MACH.88 wrote:
We must first look at the contracts that we all signed when we came here. All with the exception of those on COS08 have a written retirement of 55. I know the company is known to change things when it suits them, so I can already hear guys muttering that.
Just because a group of employees signed a contract in a period prior to a new law being enacted, does not mean that group of (current) employees are forever excluded from benefiting under the new or revised law. That would mean the great majority of employees in any community would be prevented from any benefit intended when a government enacts or amends laws designed to protect and benefit the community.
Take for example the introduction of anti-discrimination laws in Australian, European, UK, Irish, Canadian and US legal systems: all were introduced and immediately applied to all citizens covered under the laws of the particular State.
There are exceptions to age discrimation allowed in all legal systems, but these are common sense exclusions such as for young actors playing a young person, or for Pilots and Bus drivers, which ensure they are retired at an age which protects the travelling public. These exclusions are governed by the licencing systems which mandate the maximum age allowed, NOT the employer or any previously signed contract.
However, despite new laws introduced in this way being applied across the board, they would rarely be applied retrospectively to previously retired employees where they retired under the provisions of their contract. This would cause significant disruption to current employees and possibly impose a significant cost to the employer for retraining etc.
Normally, the provisions of the contract should be amended when age discrimination law is introduced and prior to the employees retirement.
Please read on ...
The whole age discrimination argument is a farce because we signed on for it. Look at the case in Canada. A number of current and retired AC pilots took the company (AC) to court because they wanted age 65 (opposed to their contractual 60). They cried age discrimination. The high courts ruled against the pilots plainly stating that their retirement age is/was written in their contract. It was an agreement that they willingly signed and that was negotiated by their pilot union. Essentially, they were told that it was not a discriminatory issue and if they wanted the age changed, their union needed to renegotiate their COS.
It is my understanding that the AC case involved a group of guys, one of whom had already retired a couple of years earlier at age 60 (in 2003), in accordance with his contract and the then ICAO mandated maximum age?
The particular case argument hinged more around whether or not the age discrimination provisions should be applied retrospectively to an employee who had been retired as per his contract and in accordance with the ICAO mandated maximum age limit. Air Canada would otherwise have been subject to the age discrimination provisions, if ICAO had mandated age 65 prior to his retirement. There's a subtle, yet important distinction between the two ... as per the court's ruling against the retiree.
At the time of the hearing, ICAO and more importantly, Canadian Aviation Law, had still not yet increased the age for ATPL holders from 60 to 65.
President Bush only signed age 65 into US law in December 2007. The new US law does NOT allow pilots who've already turned 60 to reclaim their jobs or seniority either (the AC situation).
I am fairly certain that should age discrimination law be enacted in Hong Kong, Cathay Pacific Airways WILL be required to comply and allow all current employees the option of age 65 retirement.
The obvious question remains if and when this will happen? As for employees on other bases, the issue of juridiction is paramount and is the issue being fought out with the ongoing UK onshoring negotiations. These issues are far more complex.
ITG