IAC Pacific. an open letter
The Anonymous Director
IAC Pacific
Port Vila
Republic of Vanuatu
12 March 2005
Dear Sir
I apologise for the form of address, however, as you choose to seek refuge behind the cloak of anonymity afforded by International Company registration, I am unable to address you in person. “You” and “your” can be taken to include persons acting on your behalf or at your behest.
Sir I seek clarification.
You have in the past confirmed that the laws of Vanuatu apply to the administration of my employment contract, however you have also stated that the industrial laws of that country, (CAP 160), do not apply. Equally, you have assisted KAL to successfully defend against an action by former pilots seeking to impose Korean statutes.
For the period 1996 to 2004 I was employed under a document that states clearly that, “ for the duration of the contract” I “ will remain an employee of IAC Pacific” This provision is also clearly enunciated in the overarching contract with Korean Air.
Recently, at the cessation of my employment by IAC Pacific, I made an enquiry of you as to the status of any statutory entitlements. Given the lack of veracity of advice previously provided by you, I seek to verify your assertion that no statutory entitlements apply. To that end I need to know which industrial jurisdiction you refer to, in administration of your contracts of employment.
This question has been posed on many occasions over the past 7 years, the most recent being December 2004. Despite an undertaking by you (2.02.05), to respond “after the festive season” and despite two further reminders, you remain silent. This tactic of silence, though common in dealings with you, is unsatisfactory, as has been our entire relationship. To refresh you memory of those episodes that give rise to my dissatisfaction:
1. In February 1996 persons acting on your behalf lied about the existence of a contract with KAL. (verified by sworn statements)
2. IAC Pacific has been unable to fulfil conditions offered when soliciting employees.
3. February/March 1996 a person acting on your behalf issued misleading statements regarding ongoing negotiations to fulfil offered conditions. (verified by cross reference of overarching contract and correspondence)
4. During 1997 IAC Pacific terminated my employment for communicating contractual concerns to end user of services (KAL)
5. After subsequent reinstatement IAC Pacific withheld $569 per month for several years, on the basis that I was “uncooperative”.
The nature of my lack of cooperation was that I would not provide, to non medical office staff, a copy of personal medical information. Such information had already been provided to the appropriate medical personnel.
The Supreme Court of Vanuatu subsequently held that such monies were withheld without lawful excuse and ordered restitution with interest.
6. IAC Pacific unsuccessfully encouraged KAL to review my assignment alleging psychological inadequacies. (verified by correspondence).
Sometime later KAL appointed me to a supervisory position and IAC Pacific renewed my contract, (go figure).
7. A 1996 taxation rebate, was withheld without authorisation.
8. IAC Pacific’s bank regularly deducted charges which should rightfully have been debited to IAC Pacific. (subsequently acknowledged and repaid by IAC Pacific)
9. IAC Pacific despite several requests would not enter good faith negotiations on terms and condition in relation to upgrade training and contract renewal.
10. IAC Pacific resisted the release of insurance details. Insurance subsequently appeared to be minimal.
11. IAC Pacific rarely answers queries from employees, without some degree of pressure, and often not ever.
12. IAC Pacific rather than taking appropriate legal action has withheld final payments from several former employees, for perceived contract breaches, (changing contract companies).
13. IAC Pacific filed but subsequently withdrew a defamation action against me, in relation to an advertisement that appeared in Flight International February 1998.
14. Persons acting on behalf of IAC Pacific have engaged in inappropriate discussions with my bankers about my financial affairs and attitude. (verified by correspondence)
Sir I put to you again the simple question.
Given that you have asserted that CAP 160 (the industrial laws of the Republic of Vanuatu) do not apply, and given that you have supported KAL in the Korean Supreme Court with respect to an unsuccessful claim by some ex KAL pilots for the application of Korean severance conditions:
To which industrial statutes do you subscribe when determining the rights and entitlements of IAC Pacific Ltd’s employees.
Yours faithfully
Paul J Makin