Cathay sued in USA for illegal termination
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: HK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay violated USERRA and this would have overridden notification to CAD I suspect. This case was about unfair dismissal under US Labour Law and the rules pertaining to reserve military duties.
Clearly this individual acted like a complete muppet for trying to go through security in a uniform for a company that no longer employed him - that is a separate issue.
Hopefully the settlement was in his favour.
The disgraceful behaviour of CX/KA will continue - it is part of their daily business operating plan. It's ops normal. CC for life.
Clearly this individual acted like a complete muppet for trying to go through security in a uniform for a company that no longer employed him - that is a separate issue.
Hopefully the settlement was in his favour.
The disgraceful behaviour of CX/KA will continue - it is part of their daily business operating plan. It's ops normal. CC for life.
1Fd
It is always the licence holders responsibility to notify the regulator, same for the FAA and HKCAD.
Sorry this muppet sounds like he is from the generation that takes no responsibility and dishes out blame everywhere.
Nowhere in the complaint does he say he had notified the FAA or CAD. It also does not mention what he agreed to in his CoS.
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/aic/AIC15-09.pdf
It is not the company that assess you fit to fly, it is a CAD medical examiner.
Did the FAA pull his certificate as well for failing to notify them? Why does he no longer work for Atlas ?
Two big airlines got it wrong ?
Sure CX should have done things better, but this guy only wants the rules that benifit him to be followed. No personal responsibility.
It is always the licence holders responsibility to notify the regulator, same for the FAA and HKCAD.
Sorry this muppet sounds like he is from the generation that takes no responsibility and dishes out blame everywhere.
Nowhere in the complaint does he say he had notified the FAA or CAD. It also does not mention what he agreed to in his CoS.
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/aic/AIC15-09.pdf
It is not the company that assess you fit to fly, it is a CAD medical examiner.
Did the FAA pull his certificate as well for failing to notify them? Why does he no longer work for Atlas ?
Two big airlines got it wrong ?
Sure CX should have done things better, but this guy only wants the rules that benifit him to be followed. No personal responsibility.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think the settlement was substantial. Cathay Pacific would be prepared to pay a lot of money not to have their name dragged through court and the press as a company not doing the right thing by an injured vet, however near or far from the truth that may be.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take a guess why CX want a JFK base.
Because North America is their most profitable destination by a country mile and when you have that many flights operating daily to the east coast economies of scale show a base is a no brainer. And way less BS hassles than the Aussie basses.
Like the part about 3 line checks, we'll keep going until you fail enough that we can fire you.......Thought he'd have also been given an impromptu PA (performance assessment) in the sim, that's always been a good firing tool.
Because North America is their most profitable destination by a country mile and when you have that many flights operating daily to the east coast economies of scale show a base is a no brainer. And way less BS hassles than the Aussie basses.
Like the part about 3 line checks, we'll keep going until you fail enough that we can fire you.......Thought he'd have also been given an impromptu PA (performance assessment) in the sim, that's always been a good firing tool.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Location Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Win on the CX case and 3 months probation on the uniform charge. Nice going JO 
Join a vet support group and get straightened out bro. And good luck with your future endeavors!!
Join a vet support group and get straightened out bro. And good luck with your future endeavors!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: At Home
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this sure was a fun read....don't underestimate the vindictiveness of the 3rd floor.
http://crottyandson.com/wp-content/u...n-to-Amend.pdf
http://crottyandson.com/wp-content/u...n-to-Amend.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Batman, what an interesting read, and what a disturbing look at a deplorable chain of events. Modern management sociopaths, who through their own actions it would seem have cost their employer a pretty penny. Latte's all round?
don't underestimate the vindictiveness of the 3rd floor.
The US consulate defense attache in HKG is telling the company to terminate him, and that he is being investigated by JAG in Tokyo for alleged fraud against the USN. And the company has the support of the US Government to dismiss him.
Make the settlement idea totally different scenario.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh
Totally, are you suggesting OLA, USCG HKSAR or JAG. COMFORNAVJAPAN seems to have clarified the situation somewhat.
4 driver
§ 4311. Discrimination against persons who serve in the uniformed services and acts of reprisal prohibited
(a) A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.
Make the settlement idea totally different scenario.
4 driver
§ 4311. Discrimination against persons who serve in the uniformed services and acts of reprisal prohibited
(a) A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.
Why would CX ever hire an American again with potential Military commitments?
Totally, are you suggesting OLA, USCG HKSAR or JAG. COMFORNAVJAPAN seems to have clarified the situation somewhat.
"Dan King, the USAF Liaison Officer of the Office of Liaison Administration (OLA) at the USCG here in the HKSAR has advised that FO Osmanski's conduct is a flagrant misuse of the USERRA, which requires a reservist to contact his employer and return within a reasonable period of time."
"The OLA has discussed FO Osmanksi's case with the de facto Defence Attache, Captain Butterfield USN. Per advice from OLA, Captain Butterfield has determined that CX may terminate FO Osmanski with prejudice. The OLA has now referred the matter to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) in Japan & Washington"
"The OLA, has tried without success to contact the Commanding Officer (CO) at Strike Fighter Squadron 204 from NAS New Orleans."
That is the guy that sent the "USERRA for dummies" document to CX. He not longer holds that post.
"The OLA has written to the CO, setting out Osmanski's obligations under the USERRA & also advising that the determination of Captain Butterfield is that CX can proceed to fire Osmanski on account of flagrant misuse of the USERRA."
We only heard one side of the story, now we hear the other side where the US defense attache in HKG is saying to fire the pilot. You would look pretty silly in court trying to sue a company for the breach of USERRA when the USN is saying "flagrant misuse of the USERRA" and fire him.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that he got bugger all in the settlement. Might have covered his legal costs but that's about it. Reading through the court documents, if I was the applicants counsel I'm not sure I'd want to run this one. Looks like they advised him to take what was on offer, shut up and move on. In my humble view that was sound advice.
Interesting that the applicant didn't want the circumstances leading to the F-18 accident discussed in the case. I wonder why.......?
But yes, not sure we will see too many US ex-military pilots being recruited going forward.
Interesting that the applicant didn't want the circumstances leading to the F-18 accident discussed in the case. I wonder why.......?
But yes, not sure we will see too many US ex-military pilots being recruited going forward.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strewth,
I presume the #4311 you quote is from some US document?
You might be suprised to learn that CX is a Hong Kong based company,
so military service with the Chinese Army might be OK but I wouldn't count on much leeway anywhere else!
I presume the #4311 you quote is from some US document?
You might be suprised to learn that CX is a Hong Kong based company,
so military service with the Chinese Army might be OK but I wouldn't count on much leeway anywhere else!
Fairly important to read Batman's 50 pages. They describe what will happen to you if you fall foul of your 'Leaders'. They will collectively screw you and spit you out. Shame that this guy decided to abuse his old CX uniform/ID - makes him look a bit of a dick.
DFO and Chief Training Officer(????) D Lomax comes out of it well doesn't he??? Mr Herbert (who got some of his own medicine) also seemed way out of his depth.
Cathay uses its' "war chest" (i.e. your profit share) all the time to defend its stupid ignorant behaviour around the world.
UK, France,US, HK etc etc - where next?
We carry on saving 100Kgs of fuel here and there while they hedge it out of the window without a care in the world.
To your bonus - always has been. I'm only jealous.
DFO and Chief Training Officer(????) D Lomax comes out of it well doesn't he??? Mr Herbert (who got some of his own medicine) also seemed way out of his depth.
Cathay uses its' "war chest" (i.e. your profit share) all the time to defend its stupid ignorant behaviour around the world.
UK, France,US, HK etc etc - where next?
We carry on saving 100Kgs of fuel here and there while they hedge it out of the window without a care in the world.
To your bonus - always has been. I'm only jealous.
"A constant underachiever who was
struggling with the training"
a 'brilliant' observation from an unqualified ******** who was himself "chopped"
They have no loyalty to themselves either it seems
struggling with the training"
a 'brilliant' observation from an unqualified ******** who was himself "chopped"
They have no loyalty to themselves either it seems
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few points:
1) When CX employs labor in the US, they are legally obligated to abide by the laws in the US. That includes USERRA. It does not matter one iota that CX is a Hong Kong company.
2) Wrt hiring future US military, I highly doubt there are many applicants as there are plenty of proper jobs in the US. Besides, CX has shown a strong preference towards young, spikey haired office workers over actual pilots with meaningful experience. That alone discludes all US military pilots.
3) The circumstances of the FA-18 ejection are totally irrelevant to this case. That is confidential information shared at the discretion of the US Navy. That said, I'm sure flying ****ty, unstable freighter rosters didn't help the pilot avoid circumstances leading up to the ejection. I certainly would not want to be flying fast jets based on my fatigue levels most days.
1) When CX employs labor in the US, they are legally obligated to abide by the laws in the US. That includes USERRA. It does not matter one iota that CX is a Hong Kong company.
2) Wrt hiring future US military, I highly doubt there are many applicants as there are plenty of proper jobs in the US. Besides, CX has shown a strong preference towards young, spikey haired office workers over actual pilots with meaningful experience. That alone discludes all US military pilots.
3) The circumstances of the FA-18 ejection are totally irrelevant to this case. That is confidential information shared at the discretion of the US Navy. That said, I'm sure flying ****ty, unstable freighter rosters didn't help the pilot avoid circumstances leading up to the ejection. I certainly would not want to be flying fast jets based on my fatigue levels most days.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cxorcist, do CX employ any Pilots in the USA?
I thought they employed them all in Hong Kong and some are rostered (based) out of the USA.
Perhaps like EK they may prefer to keep everyone in home base if it gets too hard.
I thought they employed them all in Hong Kong and some are rostered (based) out of the USA.
Perhaps like EK they may prefer to keep everyone in home base if it gets too hard.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US based pilots are employed by CPA Ltd. - US branch located in San Francisco, CA. It's no different than Lloyds of London employing personnel in US offices. There are a few peculiarities wrt foreign registered aircraft, but the employment rules are essentially no different to those of a US registered carrier in terms of labor law and unionization. There are certainly no exceptions for USERRA, and there never has been. CPA will be held to American legal standards in every respect going forward. If they don't want to abide by those, they should close the base and move all the pilots to Hong Kong on full expat terms.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cxorcist your 3rd point is incorrect. If I was CX's lawyers in court and could prove for example that the applicant wrote off a $40 Million dollar F/A-18 by breaking a flight order or by contravening a flight limitation, therefore proving negligence, I would definitely use that to discredit the witness and reduce liability.
Its all about building a case.
Its all about building a case.