Not only does court dismiss claims of wrongful dismissal and harassment, but orders fired employee to pay $23,000 in training costs
A British Columbia court has dismissed a wrongful dismissal claim from a pilot who was fired during her probationary period and ordered the pilot to pay more than $23,000 to the employer for training expenses.
Valerie Langford was a pilot hired as a first officer with Carson Air on Aug. 15, 2012. She had experience flying jet aircraft and gliders and also instructed other pilots in Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, and Europe. Her previous positions included work as a first officer and a captain.
Based in Kelowna, B.C., Carson Air provided medical evacuation and other airline services throughout B.C. and Alberta. Langford was hired to be a first officer on air ambulance flights with a six-month probationary period. Performance reviews would be conducted at three months, six months, one year, and annually after that.
Langford’s employment agreement stipulated that the maximum notice she would receive in the event of termination without cause would be that required by the Canada Labour Code and not the common law. She was also required to provide a two-year training bond to cover the cost of training on specific aircraft types. Carson Air said it would follow up on the current rates for the training bond.
Before she signed the employment agreement, Langford requested a new copy of the contract with the amount of the training bond included. Carson Air confirmed it was a two-year bond and nothing would be payable unless she voluntarily resigned within that two-year period.
Carson Air sent another agreement with a salary increase but still no training bond amount. Langford signed the agreement, but acknowledged she expected to sign a separate training bond agreement and indicated she wasn’t comfortable without an approximate figure for the bond included.
Training expenses estimated
On Sept. 21, Carson Air sent Langford a training bond agreement. The agreement indicated the cost of training would be $25,000 over 24 months and Langford would be responsible for a monthly payment of $1,041.67 over that time. However, Carson Air would waive the monthly payments as long as Langford remained an employee or was laid off. If Langford’s employment was terminated before the 24 months elapsed, Langford would be responsible for the balance owing in full. If Langford began training but failed to complete it, the full amount of the bond would be due within 14 days. The agreement also authorized Carson Air to deduct any money owing from Langford’s pay.
Langford began her training in Vancouver and was later sent to Dallas for simulator work. However, once she was in Dallas, Carson Air learned she had no valid Canadian medical examination. She had a valid U.S. medical examination, but was unable to arrange for one accepted by Canadian authorities. As a result, she was unable to complete her pilot proficiency check (PPC).
Langford obtained her Canadian medical examination and went back to complete her PPC training in November. She was successful and started flying for Carson Air on Nov. 15, 2012, at which point she began receiving her salary. On her initial flight, Langford flew with Carson Air’s director, who observed her performance. She had some difficulty on the radio due to differences from her European flying experience and language issues. The director was not impressed and told one of the senior pilots Langford should only fly with him and another senior pilot. As a result, she was only scheduled to fly with those two pilots. Langford didn’t disagree with the schedule as she agreed she hadn’t flown much the previous two years.
On Dec. 15, Langford was scheduled to fly but brought her dog to the Vancouver base. The dog escaped from its carrier and defecated inside the building. She said she had checked with an engineer who had also brought his dog, though the engineer remained at the base. Around the same time, Carson Air discovered Langford was missing a completed examination for an instrument that Transport Canada required of pilots to fly commercially.
Langford acknowledged she was missing the qualification and Transport Canada was aware she had been flying illegally. She said the airline should have caught it earlier to deal with it, but Carson Air felt she shouldn’t have applied for the job without proper licensing.
On Dec. 20, 2012, Carson Air terminated Langford’s employment, telling her she had been unsuccessful in her probation. The airline had issues with her failure to ensure she had proper medical examinations and licensing, poor performance, a lack of diligence, and a poor attitude. It also indicated the outstanding amount on her training bond was payable in full and it kept her final paycheque — more than $1,500 — to put toward that amount.
Langford took the instrument examination on Dec. 20 but failed to pass. She took it again eight days later and passed. However, Carson Air announced to its pilots that Langford had been released from her conditional employment and wished her well in the future.
Langford filed a suit seeking damages for breach of contract for not paying her during training, harassment, wrongful dismissal, and defamation. She also claimed she signed the training bond agreement under duress and should not be held to it. Carson Air filed a counterclaim for the outstanding amount of the training bond.
The court found there was no breach of contract. It discerned no evidence that Langford was treated with anything other than dignity and respect, and Carson Air gave her a second chance when she was lacking the proper medical examination. In addition, until she completed the training, she wasn’t qualified to fly their planes and not entitled to be paid her salary until the training was complete — which was Nov. 6.
The court also found the training bond agreement was valid and signed by Langford, so Carson Air was entitled to recoup part of the training cost from Langford’s final paycheque. As a result, the court determined Langford was not entitled to claim any lost wages.
Though Langford complained of harassment because she was only offered a first officer position rather than a captaincy because she was female, and one of the senior pilots yelled at her a few times, the court found Langford was given the position for which she applied. It also found the senior pilot yelled at her “in the heat of challenging circumstances” during flights and not at her specifically. In fact, on at least one occasion the senior pilot apologized and Langford accepted the apology.
“The aspects of (Langford’s) experience working with (Carson Air) of which she complained were, in my view, situations that she should have tolerated, and did tolerate,” said the court.
The court also found Langford criticized her supervisor, the chief pilot and the skills of some of her colleagues, in addition to not informing Carson Air of her missing qualifications. Based on the attitude problems, performance issues, and a perceived inability to fit in with Carson Air staff, the company“made a reasonable decision" to terminate her employment, said the court in dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim.
Regarding the training bond, the court found Langford was allowed to seek legal advice before signing it and was given time before signing. In addition, there was no pressure and the bond was similar to one she had signed before. Both parties had agreed to the estimate of training costs, which turned out to be close to the actual costs. As a result, the court allowed Carson Air’s counterclaim and ordered Langford to pay the balance of the bond — $23,408.64.
For more information see:
