortunately, in Canadian aviation (and possibly elsewhere) a bond really means "I agree to pay you XX XXX dollars once I find out what you've been hiding"

[rookiepilot]

Hence I also say, “do careful research on any prospective employers”. — before agreeing to anything.

[Bede]

In most industries the training is relatively cheap, or else is unlikely to provide an easy step to the next job.

As a somewhat ironic aside, companies with a bond overstate what the training actually costs. (An upgrade PPC costs no more than recurrent FO training.) On the flip side, when you negotiate with an airline and point out the cost of training a new pilot because pilots are leaving, you're told that training doesn't cost anything.

[rudder]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

I still think the bond would be unenforceable if the training did not result in a successful PPC (including extra training and at least 1 additional attempt) as it could be argued that the candidate ultimately derived no benefit. It might be enforceable if it could be proven that the candidate intended to be unsuccessful in order to void the bond.

[digits_]

In most industries the training is relatively cheap, or else is unlikely to provide an easy step to the next job.

As a somewhat ironic aside, companies with a bond overstate what the training actually costs. (An upgrade PPC costs no more than recurrent FO training.) On the flip side, when you negotiate with an airline and point out the cost of training a new pilot because pilots are leaving, you're told that training doesn't cost anything.

Oh sooooooooo true

[rookiepilot]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

[rudder]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

[rookiepilot]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

[Blueontop]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Any sense of a quid pro quo employer/employee mutually beneficial relationship died in the 1980s. It’s everyman for himself now and has been for decades.

[Blueontop]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Any sense of a quid pro quo employer/employee mutually beneficial relationship died in the 1980s. It’s everyman for himself now and has been for decades.

[rookiepilot]

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Here's a winning attitude to life, right here.....

[Blueontop]

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Here's a winning attitude to life, right here.....

Yup right there with your winning attitude in just about everything else in life. call em as I see em. Truth hurts. Didn’t actually refute anything I said too.

[rookiepilot]

call em as I see em.

That can be a really, really expensive attitude, too. But knock yourself out.

You'll go far.......

[Blueontop]

call em as I see em.

That can be a really, really expensive attitude, too. But knock yourself out.

You'll go far.......

Your not in any position to say how far I have gone or how far I will go on anything, so unless you have something constructive to add/retort my thesis I’m going to call it a day.

[twa22]

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

[photofly]

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

All are contracts. You can have a refund on your PPL training if the contract says you can have a refund on your PPL training.

A training bond, PPL training, and getting an oil change - all are matters of contract and governed by contract law. So is it also every time you buy something in a store.

Most PPL training isn't conducted under a written contract. So the court will look to see what the agreement of the parties was when they entered into the contract. They'd have to decide if each lesson represented a separate contract, and whether assurances were given. In the absence of some confirmation to that extent (oral, if the court believes the testimony, but preferrably in writing) it's unlikely you could get a refund if you failed the ride.

[Aviatard]

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

It’s not necessary to know anything as long as you do it loud enough and with sufficient outrage.