You seem to be new here
I'll risk feeding the troll as I think we all, but particularly the GC, need a reminder as to how the Swire legal dictionary works.
Morningcoffee,
You are clearly new here and I am sorry to steal the jam out of your donut, but your statement regarding the Company honouring pay agreements is utter tosh; you said;
“..the company has paid pay increases every time they’ve been negotiated for the last 70 years…”
First point: If your statement is true, and I am not saying it is, it would only be true because the company has yet to be confronted with an agreed future pay rise that coincided with redundancies. However, the Company does have a history of attempting to not pay contractual increments because it no longer suited them. Lajom & others v CPA HCA3377/2003 was widely discussed on pprune way back. You can google it and you will see this interesting interpretation of contractual law by Cathay. The company lost, but this statement from the Court Report should tell you all you need to know about the Swire legal dictionary.
"3. Cathay denies the plaintiffs are entitled to automatic increment. Cathay also asserts a contractual right to unilaterally vary any agreed salary scale, so long as the change does not result in a flight attendant receiving less pay then he received immediately prior to the change."
With thinking like that, you still believe you would have got a 2.5% pay rise whilst 600 people were leaving the building?
Second point. The company is not normally as bold as they were with the FAs in the Lajom case. They tend to be slimy, rather than bold. Just ask your Chairman about 25 year housing. Ask the 19 Instructor pilots about their ‘promised” expat terms. Ask the Captains about the 10% deduction from the 2009 SLS payback. Ask one of the former Paris Based pilots. Is your Statutory Holiday Pay correct?
Third Point. If the TA had been voted through, where in your contract would it say that you would have been entitled to 2.5% pay rise?
Welcome to Cathay matey….. time to wise up