Norwegian B787 - LGW based
China 
what do we use for brains ? ?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian Bond unenforceable in the UK and rest of Europe
First, the Rishworth website states that pilots are "employed by our UK crewing company" - an employment agency leasing pilots to other airlines, specifically, Norwegian. However, there is no reference to this so-called "UK crewing company" in the Contact Us section of the Rishworth website. I suspect it is a broom cupboard somewhere in Crawley.
All employment agencies in the UK are regulated by:- The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Business Regulations 2003. Any pilot engaging with Rishworth via their "UK crewing company" should be familiar with this legislation.
I contend the bond is unenforceable for the following reasons:-
In the UK registered unemployed are obliged to seek work or have their benefits reduced and in some cases stopped entirely (JSA - Job Seekers Allowance regulations). Therefore, if you are registered unemployed (even for a week), interview for a position with Norwegian and offered employment, you are obliged to accept employment at the first opportunity or have your benefits stopped. Effectively, you are forced to sign a bond against your will. If at some later stage you decide that the working conditions are not to your liking (much has been written about the shameful management etc.), and seek alternatively employment, you are prevented form doing so by virtue of the bond. This is effectively Indentured Servitude and illegal under the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights.
First, the Rishworth website states that pilots are "employed by our UK crewing company" - an employment agency leasing pilots to other airlines, specifically, Norwegian. However, there is no reference to this so-called "UK crewing company" in the Contact Us section of the Rishworth website. I suspect it is a broom cupboard somewhere in Crawley.
All employment agencies in the UK are regulated by:- The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Business Regulations 2003. Any pilot engaging with Rishworth via their "UK crewing company" should be familiar with this legislation.
I contend the bond is unenforceable for the following reasons:-
In the UK registered unemployed are obliged to seek work or have their benefits reduced and in some cases stopped entirely (JSA - Job Seekers Allowance regulations). Therefore, if you are registered unemployed (even for a week), interview for a position with Norwegian and offered employment, you are obliged to accept employment at the first opportunity or have your benefits stopped. Effectively, you are forced to sign a bond against your will. If at some later stage you decide that the working conditions are not to your liking (much has been written about the shameful management etc.), and seek alternatively employment, you are prevented form doing so by virtue of the bond. This is effectively Indentured Servitude and illegal under the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bondi, probably if you were in a position to give a bond or cash you would not be in receipt of JSA in the first place, anyway, not withstanding that scenario and second mortgages, borrowing from relatives, etc etc. the Bond system is legal and enforceable..training costs are not limited to aviation and test cases tend to fall in favour of the contract: Example:A much more limiting clause was considered in the case of Strathclyde Regional Council v Neil [1984] IRLR 11. Here, a provision in the employee's contract required her to refund a sum calculated on the basis of her salary, course materials and examination fees if she left within two years of completing a study course paid for by the local authority.
This was a liquidated damages clause because it represented genuine loss to the employer, contemplated at the outset. The clause only sought recovery of the cost of training the employee and was proportionate to the unexpired portion of the two year period. The clause was upheld as valid. .
A clause providing full recovery of course fees even in the event that employee resigns, say 10 years later, would be a penalty clause. It would not seek to place limitation on the employer's right to recover damages for actual loss. The benefits of the course would have been realised in the years of employment following the course and the employer will have had that benefit. In this context NLH could reasonably argue that 3 years is a suitable period to recover the training costs and benefit from them.
Of perhaps more " concern" would a "contract " signed with NLH for training be enforceable when " employed through a third party" .. probably not..in this event the training costs would have had to been paid by the agency. Of course, no agency is going to stump up costs for pilot training and probably this case, if tested, would fail..
This was a liquidated damages clause because it represented genuine loss to the employer, contemplated at the outset. The clause only sought recovery of the cost of training the employee and was proportionate to the unexpired portion of the two year period. The clause was upheld as valid. .
A clause providing full recovery of course fees even in the event that employee resigns, say 10 years later, would be a penalty clause. It would not seek to place limitation on the employer's right to recover damages for actual loss. The benefits of the course would have been realised in the years of employment following the course and the employer will have had that benefit. In this context NLH could reasonably argue that 3 years is a suitable period to recover the training costs and benefit from them.
Of perhaps more " concern" would a "contract " signed with NLH for training be enforceable when " employed through a third party" .. probably not..in this event the training costs would have had to been paid by the agency. Of course, no agency is going to stump up costs for pilot training and probably this case, if tested, would fail..
Guest
Posts: n/a
i don't consider the pay that bad now we are guaranteed a decent euro - pound rate, and of course it's a compromise you make if you can't face being dumped in the Middle East. In actual fact I'd rather be on jobseekers than go to that hole.
It is what it is , don't consider joining if you can't see that.
Oh, and maybe LGw based but still with a rishworth contract from Singapore so I'm not sure about all the bond stuff.
It is what it is , don't consider joining if you can't see that.
Oh, and maybe LGw based but still with a rishworth contract from Singapore so I'm not sure about all the bond stuff.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding my previous comment, Norwegian are legislatively required to provide training to the crews on the aircraft they operate. A training bond is NOT enforceable as the training is not voluntary, it is mandatory. Norwegian cannot recover a loss as none has occurred due to the mandatory requirement.
Furthermore, the agency is the employer and leases its employee crew to various airlines. If the airline, Norwegian, is required to provide training to the contractor, it is not the responsibility of the contractor to pay the leasing airline for that training.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Norwegian are legislatively required to provide training to the crews on the aircraft they operate.][/QUOTE]
No they are not! For type rated and current Pilots, Norwegian are only required to provide a company conversion course according to their part D manual and training as required to comply with their own SOPs. The " bond" refers to pilots whom require conversion training in order to be in a position to carry out their duties, under these circumstances, the bond is entirely enforceable as the pilots have the choice to except the employment under these terms or not according to the employment contract. My point regarding the agency you appear to have misunderstood. If an agency is providing pilots via a crew lease agreement, it is taken as read the pilots are already capable of performing the task required. In this case, the contract of employment is with the agency not the airline and as such any " additional training" given by the airline may be considered to fall outside of the contract. It would appear there must be two contracts here. 1) a training contract with the airline and 2) an employment contract with the agency. IF there is only one contract, with the agency, then the additional training carried out by the airline would have to be stipulated as an employment condition within the agency contract for the bond to be enforceable.
No they are not! For type rated and current Pilots, Norwegian are only required to provide a company conversion course according to their part D manual and training as required to comply with their own SOPs. The " bond" refers to pilots whom require conversion training in order to be in a position to carry out their duties, under these circumstances, the bond is entirely enforceable as the pilots have the choice to except the employment under these terms or not according to the employment contract. My point regarding the agency you appear to have misunderstood. If an agency is providing pilots via a crew lease agreement, it is taken as read the pilots are already capable of performing the task required. In this case, the contract of employment is with the agency not the airline and as such any " additional training" given by the airline may be considered to fall outside of the contract. It would appear there must be two contracts here. 1) a training contract with the airline and 2) an employment contract with the agency. IF there is only one contract, with the agency, then the additional training carried out by the airline would have to be stipulated as an employment condition within the agency contract for the bond to be enforceable.
They obviously can't be short of applicants if they are now requiring 20k up front for 777 rated guys.
Given that my license says 777/787 on it, I'd be telling them where to stick it for anything other than a differences course and a sim session or two.
Typically its the dateless and desperate who look at this as a means to remain in, or return to the UK, what other games in town are there for experienced people down south? JET poo?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Outta town
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear a few B777 guys from turkish have applied and one or two 767 drivers from Japan. And a bunch of cargo 747. All overseas crew, no doubt sick to death of the sand or kebabs,
Last year, there was no mention of a bond for B777 rated crew.
So now they are inundated with qualified crew applying. If you are Airbus , no chance.
Expect conditions to significantly reduce next year.
( they will no doubt make a simulator available at €1000 per hour for crew to train for their interview profiles, payed for in advance, cashiers cheque)
And of course todays pilots will take it , boasting to their mates that they will fly the dream.
Last year, there was no mention of a bond for B777 rated crew.
So now they are inundated with qualified crew applying. If you are Airbus , no chance.
Expect conditions to significantly reduce next year.
( they will no doubt make a simulator available at €1000 per hour for crew to train for their interview profiles, payed for in advance, cashiers cheque)
And of course todays pilots will take it , boasting to their mates that they will fly the dream.
Gammon, don't rise to the bait, F to G, is merely reflecting the reality of the place.
My understanding is that just like the ME where I am, Norwegian is a place populated by misfits, refugees via redundancy, and lifestylers returning to the damp.
In any of those cases, there will always be those who seek to believe the BS and accept below market rates for their labour, leave them to it, and don't let the insipid remarks bait you into churlishness, F to G appears to want to personalise his reasons for accepting the Norewegian crumbs..or stinky fish etc.
My understanding is that just like the ME where I am, Norwegian is a place populated by misfits, refugees via redundancy, and lifestylers returning to the damp.
In any of those cases, there will always be those who seek to believe the BS and accept below market rates for their labour, leave them to it, and don't let the insipid remarks bait you into churlishness, F to G appears to want to personalise his reasons for accepting the Norewegian crumbs..or stinky fish etc.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Outta town
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not sure packing a case for 21-22 days away , to hack accross the atlantic sounds appealing. Im fascinated by this advert. Norwegian contact Rishworth, who set up another agency that then recruits for Norwegian. They ask all manner of questions, but ultimatly if you cannot deposit the required amount of dosh in their bank, its no go joe,
So why bother with the interviews, questions, aptitude tests. The first thing you should show at the interview, is a bag full of euros. Only then can you proceed. After handing it accross the table for safe keeping
In days gone by, airlines recruited the best guys they thought were suitable for the job. Period. Then they would provide the training.
Now its show me the money, then and only then can we proceed with the formalities of an interview.
Typical interview question : Will you work for peanuts, no time off and inflexible rosters, have xxxx thousand hours of wide body, and are such a looser that you cannot hold down any other employment?
If the answers yes, then you clearly are not suitable to be a professional pilot.
So why bother with the interviews, questions, aptitude tests. The first thing you should show at the interview, is a bag full of euros. Only then can you proceed. After handing it accross the table for safe keeping
In days gone by, airlines recruited the best guys they thought were suitable for the job. Period. Then they would provide the training.
Now its show me the money, then and only then can we proceed with the formalities of an interview.
Typical interview question : Will you work for peanuts, no time off and inflexible rosters, have xxxx thousand hours of wide body, and are such a looser that you cannot hold down any other employment?
If the answers yes, then you clearly are not suitable to be a professional pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the presumption that no rated and experienced B787 pilot would leave a principled airline to fly for a fraction of his earnings with Norwegian, it is safe to assume that most, if not all, of Norwegian's B787 pilots have entered into bonded or indentured servitude (working for an employer for a number of years, before being allowed to freely seek other employment). I do not know of another airline where ALL the pilots of an entire fleet are bonded and, without any labour rights, standards nor principles to boot! In this respect, Norwegian is indeed in a class of its own. Those pilots signing on for such an arrangement have well and truly been "Kjossed", albeit voluntarily.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well your understanding is wrong, monarch.
Can't find any misfits here - we have an excellent training department, populated by very experienced ex flag carrier trainers.
There is a tangible feeling of improvement. Paid in pounds , with a set rate that isn't bad. Roster just got a lot better. Planes nice, if that's your thing.bond money coming back on schedule no problem . It has massive potential.
as I've said before, you pays your money you take your choice.
As usual of pprune, lack of knowledge won't deter the self inflated from commenting on things they have no first hand experience of.
Can't find any misfits here - we have an excellent training department, populated by very experienced ex flag carrier trainers.
There is a tangible feeling of improvement. Paid in pounds , with a set rate that isn't bad. Roster just got a lot better. Planes nice, if that's your thing.bond money coming back on schedule no problem . It has massive potential.
as I've said before, you pays your money you take your choice.
As usual of pprune, lack of knowledge won't deter the self inflated from commenting on things they have no first hand experience of.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which Flag carrier have these trainers come from? Out of interest.
I ask as since 2006 to my knowledge, no trainer has left BA to train elsewhere. Also the default ICAO retirement age going to 65 would mean anyone would be mad to leave their own outfit to seek employment with Norwegian?
I ask as since 2006 to my knowledge, no trainer has left BA to train elsewhere. Also the default ICAO retirement age going to 65 would mean anyone would be mad to leave their own outfit to seek employment with Norwegian?
Sure F to G, so those good guys that sat down with me last week in blighty and explained about all the issues, rosters, money, rosters etc were telling porkie pies?
These are the same blokes who also spoke about the 3 categories of individuals as described previously and mentioned in terms they used themselves.
Without ACTUALLY working there, I've been given a pretty good snapshot. Of course as you say "you pays your money" etc, and I suppose thats the reality, but please don't sugar coat or polish a turd, the job is merely another example of the race south.
I'm in little better shape, 90hrs a month in a sandy furnace, but at least making about 3 times what I would at Norwegian softens the pain..a bit
These are the same blokes who also spoke about the 3 categories of individuals as described previously and mentioned in terms they used themselves.
Without ACTUALLY working there, I've been given a pretty good snapshot. Of course as you say "you pays your money" etc, and I suppose thats the reality, but please don't sugar coat or polish a turd, the job is merely another example of the race south.
I'm in little better shape, 90hrs a month in a sandy furnace, but at least making about 3 times what I would at Norwegian softens the pain..a bit