Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union
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!