Air Georgian claimed that the collective agreement and the borrowing of level training had enabled it to rely on the derogation referred to in point 254.1(2)(b). Air Georgian claimed that the signing was only a formality and that it had stopped its end of the agreement. Unfortunately, the answer is not always as simple as we would like. Sure, companies can get an employee to sign a commitment agreement and feel pretty protected in that way, but the test is really whether that agreement is enforceable when it`s reviewed by the courts, and it`s always a case-by-case decision. In Chartright Air Inc. v. From Paoli, a pilot (the “Captain”) was hired by an operator (the “Employer”) to be captain on a Challenger 601. Despite his great experience, the captain was not qualified to fly on the 601. So he had to do his pilot Proficiency Check. The employer agreed to pay for the master`s training.
In return, at the end of the training, the captain had to work for the employer for twenty-four months. The training was valued at $31,265.00. The captain passed the exams and got his Proficiency Check pilot on the 601. At the same time, the employer deployed another pilot (the “second”) to complete the flight crew. The first officer did not pass his Pilot Proficiency Check. The employer asked the master to assist the first officer in his training. The captain assisted the first officer, but quickly noticed that the first officer was not ready for the assessment. The master advised the employer accordingly. Despite the resignation, the first succeeded in his training in the second attempt. The captain and the second flew and worked together a number of paintings at the end of their training. The work environment was challenging. The captain complained orally to the employer`s manager about the second`s lack of professionalism.
The master encouraged his employer to act; According to him, the mistakes of the first officer brought safety problems in their lives and on the plane. Frustrated by his first officer and disappointed by the actions of his employer, the captain resigned just five months after he was hired. There appears to be a consensus that the value of training retention should decrease on a pro rata basis over the period to which the pilot has committed. For example, if the loan costs $US 10,000 and the pilot has committed to two years of service, the value due under the loan would decrease by $US 416.67 per month, as the pilot would process his obligations under the loan. In the case before the bar, the question was whether the master had to pay US$27,641.51 for his training, knowing that because of this termination, he was violating his training ties after only five months of work with the employer, whereas the conditions required in the training contract were twenty-four months. This case shows the importance for crew members to remain professional in their work environment. not only during the flight period, but also when flight crew members are in contact with the operator`s management team. All flight crew members who sign a training obligation must comply with their contractual obligations. Training obligations are legally binding and enforceable documents. Training obligations are interesting legal instruments for pilots who are willing to improve their aviation qualifications to advance in their careers, but pilots must recognize that such agreements represent a considerable amount of money and can therefore entail serious personal debts in the event of a breach of contract. .
- No categories