Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union

[Turbo Beaver]

Any you think it will stop? Seems they are trying to stop everybody from going to court. When was the last time CX finished a court case and won? Seems they want a month by month salary adjustment.

Comments From Cathay’s FAU (Flight Attendants Union)

Our purpose in going to court:
To assert our rights to
• automatic grade jump since 1999 so that we can pursue the salary loss due to the
non-payment of grade jump and the diminishing pay scale since 1999
• continue to be paid according to the traditional pay scale (auto grade jump on top
of any increase) since 1999
Points to consider if we settle out of court
• Public confrontation avoided
• A win/win situation if terms are mutually satisfactory
• No more action possible against the company regarding contractual pay system
• No judgment and therefore no case precedent established in Hong Kong law
• No guarantee of auto grade jump
• Company can continue to apply the diminishing pay scale which they have
adopted since 2000
What was not mentioned in the latest CCNL are the conditions for settlement set out by the Company:-
· The FAU obtain written agreement from the three Plaintiffs in the upcoming High Court action (HCA6733/1999 and HCA3377/2003) to drop their case against the Company.
2 The FAU agree not to support any individual (whether currently or previously employed by the Company) to sue the Company on matters relating to past pay and the years covered under the existing proposal.
· The FAU acknowledge that the Company reserves the right to adjust further salary increments as its own unquestionable judgment based on: [a] the Company’s performance and ability to pay, [b] the principle of “more work, more reward”, [c] the Hong Kong economic situation and competitive environment.
Apart from this last condition (which simply states the obvious), you will see that the Company was only prepared to settle under conditions that amount to EXTREME PREJUDICE. Now, we will turn to the summary of events in the YEN:-
Date EVENTS
8 Dec 2004 1st meeting with ISD -
ISD offered $5 million as “welfare fund” to be distributed to FAU Members; a 2.5% raise for 2005 ; 2% raise for 2006 & 2007 with the above conditions.
The $5million was an estimated amount of legal costs that the company would save if the court case can be avoided. They believe there are no past dues of crew's salaries.
FAU requested a detailed analysis of numbers, by category and date of joining, for full sharing of information in order to reach a settlement that would be reasonable and justifiable.
Your Exco take great pride in negotiating with good faith. In preparation for the YEN, with very imited resources and cooperation from the ISD, your Exco have gone to great lengths to prepare comprehensive remuneration and benefit packages for all Monthly and Hourly Paid Crew. When it became obvious that ISD would never provide the required data in detail and therefore once again showed no genuine desire to negotiate in good faith, we saw no point in continuing this fruitless and frustrating exercise in pursuit of a settlement out of court…
And now, take out your 2004 salary slip and find yourself on the following tables. Then you should have no difficulty in understanding why your Exco and all those members present at the EGM and Tung Chung Forum unanimously rejected Cathay Pacific’s proposal. Should you have difficulties in understanding the tables below, please contact us at the FAU for clarification.
4
What the company tried to show you in the CCNL is what they offered as an out-of-court settlement deal.
What we are showing you in this Infauline is that their offer is a bad deal and we would
benefit more by pursuing our case in court.
11
Aftermaths…
At the first ISD/FAU regular meeting on 11 January, ISD asked FAU to remove the FAU mailbox in the SM room. There is a little story behind this FAU mailbox…
Since the Options in 1999, ISD has been very hostile to FAU and even refused to allow FAU to place a mailbox in the ISM room. Then, a few months ago, FAU staff found a very suspicious box in the crew mail room with “FAU Collection Box” written on it. We had no idea how many “Disclaimer Letters “ or important members’ communications might have been dropped in this box and got lost as it had no locking device.
We asked ISD to conduct an investigation and afterwards the box was returned to us at a recent YEN meeting. We then suggested to put the box in the ISM room. With a very jovial chuckle, MCCR Richard
Sell said, “I thought you were going to say that”…We construed his humourous friendliness as an agreement. (Remember that any agreement can be expressed orally, in writing or by conduct.) So, on
Christmas Eve, we placed a lockable FAU Mailbox in the ISM Room and there was no objection – until the negotiations were broken down by ISD management…
We have no doubt about the genuine personal desire of MCCR to re-build industrial relationship, but we
do understand and sympathise that his freedom to operate is severely restricted by top management policy. Their lack of integrity and habitual refusal to negotiate in good faith with staff unions are now legendary around Hong Kong and the world. Their latest “breakdown” of the recent negotiations and their subsequent attitude was just too predictable.
Well, you can easily imagine what was their answer to our latest request to revert bi-monthly to monthly meetings…
We would like you to ponder upon these points:
Would it make any difference to the way Management treat us whether we win or lose the upcoming court case on annual increment?
Some people may believe avoiding the confrontation will somehow make management treat us better, but with their track record, can anyone guarantee that we will be better off if we settle out of court?
12
We will watch upcoming court proceedings with interest, to see if the Company will maintain this policy of withholding data and refusing to deal in GOOD FAITH.
Finally, remember the old saying:
Don’t make the same mistake twice!

[tamalai]

lucky you don't have to prove "Relevance" to post on here !!!

[BusyB]

tamalai,
looking at your sudden appearance and postings on a number of topics I agree with your comment here!

[FlexibleResponse]

Can we expect further inane comments shortly!

Good work again Turbo Beaver, thank you.

My admiration and respect as always BusyB.

[shortly]

Good one FR, cripes do I detect the semblance of a sense of humour? But in this case you are as usual wrong. The FA are a group that certainly have been hard done by and I wish them all the best in their arrempt to 'right the wrongs'. They are certainly not a pampered, overpaid bunch of ingrates.

[BusyB]

Shortly,
This isn't a management thread!

[Turbo Beaver]

HEADLINE: Aircrew challenge inflight rest ruling

BODY:
Polly Hui

A Cathay Pacific staff union has applied for a judicial review of the director -general of civil aviation's approval of a new inflight rest schedule, which they claim significantly reduces their minimum resting time on long-haul journeys.

The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union, one of the airline's largest unions, argues in a High Court writ that it filed yesterday that the change is in breach of the Civil Aviation Department's guidelines.

The guidelines contain standard provisions designed to avoid fatigue in aircrew.

The union says the department has a statutory duty to enforce the guidelines.

According to the union, the differences between "minimum bunk rest" - or sleeping time - for flight attendants in the new schedule and in the guidelines can be as much as five hours.

For instance, a cabin-crew member serving on board for 18 to 19 hours would be given a minimum of 4.5 hours of sleeping time under the new practice, compared with the eight to 10 hours required by department guidelines.

The group is seeking High Court action to declare the approval of the schedule by the department's director-general unlawful.

The schedule, effective from January 1, raised concerns about cabin crew fatigue and long-haul flight safety.

The writ also says the union was only made aware of the schedule in December.

It says sufficient rest for crew members is important because they need to be responsive to the needs of passengers and react promptly in times of emergency.

But in a letter to the union last month, the director-general denied the decision was made unlawfully, arguing that the schedule was consistent with the guidelines.

[Turbo Beaver]

Three Cathay Pacific flight attendants took the airline to court yesterday, arguing it had breached their contracts by denying them automatic pay rises.

The outcome of the case will affect more than 4,000 present and former attendants hired before 1996.

Esperanza Cruz Lajom, Calleja Maria Victoria Santos and Sushil Dev Biaspal are seeking a declaration on behalf of the 4,000 that flight attendants are entitled under their contracts to be moved automatically one grade every year on the salary and rank allowances scales.

The plaintiff's legal fight has the backing of the Flight Attendants Union, which negotiates members' work conditions with the company.

John Scott, SC, for the flight attendants, argued in the Court of First Instance that the automatic advancement should be determined by a worker's "seniority", not performance or other factors.

"Seniority is defined by the years of service ... There is no discretion for the employer to change that," he said.

The attendants claimed Cathay announced in December 1998 that there would be no annual increment the next year because of the Asian economic crisis.

They said the automatic grade advancement was terminated as a result.

Flight attendants were only offered their expected 3.5 per cent pay rise if they agreed to increase their monthly maximum working hours from 72 to 76.

They also argued the freeze had significantly affected their salaries in the subsequent years.

But Bob Nipperess, a witness for Cathay who worked as a cabin crew manager in the late-1980s, told the court that in 1991 the airline introduced a merit -based element into the system that had previously determined promotions by a worker's years of service.

The change was intended to recognise the different contribution made by individual employees.

The hearing will continue today before Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes.

[Turbo Beaver]

A court case relating to annual increments for monthly paid cabin crew began in the High Court on Wednesday (23 February). The case has been filed against the company by three monthly paid crewmembers (one of who has since left the company).
The crew say that, first, they are contractually entitled to advance on the Master Pay Scale by one point with effect from 1 January each year and, second, claim the effect of the point jump would be a fixed pay increase of around 3.5% annually.

The case dates back to 1999 when the company was facing unprecedented challenges. At the time the company was able to remain viable and competitive only through the enhanced productivity and valuable contribution of its staff.
Despite efforts to reach an agreement on the annual increment issue, it is regrettable that the case will have to be resolved through legal proceedings. This will cause an unnecessary strain on our industrial and employee relations that will not be in the interests of staff, the company or the Flight Attendants Union, which is supporting and funding the court case.
The legal arguments from both sides will be heard in court and I do not intend to go into them here.

The volatile industry environment has made regular annual salary increments untenable. It is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on its performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.
When business is good, all employees benefit and we can continue to reward staff with appropriate salary adjustments, bonus payments and profit share - as we have done in the past.

We take pride in being a responsible employer. We are proud to say we have been rewarding our crew with salary increments well above the average in Hong Kong. At the same time, we are very aware of the need to maintain our competitiveness and viability, and also to meet the company’s investment needs for future growth.

This year and beyond will continue to be challenging for the company. We need to continue to work together as a team to make Cathay Pacific stronger and to achieve our vision of being the world's most admired airline.

[Old China Driver]

What a surprise. A company statement that ends with the usual warning that time are 'challenging' and 'difficult'. I don't think that in the past 10 years there has been a company statement that DOESN'T end with warnings of doom and gloom. Perhaps just once they could see fit to end on a positive note....?

ps. how many more lawsuits from employees is this company going to cause?

[Five Livers]

Could someone please post the SCMP article about the FAU court case win. Thanks

[spannersatcx]

I guess that's the profit share gone then!

[Turbo Beaver]

Flight attendants victorious in court case against Cathay Company could have to pay out $ 350m after judge rules it was in breach of employment contracts


The Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union has scored a surprising legal victory in a long-running dispute over pay and promotion, which could cost the airline as much as $ 350 million.

The landmark judgment could pave the way for 4,000 present and former flight attendants - hired before 1996 - to seek back-pay from Cathay dating back to 1999.

Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Court of First Instance ruled yesterday that Cathay Pacific was in breach of its employment contracts with three flight attendants by scrapping long-standing annual pay rises in 1998.

He ruled that the employment contracts of Esperanza Cruz Lajom, Maria Victoria Santos Calleja and Sushil Dev Biaspal entitled them to annual automatic advancements in rank and pay.

The judge said Cathay could not unilaterally vary the agreed pay scale with flight attendants.

Union leader Becky Kwan, flanked by Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal, said outside court she was "very pleased" with the outcome.

"We are confident that, as a responsible company, Cathay Pacific will honour and enforce the judgment made by the court."

But she said the union regretted that the dispute with Cathay Pacific had to be decided in court. She was congratulated by a group of more than 20 jubilant flight attendants outside the courtroom. The union estimated the court victory could cost the airline $ 350 million.

An airline spokesperson said, "it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the flight attendants generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs".

Backed by the union, the trio launched their lawsuit in 1999 against the airline's decision in December 1998 to drop the long-standing automatic advancement.

The airline's move came after the 1997 Asian economic crisis. The trio subsequently initiated another legal proceeding against Cathay Pacific in 2003, after the introduction of a new pay scale. They contended the new pay scale effectively reduced their salaries, despite promotions.

Under the automatic advancement scheme, flight attendants were entitled to automatic promotion of one rank after completing a full year of service.

This automatic progression was accompanied by a pay rise, determined by a pay scale.

Mr Justice Reyes said in his ruling, which covered both lawsuits, that there was an implicit promise in the flight attendants' pay scale, meaning that upon completion of a year of service, they would progress to the next point on the pay scale and receive the matching salary.

Mrs Calleja said outside court that the legal victory was "bittersweet" because this came after a tortuous legal process. She left the company in 2001 Both Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal, who is still with the airline, reckoned that they were each owed roughly $ 100,000.

[spannersatcx]

Jizzmonkey, it was meant tongue in cheek, you know a bit of humour, ;) Guess it was wasted!

What is worrying though is the amount of court cases the company has been, is being faced with, a bit of a worrying trend don't you think.

[tamalai]

and the relevance of this to the court action of the 49'er's...........is........................................ ...................NIL

Tamalai, before you post such irrelevant nonsense again would you please read the title of the thread - thanks, BE

[tamalai]

I apologise, I read the title of this FORUM being "Fragrant Harbour" a place for PILOTS living and working in Hong Kong but I must have missed the bit about "and Flight attendants", I'll go back and look again after I've finished this, so, I mistakenly thought the idea of the posts about court cases/flight attendants was to show that Cathay was WRONG and LOST and that this would garner support for the pilots court case....................
But in my Humble opinion the two are about as alike as Murder and a parking ticket and the fact that some trolley dollys are going to get a few increments has no relevance as to any merit that the pilots case may or may not have........................
Perhaps someone will start a thread about

Once again My most Humble apologies !!!

[Turbo Beaver]

Cathay Pacific accused of censorship


HONG KONG: Cathay Pacific was accused on Friday of censorship after it removed newspaper cuttings about a flight attendants' pay dispute from a union notice board at its headquarters here._

Management removed the clippings from the Flight Attendants Union notice board in the cabin crew lounge, saying staff must be given only “accurate and unbiased information.”_

The action comes ahead of a union-funded High Court case here on Wednesday when Cathay will be accused of breach of contract. _

Three flight attendants will claim Cathay unlawfully denied them automatic annual pay rises in a case which has implications for thousands of employees.

The victors want the judgment to be representative and apply to all affected flight attendants.

Flight attendants battling to recover unpaid annual pay increases from Cathay Pacific Airways on Friday won their class action against the airline.

Funded by their union, three flight attendants - Cruz Lajom, Santos Calleja and Dev Biaspal - started legal action against the territory\'s flagship carrier in April 1999 on behalf of 4,000 co-workers affected by the termination of the automatic promotion and the pay-rise system.

The ruling in the Court of First Instance could benefit up to 4,000 Cathay staff to the tune of HK$350 million. However, in his 51-page ruling, Justice Anselmo Reyes said: “I do not believe that my judgment can apply to any flight attendant other than Ms Lajom, Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal.”
“The three flight attendants wanted the judgment to be representative\'\' and to apply to all those affected.

The attendants did not seek damages from the airline, but a declaration that attendants were contractually entitled to annual pay increases stemming from automatic promotions after finishing a full year of service.

Last month, the court heard this long-standing practice, in place since 1979, was dropped by the airline in late 1998, after the Asian economic crisis. The plaintiffs\' contracts provided for automatic advancement at the end of each year of service,\'\' Justice Reyes said in his judgment.

Once a flight attendant reached the final grade of the salary scale, there would be no further advancement, unless new grades were created.
The salary of a person on the final grade would only rise by any annual cost of living or other revision in the amount attributable to that last grade.\'\'

Counsel for Cathay Pacific Adrian Huggins argued that there were ``simply no words\'\' in the various contracts to indicate an intention that flight attendants would advance one grade at the end of each year.

Bob Nipperess, the airline\'s manager of cabin crew in the 1990s, told John Scott, lawyer for the flight attendants, that since 1991 the airline had tried to introduce a ``merit element\'\' into the company\'s promotion practice, rather than one based on longevity.

Speaking after the judgment, Flight Attendant Union chairman Becky Kwan said members were very happy. ``We\'re confident that Cathay Pacific is a very responsible company,\'\' Kwan said. “I\'m sure they will observe, honor and enforce the judgment made by the court of law.\'\'

Should that not happen, the flight attendants will take the airline to the labor tribunal, Kwan added. The union represents more than 4,100 people - roughly 70 percent of the airline\'s flight crew community, Kwan said.

Cathay Pacific Airways said: “We will be studying the judgment carefully in consultation with our legal advisers before deciding on any course of action. “In particular, it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the cabin crew generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs.

“We continue to maintain that it is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.\'\'

[Turbo Beaver]

The victors want the judgment to be representative and apply to all affected flight attendants.

Flight attendants battling to recover unpaid annual pay increases from Cathay Pacific Airways on Friday won their class action against the airline.

Funded by their union, three flight attendants - Cruz Lajom, Santos Calleja and Dev Biaspal - started legal action against the territory's flagship carrier in April 1999 on behalf of 4,000 co-workers affected by the termination of the automatic promotion and the pay-rise system.

The ruling in the Court of First Instance could benefit up to 4,000 Cathay staff to the tune of HK$350 million. However, in his 51-page ruling, Justice Anselmo Reyes said: ``I do not believe that my judgment can apply to any flight attendant other than Ms Lajom, Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal.''

The three flight attendants wanted the judgment to be ``representative'' and to apply to all those affected. The attendants did not seek damages from the airline, but a declaration that attendants were contractually entitled to annual pay increases stemming from automatic promotions after finishing a full year of service.

Last month, the court heard this long-standing practice, in place since 1979, was dropped by the airline in late 1998, after the Asian economic crisis.

“The plaintiffs' contracts provided for automatic advancement at the end of each year of service,'' Justice Reyes said in his judgment.
“Once a flight attendant reached the final grade of the salary scale, there would be no further advancement, unless new grades were created.

“The salary of a person on the final grade would only rise by any annual cost of living or other revision in the amount attributable to that last grade.''

Counsel for Cathay Pacific Adrian Huggins argued that there were ``simply no words'' in the various contracts to indicate an intention that flight attendants would advance one grade at the end of each year.

Bob Nipperess, the airline's manager of cabin crew in the 1990s, told John Scott, lawyer for the flight attendants, that since 1991 the airline had tried to introduce a ``merit element'' into the company's promotion practice, rather than one based on longevity.

Speaking after the judgment, Flight Attendant Union chairman Becky Kwan said members were very happy. ``We're confident that Cathay Pacific is a very responsible company,'' Kwan said. “I'm sure they will observe, honor and enforce the judgment made by the court of law.'' Should that not happen, the flight attendants will take the airline to the labor tribunal, Kwan added.

The union represents more than 4,100 people - roughly 70 percent of the airline's flight crew community, Kwan said.

Cathay Pacific Airways said: ``We will be studying the judgment carefully in consultation with our legal advisers before deciding on any course of action.

“In particular, it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the cabin crew generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs.

“We continue to maintain that it is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.''

[BlueEagle]

PPRuNe is for all comers, provided they abide by the rules of the bulletin board. Whilst this thread, at first sight, may seem more suitable for the Cabin Crew forum the fact is that CX Cabin Crew tend not to use it and their issues can be better dealt with within the Fragrant Harbour forum.

The relevance to the '49ers' situation is that CX can be beaten in a court of law.

[Turbo Beaver]

Flight attendants line up lawsuits after court ruling on pay rise


Scores of Cathay Pacific flight attendants are lining up to file claims against the airline after a successful High Court challenge over the scrapping of automatic annual pay rises.

Three flight attendants will seek payouts ranging from $ 80,000 to $ 138,000 at Labour Tribunal hearings scheduled for April 13. Meanwhile, new cases are being prepared at a rate of six a day by the union representing cabin crew.

Following the airline's defeat in the High Court, up to 3,400 serving and retired flight attendants hired before 1998 may be entitled to claim the automatic annual increments Cathay abolished during the economic downturn.

Three litigants successfully argued in the Court of First Instance that Cathay was in breach of contract by abolishing the pay scales that existed when they were hired. The case was prepared and funded by the Flight Attendants Union.

The union said it had since sought talks with Cathay to find a way of settling the claims of other flight attendants affected by the ruling but the airline had not responded. "They have snubbed us. We have had no reply," said union leader Becky Kwan Siu-wa.

Ms Kwan said the union did not have enough staff to immediately process the claims of each flight attendant affected by the ruling.

"It is going to take forever so I hope the judge at the Labour Tribunal will do the first three cases and then ask Cathay to sort out the rest of the claims. If we have to take every case individually to the Labour Tribunal, it is going to be a waste of taxpayers' money."

In addition to the three cases scheduled for April 13, about a dozen more cases have been prepared to go before the Labour Tribunal, Ms Kwan said.

If the court decision stands, Cathay could be made to pay up to $ 350 million, according to union estimates, in back-pay to cabin crew hired under the old monthly contracts and denied annual increments.

However, a spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific said yesterday that its lawyers were still studying the court ruling delivered on March 4, and had not yet decided whether to challenge it in the Court of Appeal. An appeal could effectively put on hold any payouts to cabin crew claiming unpaid increments until the matter is settled.

Before the court case, Cathay offered each flight attendant a one-off "goodwill" payment of $ 6,000 to $ 11,000, according to rank, on top of pay rises totalling 7.5 per cent over the next three years.

The out-of-court offer - which would have cost the airline $ 24.3 million - was rejected by the union as "an insult".

Cathay claimed at the hearing that it had been forced to shelve the annual increments because of the economic downturn and increased competition.

It said it had looked after its staff throughout the downturn, paying bonuses and giving other benefits to flight attendants while refusing to cut jobs.

[Turbo Beaver]

Cathay Pacific Airways has bowed to a court ruling and agreed to grant pay rises retroactive to 1999 to 3,300 flight attendants.


It unilaterally canceled the rises during the Asian financial crisis.


Airline spokeswoman Carolyn Leung said the total amount is still being calculated, though local media have said it will be at least HK$280 million.


She refused to say whether the compensation will be reported as an extraordinary item in its interim results.


She said the money will be paid at the end of this month. Cathay decided not to appeal against last month's ruling by the Court of First Instance, which held that the airline had breached employment contracts.


``It is in everyone's interest that we now put the issue behind us in order that we can move forward together to grow Cathay Pacific into a stronger airline,'' Leung said.


Paying up should be no problem.


In its final results for last year, the airline said it had liquid funds of HK$11.47 billion at the end of the year.


In 1999, Cathay unilaterally terminated the automatic promotion and pay rise system for staff, citing pressures brought on by the Asian financial crisis, which sharply curtailed air travel in the region.


The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union brought a lawsuit against it as a result.


In a city with little history of labor militancy over the past 30 years, Cathay's strained staff relations stand out.


Flight attendants went on strike for 27 days in 1993 to protest against the dismissal of three colleagues in an earlier job action against increases to their workload.


In 1998, pilots went on strike for 15 days over wage and rostering issues. After 51 pilots were fired in 2001, their colleagues staged several work-to-rule campaigns in a vain effort to win their reinstatement.


The case is still unsettled.


Cathay has offered each sacked pilot 10 months' salary worth about HK$1 million, or the chance to apply for a job as a freighter pilot with the airline, in return for dropping their suit alleging unlawful dismissal. In February, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association voted narrowly to reject the offer.


Cathay shares ended 1.36 percent down at HK$14.50 on Friday.

[Turbo Beaver]

HONG KONG (AFP) - Hong Kong flag carrier Cathay Pacific said it would pay 3,300 cabin crew back-pay after a court ruled the airline was in breach of their contracts by stopping their automatic pay rises.

A Cathay Pacific spokeswoman said the company decided not to appeal the High Court ruling in March and will make "appropriate" salary adjustments accordingly.

Although she declined to comment on how much this will cost the airline, union representatives have reportedly estimated the unpaid wages could reach 2.8 billion Hong Kong dollars (360 million US dollars).

"It is in everyone's interests that we now put the issue behind us in order that we can move forward together to grow Cathay Pacific into a stronger airline," the airline said in a statement.

The High Court earlier ruled in favour of the three cabin crew who said Cathay Pacific had violated their contracts from 1999 by not giving them an annual pay increase of 3.5 percent.

Cathay Pacific had said the change of policy was done to ensure its competitiveness after it was hard hit by the Asian financial crisis and later the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis in 2003.

The airline said it maintains the view that it is "fair to adjust staff remuneration in a way that reflects the company's ability to pay, individual staff contributions and the general economic climate".

[geldap]

I recently took CX to a U.K tribunal with several complaints. One was breach of contract. My holiday entitlement was contractually 22 days in the first year of employment rising to 25 on a one extra day per year basis. Also I had a public holiday entitlement of 8 days.

CX worked out my holiday entitlement by adding the 8 public holidays to the leave making 30 days, then pro ratering down as I worked 12 hour shifts - this meant I was actually given a total of 20 days including public holidays.

In court CX tried to argue that this was industry practise, but had no proof of this. To the contrary I had proof that it was not industry practise so the tribunal upheld this complaint saying that I was entitled to my contractual holiday of 30 days and not the 20 CX had given me.

Now the disturbing part - CX knew they were wrong as it had been proven in court. Rather than accept this and pay others who had also been given reduced holiday allowances the cash equivalent (in many cases into the tens of thousands of pounds) they swiftly issued a new contract (within days of the court case) in an attempt to get the people whom had lost out to sign away their contractual right to the higher holiday allowance. When questioned by current staff the copanys representatives denied the new hastily issued contract altered the terms and conditions, merely stating things had been clarified. They of course knew that this was not true.

It is my opinion that CX will only ever give anything up to staff when told to by a court. Unless a judgement is specificaly applied to all staff the individuals who hope to benefit would have to take the matter up themselves.

Cabin crew I fear will have a long wait for CX to give them the money they owe them. After all it is better financially for CX to sit back and do nothing as they know the vast majority will not persue legal action.

However it has been very satisfying to know that CXs dreadfull behaviour towards their U.K based staff has resulted in huge staff turnover and the difficulty the company is now experiencing in recruiting the staff they need.

What goes around comes around as the saying goes.

AND YES, THEY CAN BE BEATEN.

[Turbo Beaver]

Crew dispute settled
Apple Daily and Wenweipo reported CX responded to a High Court ruling against the company in the case brought by three plaintiffs relating to the salary increments for monthly-paid cabin crew by making payments and salary adjustments to all those potentially affected

Peter Langslow, GM Inflight Services, explained that with significant increases in monthly-paid crew costs, corresponding reductions in other elements of overall monthly-paid crew costs or an offsetting increase in productivity would be needed to keep the airline competitive.


From the DFO

Cabin Crew Increments
You are probably aware that at the beginning of last month, the High Court ruled against the Company in the case brought by three cabin crew relating to the level of annual increments paid to monthly-paid cabin crew.

This week the Company has applied the court's declarations to all relevant monthly-paid cabin crew. A provision had been made in the accounts to protect against such a ruling.

[FlexibleResponse]

From the DFO This week the Company has applied the court's declarations to all relevant monthly-paid cabin crew. A provision had been made in the accounts to protect against such a ruling.
Translation: “We knew what we we doing was wrong and probably illegal, so we made a provision in case we got found out”.

PS: One can only wonder about the size of the "provision" that has been made in the accounts for the 49ers!

[Turbo Beaver]

April 2, 2005

Cathay must pay $ 280m in back wages; Airline seeks greater productivity after flight attendants' successful court case that forces it to maintain promised pay rises

Cathay Pacific will pay around $ 280 million in back wages to 3,400 flight attendants this month after deciding not to appeal against a High Court defeat over the scrapping of automatic annual pay rises.

The payouts - averaging more than $ 80,000 per flight attendant - will be given to staff, along with salary increases dating back seven years after a judge ruled last month that Cathay breached their contracts by abolishing the pay scales.

The award applies only to longer-serving monthly-paid crew and not to flight attendants hired since 1998.

In a memo to staff, Cathay's general manager for inflight services, Peter Langslow, said there would be other cuts in monthly-paid crew costs or a requirement for greater productivity to offset the cost of the legal defeat.

Lawyers for Cathay are understood to have spent weeks studying the Court of First Instance ruling before advising that the airline did not have a strong enough case to take to the Court of Appeal.

However, a spokeswoman for the airline said yesterday Cathay had decided to settle the matter promptly because it wanted to "put this all behind us and move on".

In his memo, Mr Langslow said cost cuts would be required elsewhere. "The significant increase in monthly-paid crew costs associated with this outcome must be recognised. Corresponding reductions in other elements of overall monthly-paid crew cost, or an offsetting increase in monthly-paid crew productivity will be needed in the future, in order that we may maintain a competitive cost structure and make the required contribution to the company's unit-cost goals and overall profitability."

Mr Langslow said the company would "study and pursue the measures necessary to achieve this" but did not give further details of what the measures would involve.

Scores of flight attendants had filed claims against Cathay for back pay and salary increases in light of the case brought by two serving and one former member of staff and funded by the 4,000-member Flight Attendants' Union.

The union was to have presented the cases of the first three claimants - seeking payouts ranging from $ 80,000 to $ 138,000 - to an industrial tribunal listed for April 13. That hearing is expected to be cancelled.

Before the High Court case, Cathay offered each flight attendant a one-off "goodwill" payment of $ 6,000 to $ 11,000, according to rank, on top of pay rises totalling 7.5 per cent over the next three years.

The out-of-court offer - which would have cost the airline $ 24.3 million, less than a tenth of the amount it must now pay out - was rejected by the union as "an insult".

Cathay's argument at the hearing was that it had been forced to cease the annual increments because of the economic downturn and increased competition.

No one from the Flight Attendants' Union was available for comment yesterday.

[Turbo Beaver]

Cathay cabin crew fear retaliation

Cathay Pacific has been urged not to "retaliate" against its flight attendants after they won a $ 280 million payout from the airline by taking it to court for denying them automatic annual pay rises for the past seven years.

Cabin crew are anxious about a backlash after Cathay was defeated in the High Court last month, forcing it to increase salaries and award back pay from 1998, according to the leader of the Flight Attendants Union Becky Kwan Siu -wa.

Concerns were heightened by a memo circulated to cabin crew by Peter Langslow, general manager for inflight services, saying the airline would pay the money this month but would seek "corresponding reductions" in crew costs or increased productivity.

"There is a threat there," said Ms Kwan, who believed the wording of the memo sent out on Thursday was intentionally vague. "Any company has the right to control costs at any time but it shouldn't be done as retaliation.

"Some of our members fear the firm will retaliate by making our lives miserable but we hope it will have more sense than to do that.

"Happy crews mean happy passengers and that means profit for the airline. If you have miserable crews, eventually the airline will suffer."

She said she had urged members not to fear a backlash as a result of the court victory.

Cathay announced on Friday it would not appeal against a High Court ruling last month that it had breached the contracts of three flight attendants hired before 1998 by scrapping the pay scales entitling them to automatic annual pay increments.

The judgment means 3,400 flight attendants are entitled to pay rises of thousands of dollars a month each and back pay averaging more than $ 80,000 to compensate them for their losses over the past seven years.

Ms Kwan described the victory and the subsequent pay award as "a great achievement for our union movement" but added: "I really hope we can put these issues behind and look to the future."

She said many of the flight attendants involved in the court case would be prepared to work extra hours if the company wanted to increase productivity, provided their original contract conditions were respected.

Cathay's argument that it had been forced to do away with the pay scales because of the economic downturn and had looked after its staff in other ways was rejected by the court.

Scores of flight attendants have been filing claims for back pay to the Labour Tribunal based on last month's ruling and Ms Kwan said those claims would not be immediately withdrawn.

The union would first seek talks with the airline to make sure their calculations for back pay and pay rises owed to monthly-paid flight attendants matched up.

A Cathay spokeswoman said the airline had decided to settle the legal matter because it wanted to "put this all behind us and move on".

[GalleyHag]

"Happy crews mean happy passengers and that means profit for the airline. If you have miserable crews, eventually the airline will suffer."

I doubt that very much, here at Qantas according to a recent company survey a very high percentage of cabin crew are not happy and either are our passengers. As Qantas has proven huge profits can still be made regardless if crew are happy or not.

[BlueEagle]

Please read your PMs. Thanks.

BE.