Nationwide Pilots to pay back training bonds!

[Gyro Nut]

Jobless Nationwide pilots made to pay from The Weekender
"Pilots from failed airline, Nationwide are being held liable for training bonds of up to R222 000, despite losing their employment and not being paid since the airline went into liquidation on 30 April. Whilst the pilots received letters from the liquidators informing them that their contracts of employment had been suspended without remuneration, the representatives of the Airline Pilots’ Association of SA (ALPA SA) were also informed that the pilots would be held liable for the repayment of their training bonds.

Certain pilots signed four-year agreements with the airline to fund conversion licences for the various types that they were expected to fly. “It is no fault of the pilots that the airline went into liquidation. They only wish to be released from these agreements, to take up new employment and to provide for their families. If they do not fly then their ratings will lapse and these will cost a great deal more to renew in due course”, says Tony Laubscher, president of ALPA SA."

[3rdBogey]

Isn't it just so ironic. All the pilots have to do is simply refuse to sign ANY bond and like AIDS, it will naturally dissapear, to the benefit of ALL pilots.
But of course, pilots being the epitome of male ego, and I include female pilots here, they would rather knife their colleagues and accept a job from a 'user & abuser' -(I might get ahead of him/her), than stand together and refuse to sign any bond! Just like AIDS would naturally dissapear if we simply wanted to do as advised......

[Avi8tor]

representatives of the Airline Pilots’ Association of SA (ALPA SA) were also informed that the pilots would be held liable for the repayment of their training bonds.
Not sure I get it, ALPA was informed by whom?

Don't think there is any legal precedent of this. The point here is that the PILOT has NOT defaulted on his contract, the company has. I don't see this ever getting to court.

I think my attitude would be "sue me".

[PitchandFan]

First suck me, then sue me.

[LittleMo]

According to the lawyers at the time, If CE didn't start operations within 45days of going into provisional liquidation then CE would be in breach f contract and the training bonds are null and void.Apart from that, those who did nt recieve teir last months salary can also hold CE for breach. Av8tor is correct, the attitude will be 'sue me VB'

[WRX737]

The problem is that it won't be VB sueing you, it will be his creditors and they want their money!!

[Morphieus]

Not a chance in hell! Where on earth do the creditors/liquidators think the 30+ (whatever the figure) unemployed pilots who held bonds are gonna pull 200 grand out of?!

They must just try and I'm sure that will not stand in a court case. In the bond contracts it states that you sign the bond, they train you and you agree to train on the aircraft. In return employment will be provided by Nationwide Airlines. Since they are not able to deliver their side of the contract then its breach of contract and it is therefore null and void. As far as I'm aware its as simple as that.
I hear some guys signed their bonds with Nationwide charter and that might complicate things but since they not able to work either it should also be null and void.

[Placido]

Ah! But the Vermin was clever!

Those training bonds were signed with Nationwide Charters, not Nationwide Airline. Although the airline went bust, the pilots still owe the bond to N/Charters.

Maybe this will be a good time to go to court and get a ruling regarding the bond isue.

Why should a worker pay for the fact that an employer uses equipment that needs training to operate? Does it not state in the law that employers must train workers to operate specialised equipment?

Do employers pay you the sum of a training bond if you're already rated?
Do they even pay back the tax that they were refunded on the cost of training? Since you worked for it, the refund should be yours, plus interest!

Tell them to sue!

[Sir Osis of the river]

I am no expert and not aware of the specifics of their bonds or the law, however for precedent, why not look at previous airline closures.

I certainly did not pay my Flitestar training bond back. Although I was threatened. ( I had only been signed out for three weeks when it collapsed.) Did anybody pay back after Flitestar, Sunair etc?? I dont think so.

Tell them to get stuffed. (Or counter sue for the lost income, that would have allowed you to pay back your bond.)

Come on Mr Laubser, support the guys and girls!

[MidmarMile]

It all depends on the “fine print”

It is likely that the agreement has a clause that says something like: “If employment is terminated for any reason whatsoever this bond will immediately become payable”. This would be there so that a pilot could not get out of the bond by resigning and moving to another airline, but depending on the wording it could well also cover the current Nationwide situation.

Some questions that arise:
· Who is trying to claim the outstanding money? Liquidator ot Nationwide charter
· Did Nationwide undertake to provide employment for the duration of the bond repayment period in the agreement?
· Is the bond repaid by service or was it deducted from the employee’s pay on a monthly basis?

[Jumbalia]

As far as I'm aware, when a company goes into liquidation, employees are entitled to all outstanding amounts due to them before creditors are entitled to anything...

But hey. What do I know?!?

[Avi8tor]

I think the only way it would stand is if the 'bond' was a loan. But think its some bean counter having a shot in the dark. Guess somebody is on a % of whats recovered.

[Kennytheking]

Hi guys,

Av8tor is quite right........without actually seeing the contract, we are just speculating, however, here is my thoughts.

If the bond was written up as a loan agreement then the pilots are screwed. they are debtors to the company and the lquidators will come afer you.

If it is a standard bond agreement, the court will look at what the intent was when you entered into the contract. I think that it is pretty clear that the intent was to prevent a pilot picking up a free type rating and then moving on and was not intended to cover the demise of the company. Unless the event of liquidation is actually covered in the contract, the legal ice is pretty thin and I doubt the liquidators would pursue this as far as court. It will cost them nothing to send out some letters and see if they can reel in some fish though.

Then there is simply the defense of "impossibility of performance". You cannot breach a contract where performance of your obligations are not possible.....the contract becomes null and void. There are just so many weaknesses that I cannot see any reasonable liquidator trying to pursue it.

[ChiyaWena]

As far as I can understand, the pilots were to sign into an 'agreement of loan' between themselves and Nationwide Airlines. and also into a 'training agreement' between themselves and Nationwide Air Charter.

the loan side of things had a capital sum, which in this case would be the disputed amount and that capital sum could be payable to 'Nationwide Air Charter' in the event of bla bla bla and a whole bunch of clauses.

see the twist ??!!

and on the training agreement side, this had a training fee (which is the same amount as the before mentioned capital sum i think, could be wrong)which could become payable to Nationwide Airlines.

so it's all interlinked and rather twisted if you ask me. one company paying and oweing the other. hope the guys and girls don't get shafted AGAIN!!!!

[Propellerpilot]

I question the legality of a contract that is so onesided - if a company trains staff and can not provide the work that it trained the staff for then they can't make financial demands unless they provide those people with a job in that field elsewhere and pay them a salary - such would be the case for example if the airline would have been taken over with staff and sanatised to become operational again. The pilots kept their side of the deal and where the ones "sacked" by the company.

It is more a case of mismanagement and misjudgement of the Nationwide company as a whole - so they should be made accountable and for deceiving their staff and individuals of the state of the company. Truth is, those pilots shouldn't have been employed or type rated in the first place.

What a hoax!

[Kennytheking]

Hi guys,

Just a correction to my previous statement about being screwed if the bond is a loan agreement.

Once again, commenting without seeing the contract is risky, but I would also think that such a loan agreement may well fall foul of the national credit act. This amounts to predatory lending and under the circumstances you could probably approach the credit regulator and ask them have the agreement set aside. Unless VB was really switched on, the agreement was probably done before the NCA came out. As far as I know the NCA applies retroactively to all agreements. Was Nationwide registered as a credit provider for training loans? I doubt it...

[Avi8tor]

I agree with KtheK, without actually seeing the contract it hard to comment. But from what I have gathered, VB and RF are in the same boat, they dont let the law worry them when they draw up employment contracts.

So my response would still be the same "sue me"

[nugpot]

Come on Mr Laubser, support the guys and girls!

ALPA is fighting this one, but the general gist of this thread does not quite match the circumstances.

The bonded pilots will only be asked to pay the bonds if they leave the employ of the company in provisional liquidation. Once the liquidation is final, they would be free to move on. This is apparently just a case of a small legal loophole holding the guys hostage.

[Shrike200]

Nugpot to the rescue - yes, I was wondering about all this.

Just to be clear, my understanding of this is that some dimwit might chase you for your bond if you resigned whilst the company was only in 'provisional liquidation', ie from April 29th until about June 15th (or when the liquidation is finalised). Hence the ALPA comment that the guys 'wish to be released from these agreements, to take up new employment and to provide for their families.'

As an aside, a friend deals with contract law, and the previously mentioned 'impossibility of performance' is quite relevant. So don't worry anybody, IMHO.

[Fluffy flyer]

To all Nationwide pilots reading this………

A word of warning.

I joined Nationwide with a type rating so no training bond and as such this is a little different to the subject matter in question but yet relevant I feel.

I was in a 3 month probation period with Nationwide and just before my probation period was finished I resigned giving them 7 days notice as required by law………… sorry there is a point to all this.

On leaving Nationwide I was told by HR at the time that my case would be handed over to the lawyers.

Time went by and I heard nothing from Nationwide so thought well its all blown over, I was wrong.

I had taken a flying contract overseas and my house was being rented out. Out of the blue I get a phone call from my tenants saying that the sheriff of the court had broken into the house and they were taking an inventory of all the furniture, this under instructions from Nationwide lawyers who had managed to obtain a court order without proving to the courts that all other means of communication had failed.

There was no prior notice from Nationwide and several steps of law were skipped out, serving a summons etc were just not complied with.

The point I am trying to make is, be very careful while dealing with Nationwide and their lawyers, as they have a habit of working the system to suit themselves, I had to fight to prove the furniture in the house didn’t belong to me but that the furniture belonged to the tenants that were renting.

The courts had placed a judgement against me, that I had to pay a lawyer to get overturned for me before the real issue of my notice period had even been raised. Nationwide knew they couldn’t win and they didn’t but it didn’t stop them being full of crap with me.

Sorry this is long winded but I feel this needs to be said.

[maxrated]

Casting my memory back to the Rossair days, I recall that the liquidators also tried to enforce the training bonds to be paid back, unsuccesfully.

Under Roman Dutch Law, the " Sceptio non agempleti contractus" rule determines that if either of the contractees renders it impossible for the other party to abide to their contractual obligations then the contract is not enforceable.

No sane judge in SA would rule with the liquidators who are taking a fat chance with this one, dont allow yourselves to be bullied by these morons.