paul makin
6th Dec 2009, 03:34
At the recent Annual General Meeting of the AAPMBF I sought to have a ruling on the eligibility of Mr Charlesworth, to stand for election as a Trustee of the AAPMBF. At issue is the fact that at the time he certified that he was eligible to stand, Mr Charlesworth was not a member of the Fund and that at that same time he was not a Trustee. When questioned Mr Charlesworth confirmed that he was not a Trustee at that time but asserted that he was qualified under the provisions of Rule 14 (b) (ii) (f).
Mr Charlesworth’s membership lapsed some unspecified time ago.
Rule 14 (b) (ii) (f) specifically relates to Trustees. Other rules establish a precedent by specifically identifying “members” and “former members”. By logical extension a rule intended to apply to a “Former Trustee” as distinct from a “Trustee”, should stipulate the separate category. To suggest that “Trustee” should be read as “Former Trustee” is unworkable. If that was to be the application, it could be construed that, a former trustee could carry out any of the designated duties of a trustee, which is patently absurd.
In short if a rule seeks to apply to a former Trustee it should so state. In this case the rule does not cover “Former Trustees”. A break in service as Trustee nullifies the application of the second part of the clause viz. “and is further eligible to nominate for a sole additional term of three years”. The rule does not contemplate that a “former trustee” can come back after any time period to resume a Trusteeship. Legal opinion received concurs with this concept.
The chairman stated that the rule as it was presented had been vetted by lawyers and deemed to be correct and proper.
I pointed out that those same lawyers vetted and approved a rule that applied conditions purportedly contained in a non-existent rule, rendering the rule incompetent (Rule 14 (b)(i) and 14 (b)(e). The chairman Mr O’Neil appeared not to understand the concept nor it’s significance.
After apparently taking advice from Mr Charlesworth the chair ruled I was out of order and the meeting continued.
Routinely Trustees reject the claims of pilots who have lost their livelihood by the application of the restriction “as or with Co-pilot” to their Class one medical. This affects any members employed in single pilot operations.
Practically, any pilot with that restriction is unlikely to be able to secure a multi crew position after that restriction is placed. Imposition of such discrimination would be unlawful, however it would be difficult to sustain such a charge. In practice the imposition of “as or with co-pilot” is the death knell to a pilots career., to those employed in single pilot operations.
Despite the stated aims and objects of the Fund “to provide benefits for members of the AFAP who fail to maintain the medical standards necessary to exercise the privileges of their pilot’s license” (introduction to rules page 3) the Trustees insist that as the rules refer to the cancellation or suspension of the Class 1 medical, they are unable to make any payment on the basis that the appending of the restriction “as or with co-pilot” does not constitute a cancellation or a suspension. Ignoring the obvious, the Trustees contend that, cancellation or suspension of a pilots ability to earn a living for medical reasons, but not accompanied by a cancellation of the Class I medical certificate, does not constitute a medical failure. The Trustees contend that the INTENT of the rule, does not override the words as they are actually written.
Contrast this position with that which they have applied in the circumstances of Mr Charlesworth’s election. On the one hand they have taken into account the “ASSUMED INTENT” of a rule to find in favour of one non-member of the Fund, providing him with a hobby for his retirement. On the other hand they have ignored the “STATED INTENT” of the rules to find against several members, putting them in financial jeopardy and depriving them of the ability to even afford a hobby, in their forced retirement from flying.
Members I am deeply concerned at the direction of the Fund. Matters are being dealt with in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner, to the detriment of our membership. In my opinion it would not be difficult to argue that such variance in the application of principle, is a capricious act. I would expect a commercial organisation could adopt such reprehensible behaviour, I would not expect it of a MUTUAL BENEFIT organisation.
If you share my concern at the inequity of treatment, I implore you, state your concern to the AAPMBF. Do not sit back and think that other people will have enough input to cover the situation, I have been fighting this for about three years, I need your assistance. They need to know your concerns. Email to [email protected] ([email protected]) and to facilitate monitoring of the response please send a copy to myself [email protected] ([email protected])
When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I am not a Jew. When they came for the Socialists, I did nothing, for I am not a Socialist. When they came for the labor leaders, the homosexuals, the gypsies, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me.” -- Martin Niemoller
Mr Charlesworth’s membership lapsed some unspecified time ago.
Rule 14 (b) (ii) (f) specifically relates to Trustees. Other rules establish a precedent by specifically identifying “members” and “former members”. By logical extension a rule intended to apply to a “Former Trustee” as distinct from a “Trustee”, should stipulate the separate category. To suggest that “Trustee” should be read as “Former Trustee” is unworkable. If that was to be the application, it could be construed that, a former trustee could carry out any of the designated duties of a trustee, which is patently absurd.
In short if a rule seeks to apply to a former Trustee it should so state. In this case the rule does not cover “Former Trustees”. A break in service as Trustee nullifies the application of the second part of the clause viz. “and is further eligible to nominate for a sole additional term of three years”. The rule does not contemplate that a “former trustee” can come back after any time period to resume a Trusteeship. Legal opinion received concurs with this concept.
The chairman stated that the rule as it was presented had been vetted by lawyers and deemed to be correct and proper.
I pointed out that those same lawyers vetted and approved a rule that applied conditions purportedly contained in a non-existent rule, rendering the rule incompetent (Rule 14 (b)(i) and 14 (b)(e). The chairman Mr O’Neil appeared not to understand the concept nor it’s significance.
After apparently taking advice from Mr Charlesworth the chair ruled I was out of order and the meeting continued.
Routinely Trustees reject the claims of pilots who have lost their livelihood by the application of the restriction “as or with Co-pilot” to their Class one medical. This affects any members employed in single pilot operations.
Practically, any pilot with that restriction is unlikely to be able to secure a multi crew position after that restriction is placed. Imposition of such discrimination would be unlawful, however it would be difficult to sustain such a charge. In practice the imposition of “as or with co-pilot” is the death knell to a pilots career., to those employed in single pilot operations.
Despite the stated aims and objects of the Fund “to provide benefits for members of the AFAP who fail to maintain the medical standards necessary to exercise the privileges of their pilot’s license” (introduction to rules page 3) the Trustees insist that as the rules refer to the cancellation or suspension of the Class 1 medical, they are unable to make any payment on the basis that the appending of the restriction “as or with co-pilot” does not constitute a cancellation or a suspension. Ignoring the obvious, the Trustees contend that, cancellation or suspension of a pilots ability to earn a living for medical reasons, but not accompanied by a cancellation of the Class I medical certificate, does not constitute a medical failure. The Trustees contend that the INTENT of the rule, does not override the words as they are actually written.
Contrast this position with that which they have applied in the circumstances of Mr Charlesworth’s election. On the one hand they have taken into account the “ASSUMED INTENT” of a rule to find in favour of one non-member of the Fund, providing him with a hobby for his retirement. On the other hand they have ignored the “STATED INTENT” of the rules to find against several members, putting them in financial jeopardy and depriving them of the ability to even afford a hobby, in their forced retirement from flying.
Members I am deeply concerned at the direction of the Fund. Matters are being dealt with in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner, to the detriment of our membership. In my opinion it would not be difficult to argue that such variance in the application of principle, is a capricious act. I would expect a commercial organisation could adopt such reprehensible behaviour, I would not expect it of a MUTUAL BENEFIT organisation.
If you share my concern at the inequity of treatment, I implore you, state your concern to the AAPMBF. Do not sit back and think that other people will have enough input to cover the situation, I have been fighting this for about three years, I need your assistance. They need to know your concerns. Email to [email protected] ([email protected]) and to facilitate monitoring of the response please send a copy to myself [email protected] ([email protected])
When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I am not a Jew. When they came for the Socialists, I did nothing, for I am not a Socialist. When they came for the labor leaders, the homosexuals, the gypsies, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me.” -- Martin Niemoller