Seven easyJet pilots sue the Company

[Spartacan]

Take a look at this one!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid68628

[Whooaahh]

Ah, the old "join us now and you'll be entitled to shares" scam!! Unless the plaintiff's have the verbal statements on tape, which is highly unlikely, it will all come down to who's word does the judge believe, the 7 pilots or the Chief Pilot who made the unfortunate remarks.

In the Chief Pilot's defence, employee share allocation schemes often have "must have been with the company since [date]" or "must have [number] full years service" to be entitled conditions. Unless he had been involved with a company floatation before he may not have been aware of these curveballs.

Personally, I am holding a shares certificates for my employer which are worth the square root of naff all at the moment as we haven't floated yet. With the current state of the industry 'd be surprised if the floatation ever hapens.

Pay me in real dollars not worthless share certificates!!!

Whooaahh!!!

[morroccomole]

It would seem that the pilots in question were told at interview that they would be able to join the share option scheme. Given that the interviews were probably several months prior to flotation, the detail of the scheme was probably not known. The company was floated in November, at least one of the pilots joined in September. The details of the scheme were that anybody with 6 months or more service would benefit. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that joining in September, you would not be eligible.
There have been 2 further issues of options since the initial flotation issue. I'm sure that all seven of the pilots concerned have been given options in those, so in reality, have joined the scheme. O.K, the initial issue was worth (on paper at least) quite a lot, and the latter 2 probably worth quite a bit less. So perhaps somebody is being a little bit greedy? Let the judge decide.

[Noax2grind2]

My mate in easy tells me that the chairman of the BALPA PC is one of those sueing. Is this true, if so, it must surely be a co-incidence?!
I dont believe all those awful accusations of hidden agendas, even if I was a member!

[Colonel Klink]

Noax,

Your mate in easyJet is sadly out of date. The FORMER Chairman of the CC is one of those suing, but the gentleman concerned is no longer on the Company Council in any respect, he resigned several weeks ago.

Regards,

The Colonel.

[FlapsOne]

Hey Colonel.

that was a really good bit of mis-information and you only let it run for 5 mins !!!!!!!!

You are just no fun!

[411A]

Hmm, seems similar to a few going overseas to work, told at interview that xxxx terms were offered, only to find later that the written contract stated otherwise.

Generally, if it ain't in writing, properly signed by an officer of the company, suspect they are out of luck.

If the company turned vindictive, the next PC could be interesting.:ooh:

[Gin Slinger]

My god, he's an expert in English law AS WELL!

[angels]

Gin, I think you'll find he's an expert in management style as well.....

I've had several postings with my company, all of them enjoyable. But each posting was preceded by verbal assurances from various line managers that were never backed up when it came to the written contract.

Unless these guys have it in writing, or on tape, I fear they're going to lose.

[Noax2grind2]

The healthy dollops of cynicism here displayed clearly indicates the presence of people who have been in the business a long time.
I agree, since I too have such cynicism. I`m sorry for the guys who have missed out, but as the old adage goes " if you cant take a joke ...etc!".
If it aint in your pocket, you aint got it!!
Cheers

[FlapsOne]

Verbal or written - this debate could rage for years.

However, a point of law, used every day in courts around the world:

Was it witnessed by anyone - other than the accused or the accuser - who will testify to it?

If that's good enough in a murder trial.....................................

[Colonel Klink]

Noax, I have to take issue with your comments. In this day and age, if you are promised soemthing especially at the interview phase, it is no longer good enough to fob off situations by comments like"If it ain't in your pocket.................!! As though it's just bad luck, so who cares!!!!
These gentlemen were promised those shares at a time when easyJet was finding it difficult to get pilots and they all left jobs to join, based on those very promises.
The forthcoming court case will vindicate what I have said.

Now, if YOU were promised shares...........!

[Big Tudor]

Sorry Colonel but if somebodies main reason for joining a company was the promise of entry into a share scheme then one would have to question their reasons for joining. What if they had gained entry to the scheme and then found the share price fell through the floor? Would they also sue for that also?

[Colonel Klink]

Big Tudor, These seven pilots are all well qualified and a few are TRE's. I never said, or even implied that their main reason was joining easyJet for the shares,we all know they can go down in value as well as up. But, if they were promised the shares as part of their overall package which was the case, then they should get them.
A year or two later, some pilots already qualified on type were promised a golden hello of about £30k (you may recall the adverts from Flight Int'l), can you imagine the uproar if those pilots joined only to find that this was renegged upon by the management! They would probably take easyJet to court, as this lot ARE doing!!!

Get my point?

[Big Tudor]

These gentlemen were promised those shares at a time when easyJet was finding it difficult to get pilots and they all left jobs to join, based on those very promises.

Which part of that statement doesn't sound like the shares were a major part of their decisions then Colonel.

Get MY point???

[FlapsOne]

Big Tudor

The subtle difference between 'A' major and 'THE' major.

[bateman]

I dont really understand why chief pilots/fleet managers feel the need to bull**** in interviews about likely perks, command prospects, basings etc. Most pilots are happy just to get the job they are being interviewed for, and these spur of the moment promises wont alter that.

But I suppose the TRSS guys at easyJet need every silver lining they can find on their contracts. But Id take the job if it was offered to me.

[G-Foxtrot Oscar 69]

In UK law for Civil Cases, as this is, the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

Appart from contracts for real property (Land and Buildings and Section 1 Consumer Credit Act Agreements) nothing has to be written.

The problem with contract law is whether what was said is deemd to be wither a "Term" of the contract or an Inducment to Contract. If it ain't a term the employees do not have a pot to pi:mad: s in!

As there is no jury, if the judge there is a strong possibility that the Judge may fall on the side of well respected profs. Such as Airline Pilots. Then again he may not.

I have not checked for case law on this so it may have been decided in a previous case. (Most Likley)

[Flap 5]

I find it interesting that pilots are willing to go to court on this one. In my experience lots of 'promises' are made at interview which usually turn out to be only possibilities and not actual promises. A lot depends on how 'promises' were phrased at the interview.

I notice that many companies tread a fine line in their advertising with a lot of spin involved (where have I heard that word before?). Easy's adverts in Flight are clearly examples of such spin. I would not be surprised if they used such techniques at the interview as well.

[Notso Fantastic]

English Law does place a fair amount of credence on verbal assurances. My father used to run a company and was eventually sued (and lost the case) by one of the executives who was promised occasional assurances of 'I'll have you join me on the Board one day'. Pa Notso had to pay the gentleman compensation although there was never anything in writing and it boiled down to one man's word against another. If I was a betting man, I'd put money on them winning- I think they have a good case as they are solid, reliable witnesses. They were promised it and this is under English law- good luck to them!

[Jack The Lad]

Notso

I'm inclined to agree with you. Lots of contributory evidence around at the time to suggest that these promises were probably made, even verbally, as well as the subsequent 'golden hellos' that were even advertisied widely, later on.

The airline have to be seen to resist such claims, even if they knowingly accept they will probably loose a case. Their insurers, assuming they will be supported, will actualy demand that they deny liability, until sanctioned otherwise by a court. Bit like some of the motor insurers! Except, in this case, I doubt they have backing of any insurers, but more likely are working on advice given by their legal advisers.

I imagine that a court would also view the fact that 'more than a few' were prepared to risk their careers by taking their employer to court in an action that, successful or otherwise, will most certainly halt their career with that employer! 'Oops, sorry, that NDB approach was outside limits; result, you failed.'

Interesting times. For those involved, you know the truth and if you are banking on justice based on truth, hopefully you will be rewarded what is rightfully yours. In which case, good luck and keep your resolve.

Jack

[RAT 5]

If the whole truth were known, this is not the first or only case of the ex- (I believe) chief pilot having made false promises at interview. Pilots, many years ago, did join ej on the promise of XYZ only to find out later the emptiness of those words. They later regreted the day they trusted such falsehoods.

I cherish the day when the 'old fashioned' value of a "man's word is his bond" or "shake on it" might return in avaition.

Good luck to anyone who has the guts to stand up for their dignity, and not succumb to the attiitude of many on this forum who believe their right in life is to be down-trodden because they follow a vocation.

It is about time the employer was grateful for finding the quality pilot, rather than the pilot being grateful for simply finding a job.

I am deeply disappointed by the repeated servantile utterances of many in repsonse to such matters. This is not to profess any arogance or egotism. Quite the opposite. It is simple professionalism, which you will find in many other spheres.

Without self pride and dignity you are lost souls.

And please don't respond with any clap-trap about market forces etc.

Good luck to all in this case and in the future.

[mjenkinsblackdog]

I wish the pilots concerned the best of luck.
However Its only written contracts that mean anything these days.
The word is my bond went out the window a long time ago!

[Meeb]

Rat 5, well said. The company I presently provide my Pilot skills to, to enable them to make large profits, treat myself and my collegues with contempt, yet on another thread many people seem to say this is fine as I should be thankfull for having a job! Very strange logic that one! I echo your sentiments...

black dog, verbal agreements are legally binding in this country providing they can be independently verified.

[foundation digger]

It is much more likely the 7 individuals concerned have considered the case more throughly, than the management of Easyjet.

My money it on the pilots to win, or the company to settle out of court.

Shares are sold as part of the renumeration package , which is the only reason we turn up for work.

[Fly-by-night]

Jacko

"risk their careers by taking their employer to court in an action that, successful or otherwise, will most certainly halt their career with that employer! 'Oops, sorry, that NDB approach was outside limits; result, you failed."

The training team at easyJet is above this sort of thing and each and every trainer is far too professional to bend to any such managerial pressure. And I don't believe there would be any pressure anyway.

Wash your mouth out!

[cosmijewel]

Having some orange experience ( nothing that a good counsellor can't resolve I hope) I disagree with fly-by-night.

I don't think Easyjet would go out of there way to screw any of these 7 in the Sim but if anything they ever did was marginal or open to question, they'd probably be given no 'benefit of doubt'.

My experience of Easyjet as a Company is that the hyped up culture is just so much b*llsh*t and the organisation is a 'bully' and if they don't like you they'll make your life difficult.

I wish the seven well

[kriskross]

Sorry, but there are too many TREs in the group, and that is one commodity EZY cannot lose at the moment!!!

[Loftie]

Good luck with the case guys. Don't let the outspan directors get the better of you. Bet they all have their share options.

[Captain Phaedrus]

cosmijewel has the right idea: 'My experience of Easyjet as a Company is that the hyped up culture is just so much b*llsh*t and the organisation is a 'bully' and if they don't like you they'll make your life difficult'.

This isn't the half of it, sorry to say.

Moreover, the legal action under discusison here is not the only one casting shadows over the temporary buildings at LTN - and the next one (which will almost undoubtedly settle out of court) will make any payout here look like pocket money.

No surprise that so soon after the (long-awaited and predicted) departure of one 'senior' individual, major failings in performance seem to be coming to light. Just the flood-gates opening, perhaps?

[pom]

What happened in this case?

[Final 3 Greens]

FlapsOne

It's good to remember that a criminal trial works on a burden of proof known as "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas civil courts apply "on the balance of probability."

Whilst not wishing to predict what might happen in this case, there is a significant difference in the evidence standards and the judge's interpretation of it.

[FlapsOne]

Th matter was concluded (a good while ago!) with an out of court settlement.

[Flap 5]

The present share value is less than the option price anyway. So the value will have to increase substantially anyway before you would excercise yor option.

[Muzza]

Flaps One

You really should stop making statements about things you know nothing about. Payment has not been made yet, and until it is nothing is settled.

[FlapsOne]

I didn't say payment had already been made.

An agreement was reached for an out of court settlement.

If that isn't the case, some of the guys involved have the wrong end of the stick!

[Muzza]

Flaps One

Your statement......The matter was concluded some time ago....

Collins English Thesaurus,... Conclude....Bring down the curtain, cease, close, come to an end, finish, round off, terminate, wind up.

As EJ has not yet made good on its offer of settlement, which was made some two weeks ago, and the Balpa legal department have been unable bring the matter to an end, after 3 and half years on it, with most of the leg work being done by some of the individuals involved, it would be fair to say that the definition set out has not been met.

Again I would suggest that you refrain from making apparently definitive statements about issues of which you know nothing.

[Legal Flyer]

A little legal input: an oral offer made by someone in a position that one would believe has authority to make an offer is as valid and binding as a written offer in English law - the only problem is that in the absence of anything in writing it can be difficult to prove.

Nevertheless if the judge concludes from the oral evidence of the witnesses that the offer was made and is sufficiently certain to be given legal effect it will be.

So if you are in a position to make offers be careful what you say - and if receiving them make sure you have a witness!

[Astronomy Dominie]

What's the big deal? With RW's lasting incompetent management, the options are worth next to nothing anyway!

[The Discretion Gimp]

How can you recieve a pay out when the share price is nearly £0.20 below what the options are worth . In some ways you are no better off this week than if you had recieved nothing anyway!
Joking aside I'm glad you guys will finaly be in receipt of what you were told you would get at interview.
It was a real bost to get the last options at over £3, its such golden handcuff. One I imagine the company will not have pay out on for many years.
:yuk: