Originally Posted by
cxorcist
Yes, the RA55 vs RA65 gamble from 2009 is looking rather dicey at the moment. However, that is changing the subject. Redundancies are done from the bottom, period. That is irrespective of CoS99, 08, or based CA, CBA, or EA. This pipe dream that it will look like QR or EK is just that. I’m not sure what is going on at BA or VS, except that it seems completely irrelevant to CX.
You’re correct that our contracts are quite clear regarding redundancy and are legally enforceable. So take it to the next step. How will you ensure your contract is enforced or how will you seek redress if the company uses another clause to reduce excessive staff other than the redundancy clause?
Obviously an unfair dismissal claim is the recourse for anyone who believes they’ve been unfairly dismissed. What does this mean practically?
In the event of a successful judicial process in accordance with the Employment Ordinance the courts will enforce compensation less than that which the company will probably already have paid. Under the EO there is no requirement for a company to reinstate an unfairly dismissed employee.
So yes, our contract will necessitate management being rather “creative” to achieve their objectives and will keep their lawyers in a job for the foreseeable future. But it won’t save anyone here from joining the world wide scrap heap of unemployed pilots.
I firmly believe in our contract and the ability to seek redress in accordance with Hong Kong law. But I also respect that doesn’t amount to much.
Good luck to all. It’s going to get painful for everyone.