Republic Training Contract Being Enforced!
03-12-2012, 07:55 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Gear Slinger
Posts: 708
Originally Posted by 9easy
People sign a training contract and then bash Republic for enforcing it when they bail 6 months later? What do you expect? If I was BB I'd sell it to a collection agency and let them deal with it.
Have other people gotten away without paying it previously and you expected to not have to pay if if you left early? If that's the case you may not have much to stand on.
03-12-2012, 08:12 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by MoarAlpha
Have other people gotten away without paying it previously and you expected to not have to pay if if you left early? If that's the case you may not have much to stand on.
03-19-2012, 09:39 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,373
Hate to drag this one back up, but wouldn't the fact that they are selectively choosing who to enforce them on (if it is true that people in the past didn't have them enforced upon them) be a big legal obstacle?
03-20-2012, 07:16 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by BigToe
How much is RAH's training contract for and for how long. Does the contract start form the date you get hired/begin training or from when you pass sim check or IOE?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
03-20-2012, 07:29 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Stage Left
Posts: 366
The OP and anyone else that is getting tagged with this letter should be able to get out of paying it. The company doesn't have any legal authority to arbitrarily attempt to recoup pay out of necessity, slow times, more organized, etc. If the company has missed sending this letter to a large group of individuals, which it sounds like they have, then there is precedent on the desire to enforce the terms of the contract.
Had the company been diligent in trying to recoup from everyone equally from the start, then they would have more legal grounds to recoup now. I would still contact a lawyer to handle correspondence but I would be shocked if any legal entity would enforce such a shoddy and arbitrary attempt at recouping training costs when it's been convenient for them.
Had the company been diligent in trying to recoup from everyone equally from the start, then they would have more legal grounds to recoup now. I would still contact a lawyer to handle correspondence but I would be shocked if any legal entity would enforce such a shoddy and arbitrary attempt at recouping training costs when it's been convenient for them.
03-20-2012, 08:57 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by DeltaPaySoon
The OP and anyone else that is getting tagged with this letter should be able to get out of paying it. The company doesn't have any legal authority to arbitrarily attempt to recoup pay out of necessity, slow times, more organized, etc. If the company has missed sending this letter to a large group of individuals, which it sounds like they have, then there is precedent on the desire to enforce the terms of the contract.
Had the company been diligent in trying to recoup from everyone equally from the start, then they would have more legal grounds to recoup now. I would still contact a lawyer to handle correspondence but I would be shocked if any legal entity would enforce such a shoddy and arbitrary attempt at recouping training costs when it's been convenient for them.
Had the company been diligent in trying to recoup from everyone equally from the start, then they would have more legal grounds to recoup now. I would still contact a lawyer to handle correspondence but I would be shocked if any legal entity would enforce such a shoddy and arbitrary attempt at recouping training costs when it's been convenient for them.
03-20-2012, 09:25 AM
#68
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by ColdWhiskey
So by your logic, in the past the local highway patrol has not always enforced the speed limit (by allowing some drivers to travel up to 5 or 6 mph over the limit), and as such, are no longer permitted to give me a ticket for going 70 in a 65 zone?
Past precedence is a very important topic when it comes to contract law. If RAH has a past precedence of selective and/or punitive enforcement of its training contract and it can be proven, that will be powerful evidence for having the contract ruled invalid.
03-20-2012, 10:29 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: CRJ CA
Posts: 180
There was an attorney in a class at S5, his opinion, FWIW, was that the "contract" wasn't worth the paper it was printed on for a variety of reasons not the last if which IIRC was the form of how it was drawn up, which I gather in Promissory Notes is right important. All that being said, I'm just going off memory of what he said in the break room at the training center. Consult an attorney, see what answer you get, and post it back here; it'll be interesting to see what comes of it all.
03-20-2012, 11:04 AM
#70
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Position: E side of a N bound a/c
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by nordo
There was an attorney in a class at S5, his opinion, FWIW, was that the "contract" wasn't worth the paper it was printed on for a variety of reasons not the last if which IIRC was the form of how it was drawn up, which I gather in Promissory Notes is right important. All that being said, I'm just going off memory of what he said in the break room at the training center. Consult an attorney, see what answer you get, and post it back here; it'll be interesting to see what comes of it all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
