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. 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. Second, if flight crew members are angry, pilots should submit formal written complaints to the employer as soon as they occur and clearly explain the alleged misconduct. Employers should send a written response to pilots and provide their staff with a safe environment. Third, pilots must understand that not all situations in which a flight crew member cannot reach an agreement with another flight crew member will not be the terrain of constructive dismissal. Chartright Air Inc. De Paoli is a great example. 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.
Training obligations are often used by air carriers to recruit and/or retain their flight crew. This legal agreement is quite simple; the air transport operator pays for the flight training of the newly recruited pilot (i.e. pilot proficiency check) and requires, given that the pilot generally provides for a period of employment under a formal employment contract. If the pilot resigns before the expiry of the agreed term in the employment contract, the pilot must reimburse the flight training costs on a pro-rata basis defined in the agreement. The common practice is that it is generally accepted that commitment periods are generally less than two years. However, there are longer periods that both parties can accept. Anger really begins when the obligations are broken and the employer tries to impose them. If the courts find the conditions to be harsh and oppressive with respect to the training offered, a commitment agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written. The Bond employee training contract is the agreement between the trainer and the trainee, the trainer is the employer and the workers` apprentice. This agreement ensures that the worker trained after training will work with the employer and that the employer meets all requirements.
Unfortunately, the answer is not always as linear as we would like. Companies can of course get an employee to sign a loan agreement, and feel quite protected, but the test is really whether that agreement will be applicable when it is reviewed by the courts, and it is always a case-by-case decision.