CPU / HKAOA Debate

[Turbo Beaver]

By way of re-cap, there are two areas of serious concern:

First, following the outcome of the votes at the recent EGM, your Association entered into a legally binding Agreement with Cathay Pacific Airways to the effect that we would cease funding the ongoing 49er legal actions. Our Solicitors, Robertsons have advised that the agreement is binding on all Members of the AOA and dual membership of CPU and the AOA is precluded by the conflict between the decisions already taken at General Meeting and CPU’s stated aim of financing the 49ers legal cases.

Second, the specific dual membership ‘conflict of purpose’ described above can reasonably be extended into more general scenarios. It is quite conceivable that should such a union form, its policies in other areas could well be at odds with those favoured by the majority of the Membership of the AOA. Should dual membership be allowed, then situations can be envisaged that could potentially prevent the AOA from conducting useful and meaningful business.

Your GC has closely consulted our legal advisors and IFALPA on this matter. After considering a number of options, the unanimous view is that the most sensible course of action is to amend our Rules to make it clear that dual membership of the HKAOA and any other Hong Kong registered Trade Union offering membership to aircrew listed on the CPA Seniority List is not permitted. Under the proposed wording, membership of overseas unions, such as BALPA, would continue to be available. The suggested changes are quite comprehensive and are indicated in underlined italics as follows:
Objects of the Association

4.1 The Association is established:

7.1b Notwithstanding Rule 7.1a above, no person shall be eligible for, or retain membership of the Association if:
(i) he has been convicted of any crime involving fraud, dishonesty, extortion or membership of a triad society; or
(ii) he is a member or becomes a member of another trade union registered with the Registry of Trade Unions of Hong Kong.

7.1c Notwithstanding Rule 7.1b above, the General Committee may, if it is of the opinion that:
(i) such conviction as is envisaged under Section

7.1b(i) is of a spent, trivial or irrelevant nature;
(ii) such membership as is envisaged by Section

7.1b(ii) is not incompatible with membership of the Association.
admit an applicant to membership or resolve to permit the continued membership of any existing member.

HKAOA Page 3 03 June 2005

(NOTE: This is a re-write that adds the eligibility criterion excluding dual membership of Hong Kong registered Trade Unions. At the discretion of the General Committee, dual membership would be allowed. We envisage this would only apply to a Member who may also be a member of a Trade Union in another profession . GAPAN is not registered as a Trade Union, and unions such as BALPA are not registered in Hong Kong. Therefore, HKAOA Members may retain their memberships of GAPAN and BALPA etc.)

Application for Membership

7.2 (NOTE: the application form will be amended to include a declaration to the effect that the applicant is not a member of another trade union registered at the Registry of Trade Unions of Hong Kong.)

7.3b Any omission from or inaccuracy or misrepresentation in the particulars relating to the applicant shall entitle the General Committee to determine the membership of such applicant.
(NOTE: under 7.3b, the General Committee may determine membership in case of a member falsely declaring that he is not a member of another registered trade union.)
Misconduct of Members

7.20 Any Member:
(i) in breach of the Rules;
(ii) acting in a manner contrary to or prejudicial to any resolutions made by members in General Meeting (or the General Committee);
(iii) whose conduct has, in the opinion of the General Committee, rendered him unfit to retain membership of the Association; or
(iv) who, in the opinion of the General Committee, is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Association or in conflict with the objects of the Association,
may be expelled from the Association by the General Committee or his membership may be suspended by the General Committee for any period, or his membership may be continued upon fulfilment of such conditions as the General Committee may see fit to impose.
7.21 In any instance where the General Committee is of the opinion that, prima facie, a Member has conducted himself in the manner prescribed in Rule 7.20, it may direct the General Secretary or the Secretary to give written notice to that Member setting out the allegation or allegations or misconduct, and…if any such decision shall include a finding that the Member is guilty of the misconduct alleged, such notice shall so state and shall also state whether the Member is expelled, or suspended, or whether his membership is to continue upon fulfilment of conditions, and if so, they shall be specified.

Summary

Clearly, these proposed amendments are the product of an in depth examination of the current Rules by the Association’s Solicitors. In their view, such amendments would not only cater for the CPU situation, they would also serve us well in any similar scenarios in the future.

It is worthy of mention that, in researching this matter, Robertsons examined common practice in various jurisdictions and various professions. They found that it was quite common for the Rules of a Trade Union to exclude dual Membership. To that extent, the proposed Rule amendment could be seen as bringing us in line with Trade Union ‘best practice’.
The proposed Rule amendment will be put to you for voting at an EGM to be held in early July. Your General Committee fully supports the proposed amendments.
Sincerely
President
03 June 2005

[Turbo Beaver]

The Cathay Pilots Union

Ladies and Gentlemen

We are pleased to announce that the Registrar of Trade Unions has approved our application and The Cathay Pilots Union is now a Registered Trade Union with benefits and protections as defined by the Ordinance.

The CPU website is at http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org and the approved rules have been posted.

Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, you are free to join CPU without limitation. In Hong Kong, it is illegal to impose any restriction on the right to form and join a union such as The CPU.

There are now 19 49ers who need our help. The CPU has been formed primarily to assist them in their fight for justice.

Legal Update - UK

The ruling of the UK Court of Appeal was formally handed down on 19th May 2005. The court ruled by a 2:1 majority verdict that the UK courts do have jurisdiction to hear the case brought by the Veta pilots. This is a landmark ruling and now forms part of UK case law. This is a great achievement and we can be justifiably proud. It means that every UK-based Veta pilot now enjoys the protection of UK Employment law, which provides that: "an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer".

The ruling also affects other employees, such as North Sea divers. Some other companies seek to avoid their responsibilities to UK-based employees by means of overseas registered shell companies. Consequently, there is a great deal of media interest in our situation. The Court of Appeal also:

* Referred the case back to the Employment Tribunal for a full hearing on the substantive issues. This will be the first time that the facts surrounding the disgraceful treatment handed out to The 49ers will be aired in open court.

* Awarded us 75% of our costs.

* Refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords for both parties, meaning that either party would first have to petition the Lords for final appeal. Apparently, Veta intends to do so and any such petition, if successful, will be defended. The full judgement is at:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/599.html

Legal Update - HK

The expected time frame for the Hong Kong court case is one year. Nearly all of the preliminaries have been completed. As a reminder, these are the issues before the Court:

1. Breach of employment contract.

2. Breach of Section 21B(2)(b) of the Employment Ordinance which protects against anti-union discrimination.

The successful conclusion of these legal actions will not only bring justice for The 49ers but will also strengthen the contracts of all HK pilots. In the absence of fair settlement, these actions represent an investment in career security and it is vital that they are pursued.

Membership Privacy

CPU membership applications have been steady. We understand the need for privacy and confidentiality, and have designed procedures accordingly. For example, the RTU advises and protects confidentiality for the founding members of the CPU, who were required for registration. That is one reason why we preserve the Preparatory Committee’s anonymity. We have designed our procedures so that every new applicant and all members will be able to exercise their rights whilst maintaining their privacy.

Eligibility

* CPU membership will be attractive to pilots who are dissatisfied with their current representation and wish to join a union that will continue to pursue the legal strategy.
* There are also pilots already represented one way or another but who wish to support the legal strategy. Should they so choose, these members can legally have the benefits of membership of more than one organisation.
* There are pilots who believe in pursuing the legal strategy but do not wish to join a union; for this group CPU will maintain anonymity and keep you informed of progress in return for regular donations.
* CPU also seeks Hong Kong pilots who are not currently members of a union but need employment protection. This group includes pilots employed not only by the larger carriers but also carriers such as Metrojet, Air Hong Kong, Heliservices, GFS, CR Airways and Hong Kong Express.

Attached is a CPU membership application form.

* The joining fee is $88 by cheque payable to “The Cathay Pilots Union”

* 1¼ % for Full Membership and ½ % for Second Officers

* There is no requirement for applications to be Proposed and Seconded

* Please post your membership application form and cheque to:

The Cathay Pilots Union
1/F 9B Nga Yiu Tau
Sai Sha Road
Sai Kung, NT.

Contract Security = Fair Treatment for The 49ers

The CPU looks forward to welcoming you to our Union!

[Turbo Beaver]

A breakaway pilots' union has been formed to continue to fund the court battles of sacked Cathay Pacific pilots who refuse to accept job interviews or payouts to drop their legal cases.

The Cathay Pilots' Union has circulated a newsletter to members of the Aircrew Officers Association (AOA) and other pilots in Hong Kong seeking recruits, who will be asked to pay 1.25 per cent of their salaries to support the court cases. However, AOA president Murray Gardner has voiced 'great concern' over the breakaway union and warned that any pilots who join it will be stripped of their AOA membership.

In its circular to pilots, the Cathay Pilots' Union said: '[We] will continue to support the 49er legal processes in Hong Kong, Australia and the United Kingdom. We are confident of securing successful rulings within the next year ... In the absence of a fair settlement, these actions represent an investment in career security.'

The union, whose founders have requested anonymity citing fear of management reprisals, is not yet registered and is operating with the help of the Flight Attendants' Union, which has provided a temporary banking facility to it. Mr Gardner has written to AOA members warning: 'Should you choose to join CPU, you would have to relinquish your membership of the AOA.'

He said the AOA had signed a legally binding agreement with Cathay to cease funding 49ers' legal actions and said dual membership would see pilots supporting two courses of actions by two different unions.

Cathay director of flight operations Nick Rhodes said while the airline respects the right of pilots to belong to any union they wished, 'we only recognise, and negotiate with, the AOA as the representative body of Cathay Pacific pilots'.

[Turbo Beaver]

Hong Kong's largest pilots' union has severed relations with the Flight Attendants Union (FAU) after its leader allegedly called the pilots "selfish and balls-less" for withdrawing legal funding from sacked colleagues.

The president of the Aircrew Officers Association (AOA), Murray Gardner, has written to Becky Kwan Siu-wa, chairwoman of the 4,000-member FAU, telling her "all forms of co-operation" were suspended. Ms Kwan sent a reply to Mr Gardner yesterday, comparing his rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler and describing his letter as "high-handed, colonial and grossly inappropriate".

The dispute centres on the FAU's decision to provide temporary banking facilities for the newly formed Cathay Pilots Union, which intends to carry on the legal fight for a group of sacked pilots known as the "49ers".

In April, AOA members voted to halt legal funding for the pilots, sacked during a 2001 work-to-rule, and accept Cathay's offer of 10-month payoffs or interviews for positions as freighter pilots for their sacked colleagues.

In a phone call early last month, Ms Kwan is alleged by the pilots' union to have told AOA general secretary John Findlay: "Your members are selfish and balls-less. If the AOA won't help the 49ers, the FAU can and will."

Mr Gardner wrote to Ms Kwan afterwards saying: "I find your remarks offensive and impertinent; they are not at all what I would expect from a fellow union leader." Asked if she had used the expression "balls-less", Ms Kwan told the Sunday Morning Post: "I never said those exact words but I think people have been saying this to the FAU and it is the kind of thing people have been saying to us."

She called Mr Gardner's letter arrogant and said many pilots admired the FAU for winning a $280 million payout from Cathay in April for breaching the contracts of longer-serving flight attendants. "Pilots have been saying to us 'you have got more balls than us'," she said. "We are determined to always stand up for our rights and stand up for justice. We will never abandon our members in the way the AOA has done."

In his letter to Ms Kwan, dated May 9, Mr Gardner accused her of siding with the breakaway union for personal reasons. Mr Gardner said the FAU had "chosen to side with, and provide assistance to, this disgruntled, small minority ... whose actions could cause considerable damage to the AOA". He added: "It is very clear that the relationship with the AOA which you have chosen to cast aside for personal reasons is quite important to your members, to the members of the AOA and indeed to all employees of Cathay Pacific."

Ms Kwan wrote to Mr Gardner: "We are of the opinion that your small Hitlerian rhetoric is a failed attempt at managerial posturing."

[Turbo Beaver]

A senior Cathay Pacific captain suspects his wife, an air stewardess, is having an affair with another of the airline's pilots. To make matters worse, the lover is a young upstart whom the senior pilot believes is out to wreck his career as well as his marriage.
He confronts his wife. She not only admits the relationship but tells him it is his fault and taunts him over his masculinity. Enraged, the captain declares that their marriage is over and he wants nothing more to do with her. It sounds like the plot for the kind of steamy novel holidaymakers might pick up on their way through Chek Lap Kok airport to read on the beach. In fact, it is the personification of a real-life rift between the two key unions in the Hong Kong airline industry.

The senior pilot is the 900-member Aircrew Officers Association (AOA). The wife is the 4,000-member Flight Attendants Union (FAU). And the young lover who split the marriage is the newly formed breakaway Cathay Pilots Union (CPU), which has only a handful of members and none prepared to give their names.

Like most affairs, it didn't just happen overnight. The AOA and the FAU had been drifting apart for some time before the third party came along -and a look at their recent history suggests irreconcilable differences may lie at the root of the deteriorating relations. Simmering differences exploded into the open in spectacular fashion last month when FAU chairman Becky Kwan Siu-wa accused the AOA of abandoning the sacked Cathay pilots known as the 49ers and allegedly told AOA general secretary John Findlay: "Your members are selfish and ball-less". Outraged, AOA president Murray Gardner responded by cutting off all forms of co-operation with the FAU and told Ms Kwan in a letter: "You are very close to destroying all trust in the FAU by this association."

Reflecting on what appears to be a permanent rift in once very close relations between the two unions, Ms Kwan said: "In the past, it was as if the FAU was married to the AOA. Now I feel we are going in opposite directions. It is very sad." Mr Findlay remarked: "I find it inconceivable that we will have any form of relationship with them so long as they are supporting this breakaway union."

So what happened to drive a wedge between the two unions, who have not only stood shoulder to shoulder in successive industrial disputes in the 1990s - first involving the flight attendants and later involving the pilots - but ironically whose members are in many cases either married or romantically involved with each other?

The answer appears to lie in two significant but very different victories for the two unions which characterise the diverse paths they have set out upon. The AOA under the presidency of Mr Gardner has mended fences with Cathay, succeeding in April in a key battle to persuade members to accept a company offer to settle the long-running dispute over the sacking of the 49ers. That settlement involved job interviews or 10-month payouts for the sacked pilots in return for the union stopping all funding for their legal actions. Twenty-one have since accepted interviews; 11 have gone for payouts. Many of the others are expected to fight on either alone or with the support of the breakaway union.

The FAU has at the same time seen its relations with Cathay grow frostier after it won a crushing High Court victory against the airline for unilaterally scrapping annual pay increments seven years ago, costing Cathay $280 million in back pay and salary increases. Rightly or wrongly, the FAU believes the AOA was the first to break faith by "climbing into bed" with Cathay management over the 49ers offer. It was only after that happened that the FAU decided to seek out a new relationship with the breakaway union.

Speaking with the air of an overachieving wife whose fogeyish husband refuses to acknowledge her success, Ms Kwan said: "After our High Court victory, my phone was jam-packed with congratulatory messages for three days. But I got nothing from the AOA. "It shows that the leadership of the union is not on the same wavelength as the FAU or the rest of the labour community in Hong Kong. Pilots were sending us e-mails congratulating us, and some of them wrote to the AOA saying, `please publish these e-mails in our newsletter to congratulate the FAU on its success' - but nothing appeared." Mr Findlay played down the significance of the lack of an official AOA message of congratulations. "I had a conversation with her [Ms Kwan] and I congratulated her over the telephone. It is not a big deal," he said. "When we won the Gardner case [a landmark High Court victory lover rosters won by Murray Gardner in 2003], the FAU didn't write to us and say congratulations, but they did phone up and say `well done'."

The real meltdown in relations came when the FAU supported the setting up of the Cathay Pilots Union, providing it with a temporary banking facility and later inviting one of its founders to speak at the FAU's annual general meeting at the end of May.

When Mr Findlay phoned Ms Kwan to ask why the FAU was supporting the breakaway union, he says she told him: "If the AOA won't help the 49ers, the FAU can and will." Mr Gardner then wrote to Ms Kwan: "I find your remarks offensive and impertinent. For almost four years this association has provided assistance to the 49ers without precedent in our industry ... This association and its members can be very proud of what we achieved."

The FAU leader is unrepentant. Contrasting the case of the 49ers with the FAU's own High Court victory, she said: "What is important is that we persevered and they didn't.
"The 49ers have sacrificed their jobs for the union because they followed union directives and now the union has voted to abandon them and that is very, very sad. These pilots have been abandoned by their union, who they have been sacked for, and for the union leadership to come out and write such an arrogant letter to the FAU - I find that quite difficult to swallow."

While she denies using the exact words "selfish and balls-less" in her conversation with Mr Findlay, it is clear that the labels reflect her views of the AOA leadership. "They are selfish because they didn't want to continue to support the legal battle for the 49ers," she said. "The leadership kept on telling the members how expensive it was. They didn't tell people or educate members in the principle of standing up for their rights. It seems to me that they have forgotten why these people lost their jobs."

It is an accusation that the AOA finds not only offensive but erroneous, and ignorant of the way in which the offer was debated amid much soulsearching by the union leadership and its members. "This association has not abandoned the 49ers," Mr Gardner wrote in his letter. "We have in fact, through our persistence and application of sound strategies, succeeded in providing them opportunities that few thought possible so long after their terminations.
"If individual 49ers choose not to accept those opportunities, against the advice of the association and of their own legal counsel, they are free to do so, but that most certainly would not constitute abandonment by the AOA."

In many ways, union officials believe, it was the braver course. Union leaders put up with months of abuse and accusations from the "no" faction before securing a deal that may ultimately save the union from being destroyed by sky-high dues and falling membership. Ms Kwan, they believe, has acted without the knowledge of most of her own members by siding with the breakaway union, and many will be shocked to realise the AOA has been cast aside and replaced by what can most generously be described as a minority faction.

Nevertheless, the break-up between the AOA and the FAU appears beyond mediation. There is no longer even any dialogue, Mr Findlay said, saying that the FAU "hasn't had the courtesy to reply to Captain Gardner's letter". Ms Kwan replied: "I don't want to write anything I might regret later. I sometimes think a more well-thought-out response is better. But in the meantime my message to them is MYOB - mind your own business. "If there was to be any sort of reconciliation, we would need to have some common goal. At the moment I don't see a reason why we should continue to work together."

[FlexibleResponse]

Cathay director of flight operations Nick Rhodes said while the airline respects the right of pilots to belong to any union they wished, 'we only recognise, and negotiate with, the AOA as the representative body of Cathay Pacific pilots'.
Poor old CX management. After all the work they have done to achieve the emasculation of one Union, a new stronger Union pops up!!!

[cpdude]

a new stronger Union pops up!!!

Is that the one with 5 members run by the English dictator? The one which membership is so controversial that they must hide the members’ names? The one which it's only purpose is to damage the employer of its own members? Sounds like a midget fight club to me.:p

[bekolblockage]

Divide and Conquer.
Cathay must be rubbing their hands together. Get your act together guys.

[En-Rooter]

Turbo Beaver,

From little things big things grow:ok:

Ms Kwan, what a legend:ok:

Turbo, would you consider honourary memberships from people who support the cause?

PM me.

[Turbo Beaver]

Go to the website and send an email.

http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/

[Turbo Beaver]

The Cathay Pilots Union is writing to all AOA members to ask for your direct support in assisting the 19 49ers and their families who have declined the Company Offer.

As you know, we expect the court case to be heard within the year. It will be a very high profile case, some 5 years after the event, and is still being monitored by the UN International Labour Organisation (ILO). It will establish whether Cathay Pacific Airways broke the Law on 2 counts:

1. Breach of employment contract.

2. Breach of Section 21B(2)(b) of the Employment Ordinance, which protects against anti-union discrimination.

What this means for you, as a Cathay employee, is that your individual protection against such abuse will be increased in future. It will enhance your own contract security significantly. On that basis alone, we strongly encourage you to assist.

In the absence of a proper settlement, the fundamental reason for this action is that your contract needs the extra protection of a judge’s ruling.

“Binding” Resolutions? Repeatedly, the HKAOA GC told us that any 49er can continue the action on a self-funding basis, but what exactly did the AOA members vote on?

From the newsletter dated 16th December 2004:

The Association would be required to cease funding all legal actions related to the dismissals.

Under the Terms of this Offer, the Association is also required to make a decision regarding its acceptability and we anticipate that a motion with the following wording will be put to the Membership at an Extraordinary General Meeting…“Be it resolved that the Membership of the Association accepts the Company Offer of 14th December 2004 on The 49ers”.

Should the motion pass, your GC will also, in accordance with the Terms of the Offer, instruct the 49er’s solicitors that the Association will henceforth cease funding the related legal actions.

What the Membership actually accepted was that the Association is required to stop funding the legal actions. There is nothing preventing any member giving some of his/her own money to a 49er. Both commonsense and morality reinforce that statement. If you are still in any doubt that the Resolution is being properly enacted, ask yourself this:

ÿ Has the Association stopped legal funding?

The answer is obviously “Yes”, so there is no breach of HKAOA Rules, no breach of the Resolution and no breach of the Company Agreement. We are free to assist The 49ers individually. And so we should be.

Dual Membership? You will have noticed that the HKAOA GC has embarked upon a campaign to stop AOA members joining two unions e.g. “dual membership of CPU and the AOA is precluded”. Here are the facts:

ÿ Dual membership is currently specifically permitted and practised e.g. BALPA membership. Only if AOA members agree to change the Rules in the future will you be prevented from dual membership.

ÿ CPU is not saying “leave the AOA – join us”. We are saying “please join CPU and support The 49ers because that is your right”. CPU is inclusive.

ÿ Freedom of Association – forming and joining trade unions - is protected by International Convention, and is enshrined in the HK Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

The CPU Threat? CPU is being portrayed as the villain in the piece, which will “inevitably cause considerable damage to the welfare of the wider pilot community”. This is rubbish. We wonder if the HKAOA said the same when the Dragonair Pilots Association (DPA) formed. CPU offers the opportunity of union membership to pilots at Air Hong Kong, CR Airways, GFS, Heli Services, Hong Kong Express and Metrojet i.e. improvement for the wider pilot community.

It is a fact that the AOA chose to abandon 19 unfairly dismissed AOA members. If you think they have not been abandoned then ask yourself just what is the AOA doing to help them now? Answer: Nothing – even welfare subsistence has already been withdrawn from them, whilst it remains for those 49ers who did accept the Offer.

CPU was formed as a direct result of this abandonment. It is simply cause and effect. With virtually no overheads, CPU membership gives the most efficient means to fund the legals, whilst also providing the greatest regulatory protection and democratic input to the process. One must question why it is that the HKAOA GC is going to such lengths to prevent us from helping the AOA members it abandoned.

Donations. As we’ve said in our newsletters, “There are pilots who believe in pursuing the legal strategy but do not wish to join a union; for this group CPU will maintain anonymity and keep you informed of progress in return for regular donations”. If you’ve read all of the reasoning above but still feel that you would prefer to remain a member of just one union, we still need your financial support for The 49ers. It will be used only for the legal actions.

CPU’s task is focused solely on that aim and we’ve already demonstrated our commitment to confidentiality. More than 200 AOA members voted in April to support ongoing legal action. Most Members understandably baulked at the specious proposals for advanced special levies of up to 3 years’ additional subs. All we need from you is less than the 1_% that your AOA subs have already reduced by. That investment will increase your contractual protections and obtain justice for The 49ers.

Please re-assign that sum, or more, as a monthly donation to CPU to fund the legals.

Transfer of funds to CPU Bank Account. In order to preserve your confidentiality, CPU will not currently be offering a Direct Debit Authority function. Transfers may be made directly to the CPU bank account by using the following details:

Name of account: The Cathay Pilots Union
Bank: HSBC
Branch: 1 Queen’s Road, Central
Account Number: 808-083075-001

Funds may be deposited by internet banking, telephone banking or through your branch. The simplest and easiest method to make a regular deposit is by Standing Instruction which will allow your subscriptions and/or donations to be made without further input from you. Please consider using this method of payment since it will reduce the amount of administration. Please click here to download a Standing Instruction form, with the CPU details, for those of you who bank with HSBC.

Insurance. A range of loss of licence income insurance options has been arranged for CPU members. Details will be posted on the website shortly.

Summary. The legal cases in HK are ongoing and we need your support. There is nothing to prevent you either joining CPU or making anonymous contributions. Doing so will enhance your contractual protection and assist those 49ers and their families who have been abandoned.

Please help by contacting The CPU Preparatory Committee:

Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org
Address: The Cathay Pilots Union
1/F 9B Nga Yiu Tau
Sai Sha Road
Sai Kung, NT
.



Contract Security = Fair Treatment for The 49ers

The CPU welcomes your support!

[dotcom driver]

In January I wrote...........

"posted 20th January 2005 19:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is only 1 way to vote

Accept the offer, trust MG & JF and.............the company will never do this again.

Accept the offer and...........................all will be safe and secure in the knowledge that you will never be able to count on any more than a 3 month future career.

Accept the offer and.......................... about 10 will be re-employed for visual optics, no more.

Accept the offer and...........................hide in DB and hope this issue never comes to your door.

Wake up and smell the coffee there is only 1 way to vote."



The President and Gen Sec have delivered a rostering agreement which has been surrendered under the veiled hope it would benefit the 49ers. This is patently not the case.

The few that have been selected are no more than the token number that were predicted.

I cannot put any value on AOA membership, can you?