Bonding to a company
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonding to a company
Without going into detail . Does the panel have any experience re the legality of bonding people to a particular company, for a specified period, following a training course, which the company consider it is necessary for the member of staff to attend .
Personally I would have thought following the" bosman ruling in football " it would be difficult for a company to apply.
Any thoughts or opinions ( preferably based on employment law)
Personally I would have thought following the" bosman ruling in football " it would be difficult for a company to apply.
Any thoughts or opinions ( preferably based on employment law)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing is simple, but in essence if you agree to something and sign up for it, ie. there is an agreement between two parties, then the agreement is binding. If the terms of the agreement are unreasonable, it can be challenged.
If you agree to go on a course but the condition is that you have to work a year in the company so that the latter can effectively recover its investment in you, and it is all signed up, then that is binding, and probably unchallengeable for all practical purposes, provided 1) you had the option whether to take the course or not, 2) you would not be adversely affected if you were not to take the course (ie. you would not be fired or have you pay reduced), and 3) the contract period was not unreasonable bearing in mind the cost and durantion of the course. (If it was a one day course, a one-year bonding would eb challengable.)
Some courses, such as aircraft type rating courses, might engender a contract period (bonding period) of up to 3 years, but this is getting a bit long and a challenge might succeed. More than this and the challenge almost certainly would succeed.
If someone were to provide a complete ATPL/IR flying training course for an ab initio pilot, that party might reasonably believe that a 4 year bond was acceptable. And so on.
Basically, though, if it doesn't seem reasonable, a legal challenge might be successful.
If you agree to go on a course but the condition is that you have to work a year in the company so that the latter can effectively recover its investment in you, and it is all signed up, then that is binding, and probably unchallengeable for all practical purposes, provided 1) you had the option whether to take the course or not, 2) you would not be adversely affected if you were not to take the course (ie. you would not be fired or have you pay reduced), and 3) the contract period was not unreasonable bearing in mind the cost and durantion of the course. (If it was a one day course, a one-year bonding would eb challengable.)
Some courses, such as aircraft type rating courses, might engender a contract period (bonding period) of up to 3 years, but this is getting a bit long and a challenge might succeed. More than this and the challenge almost certainly would succeed.
If someone were to provide a complete ATPL/IR flying training course for an ab initio pilot, that party might reasonably believe that a 4 year bond was acceptable. And so on.
Basically, though, if it doesn't seem reasonable, a legal challenge might be successful.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Riverboat.
and it is all signed up, then that is binding, and probably unchallengeable for all practical purposes, provided 1) you had the option whether to take the course or not,
So if somebody was sent on a course, and then told to sign a bonding agreement a few months afterwards ,then what do you think?
Don't mean to doubt you but where does this info generate from ,
Opinion ,experience , Professional advice?
and it is all signed up, then that is binding, and probably unchallengeable for all practical purposes, provided 1) you had the option whether to take the course or not,
So if somebody was sent on a course, and then told to sign a bonding agreement a few months afterwards ,then what do you think?
Don't mean to doubt you but where does this info generate from ,
Opinion ,experience , Professional advice?
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Although I use to do it in a former life, I was once told by someone who ought to know that it is often open to challenge. I do know of one person who did walk away and wasn't pursued. I have nothing to back this up and it is worth precisely what you have paid for it. 
As for doing the course and then asked to sign a bond . . . . depends how much you like your job, I suppose.
As for doing the course and then asked to sign a bond . . . . depends how much you like your job, I suppose.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that most non NATS airports require student ATCOs to sign a bonding agreement before they go on ATC courses, they usually last for three years and they are legally enforcable.
As with others, I do know of some people who have walked away and not been pursued, but I also know of 6 people who have done that and been chased to the ends of the earth - in all 6 cases the candidate settled just before court action commenced.
If an employer is prepared to spend many £1000s on training you, you should be prepared to return that commitment by staying for at least the bonding period, or be prepared to repay the proportionate amount.
If you don't think along the same lines, consider that any future employer is going to know that you are an untrustworthy and dishonourable person who will only be employed if they (the employer) is absolutely desperate and they will go to great lengths in ensuring they don't invest any money in enhancing your career.
Aviation is such a small world, that they'll probably get this information by word of mouth before they get any references.
As with others, I do know of some people who have walked away and not been pursued, but I also know of 6 people who have done that and been chased to the ends of the earth - in all 6 cases the candidate settled just before court action commenced.
If an employer is prepared to spend many £1000s on training you, you should be prepared to return that commitment by staying for at least the bonding period, or be prepared to repay the proportionate amount.
If you don't think along the same lines, consider that any future employer is going to know that you are an untrustworthy and dishonourable person who will only be employed if they (the employer) is absolutely desperate and they will go to great lengths in ensuring they don't invest any money in enhancing your career.
Aviation is such a small world, that they'll probably get this information by word of mouth before they get any references.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the Bosman Ruling, this only applies to Footballers once their contract has expired. They are no longer allowed to be held by the club, they are also allowed in the last 6 months of their contract to sign a pre-contract with another team. So I don't think this applies to bonding in this instance.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of a guy who was sent on the procedural course and was subject to a bond after successfull validation at the unit after the course, all he did was fail to validate and walked away to somewhere where he was much happier and procedural ticket in hand courtesy of his former employer. Although I believe that that loophole has now been closed by that particular employer.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being on the receiving end of one of these bonds, I believe the general consensus is You have both signed it so you had best both live up to it.
I nosed around the CAB a while back mostly out of curiosity and they seemed to think that a 3 year bond for a course was fairly excessive and could possible be challenged due to it being an unreasonable length of time - but they were very quick to stress that it would be a pretty difficult thing to follow through.
As for signing a bond after a course - sod that, you would be morally obligated to work for the company for a year, but the bond should be signed first, not tagged on at the end
best of luck
I nosed around the CAB a while back mostly out of curiosity and they seemed to think that a 3 year bond for a course was fairly excessive and could possible be challenged due to it being an unreasonable length of time - but they were very quick to stress that it would be a pretty difficult thing to follow through.
As for signing a bond after a course - sod that, you would be morally obligated to work for the company for a year, but the bond should be signed first, not tagged on at the end
best of luck
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In respect of NATS, I think that whilst they still pay (an albeit meagre) wage to students, they should have some sort of bonding in the initial contract.
Admittedly not many people who successfully validate decide to up sticks soon after to pastures new, but if Ts and Cs get worse (as Mr Barron wishes), then that number will rise.
It seems silly that all that time and effort from instructors etc, not to mention the monetary cost, is not balanced by a return of service.
If and when NATS decides that students will pay for courses, then the binding issue will be a harder thing to tie people into, IMHO.
Admittedly not many people who successfully validate decide to up sticks soon after to pastures new, but if Ts and Cs get worse (as Mr Barron wishes), then that number will rise.
It seems silly that all that time and effort from instructors etc, not to mention the monetary cost, is not balanced by a return of service.
If and when NATS decides that students will pay for courses, then the binding issue will be a harder thing to tie people into, IMHO.
Last edited by anotherthing; 10th Mar 2007 at 15:27. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing - I don't think £20k-odd is particularly meagre! Think yourself lucky not to have trained in NZ - YOU pay THEM NZ$1000 on accepting your place on a course, then YOU pay THEM another NZ$12000 before commencing your course! 
ap
(just saw your last paragraph!)
ap
(just saw your last paragraph!)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP and MNT,
as Chilli states, the salary is a lot less now - and bearing in mind the location of the college, it is quite difficult for people to make ends meet.
I was lucky, I got paid a good wage at the college - though it was a drastic pay cut from my previous job - but that was my choice.
If people understood (in the UK at least) more about what an ATCO is and does, then maybe we would get people willing to pay to train - I would far rather control than fly, but it is the 'little boys' dream of the glamour and adventure of flying that encourages people to save and pay themselves through the flying training.
As you both know, it is easier to train as a pilot than as an ATCO, you can pay yourself through flying training and even if you have a slight lack of aptitude, practice, practice and more practice will get you there (although it may cost an arm and a leg). The way the ATCO courses are run are much stricter in time frame and therefore are more of a risk when it comes to putting your own money on the line.
I know other countries get people to pay, and that you can do so in the UK, but that does not neccesarily make it the best way to recruit and attract the right people in the correct amount we need.
as Chilli states, the salary is a lot less now - and bearing in mind the location of the college, it is quite difficult for people to make ends meet.
I was lucky, I got paid a good wage at the college - though it was a drastic pay cut from my previous job - but that was my choice.
If people understood (in the UK at least) more about what an ATCO is and does, then maybe we would get people willing to pay to train - I would far rather control than fly, but it is the 'little boys' dream of the glamour and adventure of flying that encourages people to save and pay themselves through the flying training.
As you both know, it is easier to train as a pilot than as an ATCO, you can pay yourself through flying training and even if you have a slight lack of aptitude, practice, practice and more practice will get you there (although it may cost an arm and a leg). The way the ATCO courses are run are much stricter in time frame and therefore are more of a risk when it comes to putting your own money on the line.
I know other countries get people to pay, and that you can do so in the UK, but that does not neccesarily make it the best way to recruit and attract the right people in the correct amount we need.
