VOTE NO- It's a trap- you are being scammedYou are walking into an elaborate trap.This is a “union bust”.Don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Company’s own lawyers, Mayer Brown JSM.The Company’s clear intention appears to be to restrict any direct legal claims against it by using a “poison pill”, being some legal witchcraft devised by their lawyers to protect their client;- the Company.Do not fall for this trap.Housing, RPs and HKPA will all remain amendable company policy.You are being scammed.Vote NO.Attached is an article written by Mayer Brown JSM, Cathay’s lawyers. The article is dated December 2014 and discusses the impact of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill (as it was at that time) on employers and employees (the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance which came into force on 1 January 2016). The article suggests changes that employers can make to agreements with employees and Unions to: i. “Increase the ability of a group company to enforce restrictions against an employee, and ii. reduce the ability of an employee (or any person through an employee) to bring a claim against a group company or other party.In effect, we are looking to protect the employer.” (emphasis mine)The article also suggests wording which an employer could include in agreements with Unions to prevent the employees taking the employer to Court for breach of such agreements, effectively rendering agreements like the TAs as a waste of paper. For example,“Avoiding an employee (as a third party) being able to bring a claim against the employer due to an agreement between the employer and another party This clause will operate to avoid any employee being able to claim against the employer (or any group company) due to an agreement between the employer and a third party (for example, an agreement between the employer and a union or between the employer and another party”The article then provides a sample clause, a “poison pill”, to put into agreements with Unions to render the agreements useless, leaving the Company free to do as it pleases.The sample clause suggested by Mayer Brown is almost identical to the Exclusion Clauses in the TAs. It can be reasonably assumed therefore that Cathay have instructed Mayer Brown to prepare the Agreements in such a way that the Employees are not able to make direct claims against Cathay for breach of the Agreements. This is relevant, as if the Employees seek to assert that the terms of the Agreements are impliedly incorporated into the contracts of employment, then CX are likely to rely on the Exclusion Clauses as evidence of their intention that the terms of the Agreement are not incorporated and therefore that no contrary intention can be presumed or implied…… which is expensive lawyer words for….You are about to get screwed!!Don’t swallow the poison pill…..Just vote NO.