Why a ban? This is why.
This is why - Part One
Prologue
Your Committee retains close contact with IFALPA and other organizations worldwide that continue to monitor our situation very closely. Associations such as US-ALPA offer their resources, wisdom and professional advice as ours is seen as a precedent-setting international case.
In the months ahead we will refocus on our Association Objectives and maintain the search for resolution by all available means. We will continue to protect our 49ers for their sake and for our own. We will rebuff the attempted union-bust and preserve our professional careers.
Introduction
On 9th July 2001, management fired 49 Cathay Pacific Airways pilots in what has become one of the most protracted labour disputes in commercial aviation. Although 3 pilots had been fired the previous week, and one more would be sacked several days later, the group became known as “The 49ers”. Management’s aim was reflected in their 9th July press conference, entitled “The way to end the pilot’s dispute”. To date, there is still no end in sight.
This BTL Special Edition will document the facts surrounding The 49ers issue. It will briefly cover the background and the contributing factors that led to the dispute. It will record the events to date, enabling objective decision-making concerning the Association’s duty of care towards The 49ers’ future and, correspondingly, towards the very future of our union.
Association’s Objectives
Any union’s basic aim is the welfare of its members. The 49ers situation must be considered within the overall framework of the Association Rules and Objectives:
1. To protect and further the interests of the Aircrew Profession and to safeguard and improve the interests and rights of Members of the Association
2. To take any lawful action deemed desirable for the benefit and advancement of Members and their families
3. To take any lawful action deemed desirable to further the interests of Commercial Aviation
4. To regulate the relations between Members and their employers.
Background
In June 1999, under threat of dismissal, agreement was reached for a new Conditions of Service (CoS) for the 700 pilots who had joined the Company prior to April 1993. After several weeks of unsuccessful negotiations, a revised set of CoS was put before the pilots in May with a deadline of 11th June. Pilots who did not sign the new CoS would have their service terminated with effect from 1st July. This caused significant stress on many pilots who were diagnosed by their doctors as being unfit to operate a commercial aircraft. Subsequently, a third set of CoS was negotiated at the 11th hour. Not all of the issues could be resolved within that timeframe but the industrial status quo existed for the first year whilst attempts were made to resolve other outstanding issues. Progressively, industrial relations deteriorated until, on 20th June 2001, the HKAOA passed a Limited Industrial Action (LIA) resolution, effective 1st July, designed to encourage management to return to formal negotiations in the Labour Department.
Negotiations
On 16th June, the HKAOA and senior Company officials met where both parties summarised their respective positions. The HKAOA emphasised that it was optimistic that negotiation should resolve the situation and that both parties should not escalate the situation unnecessarily. On 21st June, both parties met under the conciliation services of the Labour Department. As the negotiations got underway, the HKAOA recounted that it had heard that a senior manager was telling pilots that management would “sack 20-30 pilots and the rest would fall into line”. The HKAOA reiterated that escalation should be avoided and, before the Labour Department officials, management strongly denied the reported incidents.
On 28th June, 3 days prior to the effective date for LIA, negotiations failed primarily due to the lack of data exchange; management refused to provide necessary rostering data to evaluate the current contract and left for a pre-arranged press conference. There was a short period whilst both parties portrayed their respective positions to the public and their “sponsors”. In a final effort to restart talks, the HKAOA delayed the implementation of LIA by a further 2 days and urged talks to resume. Management did not respond.
The First Week
LIA began on 3rd July 03, but its effects were quickly overshadowed when Typhoon Utor struck Hong Kong the following day. Airport operations were significantly affected, all airlines suffered major delays and diversions and tens of thousands of passengers were disrupted. One flight, from Los Angeles, was significantly delayed hours primarily due to a misinterpreted roster change. Two pilots were fired on 5th July as a direct consequence although one was permitted contractual Discipline and Grievance Procedures (DGP). Another non-union pilot was also fired for a separate incident on the same day after DGP. This paper will only deal with the union pilots although one other non-union pilot, who shared the same name as a union pilot, was also dismissed.
On 9th July another 49 pilots were sent DHL express post notification that they had been terminated in accordance with a section of their contract that, management purports, permits either party to give the other 3 months’ notice, thereby attempting to circumvent contractual DGP. The Company held a press conference at 6pm explaining its rationale. One thing all 49ers shared in common was that none was given any reason for their dismissal. Despite the pilots being fired for “no reason” Cathay Pacific held a press conference stating that the officers’ employment files had been reviewed and that they had lost confidence in those pilots. They went on to suggest numerous incidences that had led to them to pick those individuals. This created a significant contradiction. If there was any reason for any of the dismissals, then those pilots had the contractual right to DGP
Termination Notification
Over the next several days, pilots around the world discovered that they had become a 49er. Although the prime method of notification was by DHL courier package, many pilots were not at their home delivery address on 9th July. Some were in outports on duty, others were on leave or sick, and others just did not receive the letter. Some were either rung up in the middle of the night or were fired by fax. Management refused to provide a list of fired pilots and many were forced to telephone in to find if they were on the “hit list”. One even reported for duty only to discover his electronic employee card would not allow him access at Cathay City. The confused situation was compounded by management denying access to the list of fired pilots.
Demographics
By 12th July, 51 union pilots had lost their careers, 23 Captains and 28 First Officers. The demographics of the victims did not reflect the demographics of the aircrew body. Every pilot, save one, was flying long haul. One in three 49ers was Canadian even though Canadians represent only 15% of Cathay pilots. Only one locally employed pilot was terminated although nearly 10% of pilots are locally employed. Four of the union’s seven Labour Department negotiators were fired. Five of the union’s 20-strong General Committee were fired. The overall spread of pilots ranged from the most junior (2 years in the Company) to the most senior pilots (approaching retirement and with 23 years’ service). One had been a Fleet Manager.
Every pilot in the Company knew at least one officer who had been fired. Some were obviously selected, while other names were a complete surprise. The list appeared to include at least one representative of each cross section so as to leave every other officer to wonder if they too were also to be considered “bad apples” or maybe just unwanted? The action was clearly aimed at union pilots and the active Association officials took the greatest hit. It was clear that the committee and future union recruitment was the biggest target.