The Canadian Helicopters Shaft

[coolhand110]

A friend was employed by Canadian Helicopters "Helicopters CANADIEN" Upon being employed, there was a condition of a 3 year training bond for taking the mini ops course. After a period of less than 3 years, he was layed-off with numerous others. He was told that he can expect to be layed-off for 3-6 months. 9 months later he receives a demand letter for $2000.00 for not completing his 3 year contract requirement. Does anyone know of the legal stand point of a person being held down by the big man? Can a person actually be forced to pay this ransom? Any personal experience with this company or this situation, would like to hear from you.

 

[407 Driver]

Get legal advice ...read the fine print. I can't see how they expect to recover this money when THEY terminated his employment.

What a bunch....

 

[coolhand110]

He was given a 206 operational course which consists of 30 hours of training in Penticton on a 206. After the course you are sent out on jobs. The course includes longlining, bucketing, confind areas and such.

 

[sharkbait]

What is a MINI OPS course? Just want to get the facts right.
Are we talking a one day seminar or a flight training program?
What kind of contract did he sign?

 

[coolhand110]

He signed a 3 year contract where 1/3 of the amount is taken off every year completed. The initial charge for the course was given as $15, 000.00. One would think that if you are layed off the contract would be null and void. A contract like this is hard not to sign as a low time pilot to break into the industry.

 

[sharkbait]

407 is right get a lawyer NOW

 

[firehawk]

I know a guy that is going through a similar thing. It will be tough for them (Canadaian) to recover that money from him, Since they were the ones that terminated his employment. But like 407 said get a lawyer.

 

[Albert Ross]

You would need to see the contract to be sure - if it just states the bare fact that he must complete three years, then he's stuck with it, but tell him to look for a force majeure clause, and to check with the lawyer that the thing is enforceable in the first place - many such contracts are unenforceable.

Good luck - treatment like that gives sharks a bad name

Phil

 

[RDM]

Albert and Bladestrike are correct, these contracts are virtually unenforceable and I would not get my knickers in a knot worrying about it, let alone the fact that they laid him off.
What stops them from hiring 10 guys giving them all the course and letting them go a week later and trying to collect the "revenue".........sheesh, I could be a marketing man

They could kiss my patudy

before they got the coin.

The advice about the lawyer is good, but for those that have dealt with them as of late (I have) you will find that they are bigger vultures then those looking for the 2 grand. I'd rather deal with the CHC accountant who is against me then my lawyer who is with me.

 

[Bladestrike]

I know of quite a few guys that walked away from a simular deal before the years required were up and nothing came of it. I believe the operators were using it more as a deterant to turnover but had no intention of taking it to the courts. This is the first time I''ve heard of them coming after someone. Especially if they laid him off, I wouldn''t be overly concerned.

 

[407 Driver]

You are correct, the chances of enforcement are low, but look at it from our low-timers point of view. He probably has no job, he has very little money, and he has a professionally written LEGAL threat letter from a huge corporation in front of him. How would you feel?

The Corporation uses the tactics of Legal Threats and then can drag things out for ages....creating a financial hardship on our low-timers.
What a pathetic bunch, it''s sad that they go through their business lives without morals or ethics.
I know a guy who fought them and WON.

KEEP FIGHTING!

 

[Bladestrike]

Its a pretty poor tactic common among operators who have trouble retaining staff.

Perhaps treating people fairly never crossed their minds? Keep ''em happy, they''ll stick around!

To lay them off and go after them???? I''m having a hard time believing they would stoop that low. Perhaps there are "other" circumstances?

 

[CTD]

Changing the company culture in that outfit seems to be a daunting task, to say the least.

Having said that, CHC/E/I/L gave me my IFR, ATPL/H, and some medium and heavy helicopter endorsements, and never once asked me to sign diddly. Nor did they try and wiggle money or time out of me when I left, as I''ve heard from others.

Coolhand, your friend was not given the course because he was a nice guy, he was given it because they needed him to have it - for insurance, customer, or whatever reason. I can''t believe they''re still playing this bullshit game. A higher-time guy would tell them to get stuffed, but as 407 said, it''s a tough situation for a low-timer.

Shame on them.

 

[MagSeal]

Canadian has been known as the training company for years. They''re protecting their investment the only way they know how, with fear and intimidation.
Smaller companies like hiring anyone who has worked for them because they have any course imaginable already under their belt.

I''m not saying what Canadian is doing is right, but when your company has such a large revolving door, you need to at least make an attempt to stem the flow.

I just wish they would do it with positives rather than negatives.

 

[coolhand110]

Thanks for the response guys. I guess if a company treats it''s employee''s well, they would not have a turn-over problem. But to scare guys into staying, and waiting by the phone to get a call to come back to work is a little much. After 9 months he decided to find work elsewhere. This is when he got the letter.