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, it is legal and what are the acceptable periods The Institute for Mailbox Management 2987 – 00100 represented by the duly accredited regional manager Mr. Saman Kinh here called “The Institute” and must mean and include the Institute for Management or “Employer”, as now or from time to time during the agreement in Chartright. Air Inc. v. De Paoli, a pilot (the “captain”) was hired by an air operator (the “employer”) to captain a Challenger 601. Despite his extensive experience, the master was not qualified to fly on the 601. So he had to catch up with his Proficiency Check driver. The employer agreed to pay for the master`s training. In return, the master had to work 24 months for the employer at the end of the training. The training was valued at USD 31,265.00. The master passed the examinations and obtained his pilot proficiency control on the 601.

At the same time, the employer hired another pilot (the “first officer”) to complete the flight crew. The first officer failed his pilot Proficiency Check. The employer asked the master to assist the second officer in his training. The master assisted the second officer, but soon realized that the first officer was not ready for the assessment. The captain advised the employer accordingly. Despite the communication, the first officer successfully completed his training on the second attempt. The master and first officer flew and worked together several times at the end of their training. The work environment was difficult. The master complained verbally to the employer`s general manager about the first officer`s unseeding professionalism.

The master asked his employer to act; According to him, the ill-treatment of the officer-in-command led to safety problems in their lives and on the aircraft. Frustrated by his first officer and disappointed by his employer`s actions, the captain resigned just five months after he was hired. 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. We make 2 bonding agreements available to members free of charge in the Employers Toolbox Library section. These can also be purchased separately on our website for non-members. The employer merely submitted that the master had signed a training contract stipulating that the master was bound for 24 months. The master argued that he had to resign because of the insecurity of the work environment. The master also submitted that he had been constructively dismissed by the employer. The court rejected the master`s reasons and issued a judgment to the employer on the $27,641.51 required for the training loan. After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal rejected the master`s argument for constructive release.

First, the Court has set an objective legal review in cases of constructive dismissal; “if, in the same situation as the worker, a sensible person would have felt that the essential conditions of the employment contract would be substantially altered” (Couleurr/Royal Trust Co, point 26). Second, on the evidence, there was no constructive termination in court. The Court found that the employer`s version was based on the fact that they were personality issues and not safety issues. In addition, the court found that the master did not make formal written complaints to the employer until July 19, when the incidents he testified in court began in May. The Court found that if the master was so concerned about his safety at work, he would have filed formal complaints with the employer.