Originally Posted by
Liam Gallagher
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.
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."
I took your advice an Googled it,
http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbo...nts-union.html
They really are just a nasty bunch of cretins all round aren't they. Worth reading all of the posts.