slipped

Sign it then forget about it

ryan1234

No - there's really no need to sign that if you're a contractor. Non-compete clause may be worked out... I wouldn't sign anything with that wording (one year) that didn't explicitly guarantee you an out in the form of compensation, etc. You're not an employee of that company - as a contractor you retain a certain amount of autonomy. I don't see what the benefit is for you in signing it.

Are they offering some sort of great pay package? Also IMHO you should consider countering and editing the contract as you see fit.

Just look at the implications of the contract should the company not have any business for a couple months and/or contract too many CFIs at the same time.

What exactly is the reasoning for them behind the 1 year policy?

NoyGonnaDoIt

Ohio isn't special at all in the "continued employment supports the new promise" piece. I'd take an educated guess that most states follow the "continued employment" rule exactly as quoted where employment is at-will.

Of course that still begs the questions (a) whether Ohio permits this kind of restriction for someone in a CFI position and (b) if it does, would it consider this restriction reasonable as to both time and geographic area.

Only an attorney familiar with Ohio employment law and the nature of the school's operation can give an opinion on that with any degree of reliability.

mshunter

Looks like somone got a job with American Flyers.

rickair7777

I seriously doubt it. Could you force an employee to sign some minor, harmless agreement, such as monitoring company email and other info systems? Probably.

But a major game-changer like a retroactive post-employment non-compete? Pretty far over the top.

ryan1234

Right...The binding non-compete should terminate when the employment contract terminates. There's no reason for a post employment contract - it's not like you're working on top-secret work or anything.

NoyGonnaDoIt

You're right. But that's a "reasonableness of restriction" issue, not a "continued employment supports new promise" issue.

On the latter, as the Ohio Court recognized in reaching its decision
=========================
Jurisdictions throughout the country are split on the issue presented by the certified question. See, generally, Annotation, Sufficiency of Consideration for Employee's Covenant Not to Compete, Entered into after Inception of Employment (1973), 51 A.L.R.3d 825. As summarized by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, "cases which have held that continued employment is not a sufficient consideration stress the fact that an employee frequently has no bargaining power once he is employed and can easily be coerced. By signing a noncompetition agreement, the employee gets no more from his employer than he already has, and in such cases there is a danger that an employer does not need protection for his investment in the employee but instead seeks to impose barriers to prevent an employee from securing a better job elsewhere. Decisions in which continued employment has been deemed a sufficient consideration for a noncompetition agreement have focused on a variety of factors, including the possibility that the employee would otherwise have been discharged, the employee was actually employed for a substantial time after executing the contract, or the employee received additional compensation or training or was given confidential information after he signed the agreement." (Citations omitted.) Davies & Davies Agency, Inc. v. Davies (Minn. 1980) 298 N.W.2d 127, 130.
=========================

and, btw, nocnik, all is not lost. The Ohio Supreme Court did not find in favor of the employer. It sent the case back down to the lower court to determine whether the restrictions were reasonable.

minitour

I was thinking more about the dude that has the "school" down the ramp from a university department that rhymes with Sent Kate or maybe the lady just down 76 across from the blimp hangar that seems to think she's some gift to aviation and her husband who agrees with her.

Either way, not a chance.

-mini

ATCsaidDoWhat

Sign it "Elmer Fudd" ...

Seriously, anyone who would put this in an agreement is just enough of a moron to chase you down. It only costs about $60 bucks to file a lawsuit and you end up paying a bunch to get it tossed.

Make 'em take it out. If they won't, have them sign one that guarantees you X number of students...and pick a nice fat number...and says any decline in students that costs you money, they will pay the difference.

Then stand back as they choke.

minitour

Better yet, tell them you want it in the same contract.

I like the way you think, ATC!

-mini