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. This case shows how fundamental it is for cabin crew members to remain professional in their work environment; not only at the time of flight, but also when it comes to the operator`s management team. All cabin crew members who sign a training loan must meet their contractual obligations. Training obligations are legally binding and enforceable documents. Training obligations are therefore attractive legal instruments for pilots who are willing to improve their aviation skills to advance their careers, but pilots must recognize that these agreements represent a considerable amount of money and can therefore result in serious personal liabilities in the event of a breach of contract. Flight training is expensive, and liability for breach of contract could jeopardize your aviation career. 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. Contract items that were taken and exported on August 25, 2016.
The employee was paid by Carson Air at the beginning of her employment. Towards the end of her trial period, she was dismissed on the grounds that she was not suitable for the organization. The employee commenced an action against Carson Air Ltd. which included allegations of discrimination, breach of contract, harassment, unlawful dismissal and defamation. The employer argued that the dismissal was justified and argued the cost of the training. The employee disputed responsibility for the training costs and stated that she entered the training contract under duress. 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.