As with any agreement, both parties must agree on the terms of the loan. This will be different depending on a number of variables, with the course or training in question. The cost of training, direct and indirect, The duration of the training, the necessary break time, are weighed against a reasonable time for the in exchange for the employee to the company. The question in the bar case was whether the master had to pay $US 27,641.51 for his training, knowing that he breached his training obligations as a result of that resignation, after working with the employer for only five months, when the conditions required by the training contract were 24 months. Courts have generally found that training loan contracts are enforceable legal contracts and will examine the specific terms of the effective contract to determine the amounts earned. In one case, the terms of a training loan contract led an operator to recover only training costs and not travel, hotel and a uniform cost. As with any contract, both air carriers and pilots must carefully consider the specific terms of the contract to ensure that they fully understand the potential consequences of the future. Employers often want to fund the training and development of their employees for both parties. Our team is often asked about the legal aspect of an employee`s attachment to the company in these cases, if it is legal and what periods are acceptable to remedy this situation, many airlines have introduced a “training loan”.
A training loan is a contract between the employee`s pilot and the employer air operator, which indicates that the pilot charges for his training (and accommodation during training), but only if he stays with the employer air operator for a minimum period of time. The obligations may take different forms, with some requiring pilots to pay for the training in advance and then being reimbursed pro-rata, while others do not require the pilot to pay in advance, but to require the pilot to reimburse him pro-rata if they leave their employment before the minimum period. When the employee is simply trained for the job, this is often seen only as a benefit to the company and not to the employee. In this case, it could be considered unfair and therefore illegal to bind them. However, if the worker obtains a formal qualification or an equivalent qualification recognized by the sector through training which is clearly an advantage for himself, the company has a valid case to hire him, to take advantage of the costs and investments he has suffered. And the employer felt the need to conclude a five-month, one-year agreement, valid from September 12, 2016, by making the employee bear all the costs of training and career development of the employer. An interesting case of the 2008 Ontario Superior Court of Justice raises three important points for newly recruited pilots (Chartright Air Inc. v. De Paoli, 2008 CanLII 47468 (ON SC).
First, pilots (particularly pilots in orders) should perform their own due diligence with respect to the employer and other flight crew members hired by the employer before signing training obligations.