Can i quit my job?

[BenG]

really ?

so when you signed up for that mortgage on your house it said to pay it back in a "reasonable period of time", did it ???

what do you personally consider to be a "reasonable period of time", given the circumstances.

$5,000.... $100/week, a year?

[Crobbo]

I wouldnt quit my job id just come in and do a really half ass job, unless that might cause injury/death then i guess its not an option..

Kenty works on Planes. Every time they leave the ground his ass is on the line.

[Rich]

I have left jobs that have these clauses in the contract and never been hassled, though your if very specific to that training, the ones I had were, you paid back any courses you had done in the previous 12 months...

I also expect if I look through the contract from my last job I'm not supposed to be working for the company I'm now at...

I'm sure Dubs can point you in the right direction...

Good luck...

[Hewie]

really ?

so when you signed up for that mortgage on your house it said to pay it back in a "reasonable period of time", did it ???

what do you personally consider to be a "reasonable period of time", given the circumstances.

What does a home loan have to do with it ? this is not a loan agreement, there is no loan, principal amount, interest or any other items or factors that characterise a loan.

Kenty signed an agreement/contract whereby the company provides training and if he leaves within a set period he has to repay an amount specified in the contract. Its really very simple.

Personally ... not relevant ... "reasonable" is widely used and well understood in terms of contracts ... its simply something that is just, proper and fair or ordinary and usual given the circumstances.

In this case it needs to be applied to BOTH parties .. not just Kenty.

[Sarbear]

Personally ... not relevant ... "reasonable" is widely used and well understood in terms of contracts ... its simply something that is just, proper and fair or ordinary and usual given the circumstances. .

This. Context of situation determines what is or is not unreasonable.

That Kenty relied on information provided by the company in making his decision to sign is irrelevant. There was no misrepresentation on behalf of the company (unless they knew they probably would not get the additional work - unlikely given the willingness to expend funds on the training).

Best bet is to try and make nice with them.

[Hewie]

I understand you have more experience, and my comments are from a personal opinion point of view specific to Kenty's industry, but were I to send any of my guys for training based on obtaining a specific contract/project/award, then that is a cost of business. Typically I cannot even charge the customer for this training, though in some cases I can.

To make my Technicians pay for that is neither fair nor reasonable. Especially if they accepted this training based on the premise of fulfilling a role specific to the project being sought.

Further from my understanding their are proposals to change the way certification works in the air craft maintenance industry wherein the LAME no longer owns their accreditations, this is held by the employer. Therein making that training redundant for Kenty, as said before, no one in Aus is doing maintenance on PC21s. I also understand (could be wrong) that Australian LAME accreditation is less recognised globally now as well? Making it even more redundant

So what I'm saying is in context - it is unreasonable.

Unfortunately, you're mixing up what you deem reasonable, and "reasonable" as typically read and understood when viewing a contract. As Sarbear said there doesnt appear to be any misrepresentation on behalf of the company.

From my reading of Kenty's explaination of the events, he had a loose "agreement" with his boss that should the company win the contract then he (Kenty) would be given the opportunity to work in the UAE.

To be able to take advantage of this situation Kenty needed to upskill and undertake certain training.

He (Kenty) then entered into a standard agreement to receive funding for his training on the basis that should he leave he would have to pay back the cost of the training based on the schedule contained within the contract.

The company did not win the contract, therefore Kenty cant get the oppotunity to work in the UAE, this inturn has pissed him off and now he wishes to leave.

The contract to receive funding does not turn on the company winning the contract, merely if the employee leaves.

Unfortunately, from a contractural point Kenty is bound to it as he still received the training at no cost to him.

[speed3]

His company trying to win a contract and supply trained staff with another company has nothing to do with the employee agreeing to get training from his employer. The contract is between employee and employer and nothing to do with the winning of a contract overseas.

The training may have been for the UAE job but the contract was signed within the company and should therefore be viewed within the company guidelines for internal training.

This, linked to what Hewie said, unless the emails are linked to the proposed contract oversees they stand as 2 separate contracts.

Personally I'd agree that it is unfair to have staff pay for your bid to try and win work but you might be buggered.

+1, talk to your company.

[Shady7/8]

The company did not win the contract, therefore Kenty cant get the oppotunity to work in the UAE, this inturn has pissed him off and now he wishes to leave.

A lot more to it that's upset our fine young Kenty (apart from not being able to pick up strippers), but ouch for him

[Hewie]

Unfortunately, whilst its not nice and may not be viewed generally as either fair or equitable ..... the contract is simply stated, the surrounding circumstances dont really enter into the reading of it unless you can prove up some mitigating or vitiating factors (under contract law) such as misrepresentation or that it should be read in conjunction with the emails and forms part of a larger agreement.

[Dubs]

We're talking 2 seperate things here folks as Hewie has stated, Employment Law and Contract Law.

Dubs