5 weeks in court

[CXtreme]

5 weeks in high court defending the goal against 18 strikers, when you know your defence is weak!!!
Somebody is going to come back as an old, tired man. All that bonus money and to sick to enjoy it.

[Red Hot Poker]

Strikers?
They were co-workers that should not have been fired.
I read your post 5 times and do not understand it, you need to write in much simpler language, for me to understand.

[broadband circuit]

I think you'll find it is a football expression. "Defending the goal" gives it away. Strikers are the players that try to score the goals.

Maybe not the best metaphor for the situation?

[CXtreme]

At least broadband get it. Don't they have the same players in ice hockey, goal keeper and defenders for the oppisition, strikers for the team with the ball / puck??

I paid 5% towards those strikers, and I hope everyone of them score a goal.

[mr Q]

10:00 am

法庭聆訊

Open Court
雜項案件

HCMP 4400/2001, HCA 2822/2002, HCA 299/2006, HCA 1405/2006, HCA 807/2007

[2/30]#
Bennett Richard David, Blakeney-Williams Campbell Richard, Bulteel Steven James, Carver Kenneth Gordon, Chung Kai Wan, Doherty Patrick James, England Gregory Stephen, Fitz-Costa Michael John, Harris Bradford Dean, Heron Quentin James Lee, Palmer Michael Gordon, Schoettler Bruce Michael, Searle Andrew David, Shaw Michael Steven, Urquhart Steven Aubury, Van Poelgeest Craig Dirk, Warham John Simpson, Wilson Brett Alexander, Boyle Ron, Middlemass Duncan Raymond, Munro Keith Ian, Rogers Mathew David, St Hill Philip Fraser, Damon Neich-Buckley, Hendrik Van Keulen, Brian David Keene, Pierre Joseph Roger Morissette, Craig Michael Young, John Wallace Dickie, Douglas Gage, Christopher Leo Sweeney and George Crofts

And

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Veta Limited, USA Basing Limited
Breach of employment contract
趙司徒鄭律師事務所

Chiu, Szeto & Cheng

孖士打律師行

[Basil]

RHP,
to sick = too sick
At least broadband get it. = At least broadband got it.
oppisition = opposition
I'm here to help = example of irony

Oh yes, and some 'strikers'' names are surname first and some surname last.

I'm not surprised that you have difficulty understanding :)

[CXtreme]

Oh Basil, your location explains it all. You see not all of us speak only English. As a matter of fact it's my 3rd language. I have a 6 on my English language proficiency (I was evaluated by a British Trainer)

Get with the global village. You must get a heart attack if you see how your kids text on their mobile phone's.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Learn another language and broaden your horizon.


Yet another threat hijacked by trivia.

Guten Tag
Goede Dag
G'day Mate :ok:

[Basil]

I am humbled :O

Still get stunde, uhr, zeit mixed up.

However, just supplying a little support for ol' RHP.

Kid's mobs?!: im 404 bout that stuff - bin code18 since the L1011 (and, yes, I looked that up)

p.s. First language wouldn't, perchance, be Australian?:)

[CXtreme]

Nein mein Herr, I don't care for flap or flapS, therefore could not be from downunder.

Back to topic, Mr.R is going to know all about fatigue after the next 5 weeks, any news on yesterday??

[geh065]

18 sacked pilots sue Cathay for payouts
Compensation sought for job loss, distress
Yvonne Tsui
Oct 06, 2009


Eighteen of 49 pilots sacked en masse by Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) during the airline's industrial dispute in 2001 are seeking compensation for the loss of their jobs and for distress they say was caused by criticism by top airline executives aired in the press.

The 18 pilots claim their jobs were wrongfully terminated and that they believe they were fired because of their union activities.

They cite in their claim public statements made by Philip Chen Nam-lok, the airline's then director and chief operating officer, and Anthony Tyler, then director of corporate development, in July 2001 following the sacking.

They allege Chen said they had shown a lack of "total professionalism", disrupted airline operations and besmirched the reputation of Hong Kong while Tyler had accused them of holding Hong Kong to ransom and failing to act in the interests of the company.

The pilots said such remarks were defamatory, had damaged their professional reputations and created obstacles to their future employment.

Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes in the Court of First Instance heard that the pilots had taken a series of industrial actions and that the 18 were sacked after a "maximum safety strategy [MSS]" began on July 3, 2001.

First claimant John Warham, a pilot who retired after Cathay Pacific sacked him in July 2001, testified that MSS was a "limited industrial action" to pressure company management to continue talks about various issues with the union, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association. According to Warham, the union and the airline had had various disputes, including one about the powers of the senior officer on an airliner - whether the captain had discretionary powers in exceptional circumstances.

Warham, a union president in 1997, said that MSS could disrupt airline operations, acknowledging that it aimed to cause flight delays and inconvenience to passengers.

Barrister Adrian Huggins SC, for the airline, said the pilots' aim was to threaten the airline by delaying each flight by about 15 minutes.

Warham said under cross examination, however, that a typhoon on the second day of the MSS scheme had caused chaos.

Huggins claimed pilots had followed a "contract compliance campaign" before the maximum safety strategy. He said pilots had stuck strictly to the terms of their contracts and had not been able to be contacted during off-duty hours.

However, Warham said: "I was contactable all the time even when I was off duty." A second claimant, Mathew Rogers, told the court that he never carried a mobile phone. Rogers said he was never told "to be difficult to be contacted".

Another claimant, Michael Shaw, testified that the contract compliance campaign was intended to affect daily airline operations and underscore the fact that the airline relied on people working on their days off.

Huggins said the union had also introduced a "sick-out policy". He said records showed that 89 pilots called in sick on the same day.

The hearing continues today.


From the SCMP .

[jed_thrust]

As much as I would love to see justice prevail, I can't help but feel that HK will remain firmly tethered to "the bad old days" of doing business.

In fact, it seems that the latest missive from the AOA (regarding the FTLWG) has perhaps hinted that transactions in HK may not be as transparent as the Government would like us to believe.

:(

[broadband circuit]

He said pilots had stuck strictly to the terms of their contracts

So, when did abiding by a contract become a crime?

[4 driver]

this could get interesting.....what if they subpoena retired "gentleman" like ken barley, paddy cavanagh, ron davies? these lads have no reason to tow the company "line" anymore, and may spill the beans. If they don't come clean they could be personally liable or held in contempt.
I seem to recall the CX representatives on trial in London starting to sweat as they got caught changing their story on the stand.....

[Basil]

subpoena retired "gentleman"
I'd come back to see the show but I doubt if a HK court can force them to appear.

[Pathos]

Word in Wan Chai tonight is that Tony Tyler and Philip Chen will be appearing in court to explain their actions. Is that bar talk or for real?

[Capt Vertigo]

Hmmm.. highly probable. :suspect:

[Fly747]

Is there a public gallery? Which court is it in?
It would be interesting to go and watch for a morning and show support.
I mean afternoon, not keen on mornings.

[Kitsune]

I think you will find that the 'gentlemen' will soon have their time in the sun... :cool:

[LongTimeInCX]

FLY747 - should you wish to view, you could do worse than rock up at Court No. 19 (9/F), High Court, Admiralty.

Proceedings start at 10:00am.

[6feetunder]

Here's what's been going on Transcripts from week 1 (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/proceedings/transcripts.htm)

[Liam Gallagher]

The Judge's comments at close of play on Friday are interesting.

If I am hearing him right, he seems to be stating to Cathay that there is no evidence being offered as to why the 49ers were fired. It seems Tyler and Chen filed Witness Statements on Monday and those Witness Statements are bland and he may disallow them to state why the guys were fired. Effectively, Cathay will offer no defense to the unfair dismal and defamation claims. It seems both sides are lining up Nick Rhodes as the hero or zero in this case.

Tyler and Chen may give evidence next week as space allows (Reserve call-out if you will). Nick Rhodes, however, will command his own day (or longer) on the stand.

[VR-HFX]

Liam

Spot on. His Lordship appears less than impressed with 'I'm just doing my job' Muggins for the defense and his line of questions that tend to play the man and not the ball.

His line with Crofty all but sealed the case me thinks.

The inclusion of defense submissions covering generalised criticisms of certain individuals is a fortuitous stroke of luck that did not go unnoticed in the closing remarks.

Muggins must be sinking quite a few down at Joe Bananas and trying to forget how he let that happen and hoping upon high that the Star Chamber List doesn't fall off the back of a truck!

[canuckster]

The 49ers' case will continue at 10am on Monday 12th October 2009 in Court 19 on the 9th Floor of the High Court Building, Queensway, Hong Kong. The transcripts of the proceedings so far may be found at:

49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/proceedings/transcripts.htm)

Plaintiffs appearing next week are:

Brian Keene
Pierre Morrisette
Damon Neich-Buckley
Chris Sweeney
Henry Van Keulen
Craig Young

Witness Statements for the Defendants have been received from:

Philip Chen
Ronald Davies
Richard Hall
Denley Hau
Christopher Hoyland
Zdenek Kroutil
Sherman Lam
Dennis Leung
Andrew Maddox
Bob Nipperess
Nicholas Rhodes
Antony Tyler
Christina Wong

The case has been progressing more rapidly than expected. Defence witnesses are likely to be called next week to give evidence.

Best wishes
The CPU Admin
The Cathay Pilots Union Home Page (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/)

[Neptunus Rex]

There must many of us living outside the Fragrant Harbour who are very interested in this case. Would some kind soul please post a 'brief' summary of the daily proceedings?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/Antique/Antique1.gif

[Glass Half Empty]

all in the transcripts of the link at post 21. Provided you like reading legal exchanges that is and have a few hours to spare.

[crwjerk]

Why is the Pilots' barrister not doing any talking? Why is the Defendant Barrister asking about " Why didn't you apply for this job or that job" .......What has it got to do with being unfairly dismissed???

[Neptunus Rex]

Glass Half Empty

Thanks for that. 111 pages! Strewth, my cup runneth over!

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/peek-a-boo.gif

[ron burgandy]

Normally when defence lawyers have no case they try and intimidate plantiff witnesses. That's why he's wasting time asking about other employers and why no other applications were made. Unfortunately for CX's lawyers, his Lordship has seen straight through them.:D

[PNM]

Yes, there doesn't appear to be a lot of material from the defendant's camp. This week will be interesting!

[Liam Gallagher]

This is but one man's anonymous view on a public internet forum. I have no special information on the case.

I sense what is going on the Court Room is a skirmish; the real battle is being fought behind closed doors.

Most of the evidence is by way of documents (volumes and volumes), which the Judge has read. It seems to be me that the it has almost been agreed by both sides and the Judge that the 49ers have won the unfair dismissal, but not yet the defamation. Right from last Monday the Judge has been talking about "quantum"and pressing both sides to agree or at least set a framework for the scale of damages.

The Defence Barrister is doing most of the talking as he is wishing to discredit each individual 49ers to limit the damage. He is pressing hard on the job applications as he trying to say the 49ers did not aggressively seek work and that is the true reason they struggled to gain further employment; not the negative statements various CX figureheads made in the press, back in 2001.

I sense Mr Grossman (for the 49ers) is only making comment to bring the 49ers back to the documents should they stray (or be lead astray). I further sense Mr Grossman is keeping his powder dry for when Tyler, Chen and Rhodes appear. It is on those days you will see if both Barristers are worth their not inconsiderable fees.

Which leads to the real battle. The costs of these proceedings are potentially dwarfing the damages and I am certain CX is using that as leverage over the 49ers. Again, I have no information on this, but I would wager CX have made a settlement offer to each of the 49ers and should they fail to get a greater amount of damages from his Lordship; they will seek their costs. It's high stakes poker!

Ominously, the Judge is already talking of Appeal: he knows CX very well!!

Again, take the above for what it's worth: anonymous speculative BS on a public internet forum. That said, wouldn't it be nice if his Lordship struck back for the HK Judiciary and slapped some hefty damages on CX as punishment for bully-boy tactics in the HK Courts.

[CXtreme]

Good post Liam G.
Let's hope there is justice

[jonathon68]

Interesting reading, and I am only a 3rd of the way through!

I was talking to one of my F/O's recently my about career role models, and started to think about the CX Captains who have helped to make me the Captain I am today.

During my :oh:career, if I had been able to list the very worst dozen (or so!) skippers, then my 1999 hit list would have matched the list of 40-50 guys who eventually took redundancy and left. This was much to the pleasure of those who were left behind.

When it came to many of the 49ers in 2001, it was a completely different event. With one or two exceptions many of my very best skippers/role models were culled.. DouG/JonD/DMc/KM etc. The trips I flew with those guys were the times when I really learned how to be a good Captain.

Close attention is being payed to the court action. All the best....

[jonathon68]

QC/black hat (for the baddies) "I am going to try and finish you by lunch".

Witness/white hat (our chap) "Are you really? Be gentle. I bruise easily!"

Priceless..:D

[Glass Half Empty]

any transcripts for day 6 onwards anywhere?

[Red Hot Poker]

After reading all the transcripts, it seems CX did not like to hear the words,
"I'll do my best"when talking to Crew Control.
I do not remember this advice given in the newsletters, but I will use this phrase from now on, as as very small token to remind myself and management of this dark period in history.

I'll Do My Best

[TheHKAOA]

Weather (http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/template.PAGE/page.pg_weather/?s=idx_Weather): Hong Kong http://www.scmp.com/images/weather/mini/51_mini.gif 24°C | Partly Cloudy </SPAN>'; a = a + ''; a = a + 'http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/activity;src=1817225;type=scmpm377;cat=scmph922;ord=1?'; a = a + ''; document.write(a);}else if (location.href == 'http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.b17ba3523c5f6a3034ebbc0a53a0a0a0/?s=idx_Sport'){ var a = ''; a = a + ''; a = a + ''; a = a + 'http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/activity;src=1817225;type=scmpm377;cat=sport833;ord=1?'; a = a + ''; document.write(a);}//--> http://www.scmp.com/images/text_search.jpg Last 7 days Archives Since 1993 http://www.scmp.com/images/bar_searchresults.gifhttp://www.scmp.com/images/bar_searchresults_close.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)http://www.scmp.com/images/bar_tshadow.jpg

Ex-Cathay executive ties firings to union

Sacking of 49 pilots linked to 'disruptive activities'

Yvonne Tsui
Oct 15, 2009 http://www.scmp.com/images/icon_rss.gif (http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/template.JSP_INCLUDE_PAGE/page.scmp_jsp_include_page/?jsp=scmp_rss_feeds&s=idx_Services&ss=RSS)http://www.scmp.com/images/icon_s_email.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)| http://www.scmp.com/images/icon_s_print.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)


A former top executive of Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293 (http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/template.PAGE/page.company_profile/?companyId=0293.HK&s=business&ss=scmpIR)) admitted yesterday that the sacking of 49 pilots during an industrial dispute in 2001 was partly due to union activities that disrupted the company's operations.
Philip Chen Nan-lok, who was the airline's director and chief operating officer at the time, was testifying in the Court of First Instance, where Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes was hearing the claims launched by 18 of the pilots who alleged that their sacking - due to their union activities - was unlawful. The pilots are seeking compensation for the loss of their jobs and the distress they say was caused by the defamatory criticism by top airline executives in the media.

Chen told the court the pilots were sacked in July 2001 for the disruption caused by their "individual attitudes and activities", after a thorough review of their records. He said their behaviour caused a number of flight delays and cancellations.
He admitted they were sacked "partly" because of their labour actions, which brought about the disruption.
Earlier, the court had heard that the union, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, had encouraged the airline's pilots to take part in a "contract compliance campaign" that asked them to apply strictly the terms of their contracts. Pilots were asked to make sure they could not be contacted on their days off, so that the company could not rely on off-duty staff, the court heard. The campaign, which caused the delay of flights by about 15 minutes, was aimed at pressing airline management to continue negotiations with the union on various issues.
The 18 pilots were sacked after the start of an industrial action called the "maximum safety strategy" on July 3, 2001, the court heard.
Chen told the court the decision to sack the pilots was based on whether the company could rely on its employees to act in its best interests, in a way "not entirely to do with contract compliance".
Clive Grossman SC, the pilots' barrister, then asked Chen: "So you have confidence in the other 1,500-odd pilots, notwithstanding the fact that they also participated [in the industrial action]?" Chen said: "We had confidence in our staff, except disruptive activities."
Chen had also publicly attacked the pilots' industrial action as a lack of professionalism, the court heard. Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional".
Tony Tyler, the airline's chief executive, also testified. Tyler, then the director of corporate development, had criticised the pilots' behaviour as holding Hong Kong to ransom, the court had heard.
He said he was not involved in the decision to sack the pilots, but was confident it was the result of the pilots' performance and not connected to their union activities.
He said that although he was not involved in identifying the pilots to be sacked, he felt that those picked "could not be relied on to perform their job". He also said he stood by his claim that the 49ers, as the pilots became known, were holding Hong Kong to ransom because travel in and out of the city had been disrupted.
But when Grossman cited comments attributed to Tyler in a CNN report that suggested a link between the labour actions and the firings, Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today.

[AD POSSE AD ESSE]

Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional".

Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today.

Time to pull the tapes!!!:D

Would anyone perhaps know whether The Chen and Tyler-the-Liar are being held individually responsible for the defamation claims?

Hope their bank balances are strong,cause they're GONNA PAY UP!!!!!:E

[WeakForce]

http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/proceedings/transcripts.htm (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/proceedings/cathay%20day07%2014oct09.pdf)

Day 7 is well worth a read.
:=

[Calibre hily]

If what you've been waiting for is the day Tyler, Chen & Rhodes had to face the music for what they did in 2001, then fill your boots with the excellent cross-examination by Grossman S.C (for the 18 '49ers') on day 7 of the hearing.

It's 148 pages long and it's painful for them but bliss to read!

A taste, from an exchange between his Lordship and Rhodes:


HIS LORDSHIP: I understand your point, Mr Rhodes.
Again, the concern, I think, of Mr Grossman [for the 49ers] is this.
You have a crew controller saying, "This is a difficult
person, I remember such and such an incident, specific
incident". Normally fairness would at least require
that you listen to the other side, if you are going to
look at it objectively, and give the pilot concerned
a chance to explain, if there is explanation, about the
specific incidents referred to by the crew controller,
just to give the pilot some opportunity to explain his
side. That wasn't done.
Mr Grossman is saying, on that basis, can you really
say that it was a fair process, it was a rigorous review
procedure? I think that's what Mr Grossman is
questioning.

RHODES: Yes, sir.

HIS LORDSHIP: What do you say to that, Mr Rhodes?

RHODES: As I've said before, we could have chosen to level
a disciplinary charge against the individuals --

HIS LORDSHIP: I understand that point, Mr Rhodes, but that
sounds possibly even worse, Mr Grossman would say,
because what you're saying is, "Well, we can't prove it,
we don't really have any rigorous or even any real proof
about this, so we'll just get around the difficulty of
the disciplinary and grievance procedure by giving three
months' notice".

RHODES: Well, that, as I've tried to explain, is the entire
reason why the union and why many pilots felt that
having the sick-out and having contract compliance was
the perfect weapon to put pressure on the company,
because the company can't prove anything in
a disciplinary hearing.

HIS LORDSHIP: This was your response to that perfect
weapon?

RHODES: Well, the only response we have is to monitor their
behaviour and hope we would get a deal around the table,
and then the behaviour would all disappear overnight --

HIS LORDSHIP: But this dismissal of the 49 was your
response to the difficulties of proof raised by the
perfect weapon indulged in, engaged in, by the union?

To be continued....

[goathead]

Fantastical most interesting reading ! I'm luvin it !
A must read for all CX pilots.......
here is the link again....

49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/proceedings/transcripts.htm)
:ok:

[iLuvPX]

Goathead, I agree. This is amazing to read. I can see them squirming in their seats answering some of those questions. Wish I had time to make it down to the court room.

Read Day 7, its a page turner.

[naughty johnny]

Not a good day for the CX camp........
The servile, obsequious SC representing CX seems to be making little headway with the court either...........

[PNM]

I needed a dictionary for that one NJ.

[404 Titan]

naughty johnny

What can I say? Just beautiful. After checking my dictionary, (Yes I had to as well), I nearly spilt my coffee everywhere.:D:ok:

[BNEHKG9]

" The servile, obsequious SC representing CX seems to be making little headway with the court either..........."

Adrian Huggins is a good and experienced SC. Obviously, he's made little to no headway because the company instructing him don't have any real defence against the 49ers claim :}

Anyways, good fun reading Grossman examining NR, Tyler and Chen - dynamite :ok:

[mr Q]

NICHOLAS PETER RHODES has no misgivings about telling it as it was.
Cathay could not prove any of the suspicions ( "probabilities" in the words of other Cathay witnesses) so could not use the discipline procedures so dismissed the pilots instead.

[WeakForce]

Reads like Cathay have lost. Where's Murray Gardner, John Findlay and the others in the HKAOA who gave up for their own purposes?

[cluin44]

Renting videos.

[FlexibleResponse]

It is very interesting and very satisfying to see the Tyler/Chen/Rhodes team finally facing the music for the actions they have taken. You just have to smile when the "three amigos" trip over themselves and accidentally blurt out "half-truths" under clever questioning, whilst they try to stick to the scripted answers they have been told to memorize.

His Lordship makes particularly perceptive comments and sees right through the otherwise cleverly crafted political answers offered by the trio. It will be extremely interesting to see His Lordship's final summing up of the reliability and truthfulness of the evidence given by these three witnesses.

[goathead]

The Management
What have you got to say?

[iLuvPX]

Just goes to show how worthless the AOA really is.

Gave up on the 49'ers, just like they will give up on any current member(what makes you any different?).

Keep wasting your money supporting that outfit, AOA stooges.

AOA..SO GAY. :cool:

[OldChinaHand]

Well now, this should be a warning to MANAGERS, that THEY will stand before the rule of law personally and ANSWER for decisions made.

[FlexibleResponse]

18 of the 49ers are having their day in Court.

The defendant CX managers of the day are turning and squirming as they give evidence to try to justify their shameful actions which are now exposed to the public gaze "of the fair-minded man in the street" and the judgment of an independent Justice.

As an AOA member of many years, I say that this would never have come to this stage without the early moral and monetary support of the Union. It is true that when the AOA in trying to seek a pragmatic solution, that better courses of action might have been taken.

Never-the-less, only the early concerted effort by the AOA union and the subsequent stoicism of the 18 has culminated in the public exposure of the shameful and repugnant behavior of those in CX management who were arrogant enough to think they could act in such an immoral way and in contempt of the law of Hong Kong.

[Nullaman]

Agree with the views but with respect.......

.....it ain't over til the fat lady sings.


Hopefully we will hear her hitting high Cs when the time is right

N

[Steve the Pirate]

Long time observer, first time poster.

Check out the transcript from day 7 of the proceedings (page 133 lines 3 to 6).

If SK's answer was acceptable in a court of law, why wasn't the same answer acceptable to crew controllers when they were asking for assistance from crews?

Or was SK trying to be funny....?

STP

[FlexibleResponse]

"touché"!!!

[Oval3Holer]

Oh Basil, your location explains it all. You see not all of us speak only English. As a matter of fact it's my 3rd language. I have a 6 on my English language proficiency (I was evaluated by a British Trainer)

Get with the global village. You must get a heart attack if you see how your kids text on their mobile phone's.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Learn another language and broaden your horizon.


Yet another threat hijacked by trivia.

Guten Tag
Goede Dag
G'day Mate

Well, CXtreme, you might have a 6 on your spoken English, but your written English leaves much to be desired. One does not "get" a heart attack, nor is "phone's" the plural of "phone."

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[The Management]

The CPG is confident we will withstand the current wrongful dismissal case brought by the former CP employees.

If this case demonstrates anything is that We in Management are a very heartless people and our DFO has demonstrated this in his cross-examination. He will rise high in our organization. The termination of the pilots has done its job very effectively which was to put fear in the pilot group and you have responded flawlessly. The pilot group is so fearful of being terminated that they WILL do what is expected of them i.e. using discretion to extend a FDP or reduce rest, work on G days, not argue with crew control and accept a duty whether legal or illegal just to name a few. Extending the FDP has helped us pave the way in the new AFTL’s with longer hours and that is the direct fallout of having a fearful pilot group.

This case may show the rest of the world that we are a heartless employer but that is who we are at The CPG. It is expected of us so we can make money for our shareholders and ultimately for us in the way of BONUSES. We are paid very well to be that heartless and it will continue. . Other airlines of the world wish they can be this unkind to its employees/pilots but labor laws stop this action.

We may have to pay 18 ex-employees some cash but we will not be held personally responsible as some of you are expecting. The sum may be in the 1.5-2.0 years salary but that is a small amount compared to having a non-compliant pilot group. These terminations have served us well in the past and future terminations will continue to serve us well.

This sum may be taken out of the current SLS but we may need to ask for more and the fearful pilot group will comply.

In the future we will not terminate en masse but will terminate individuals if they have a tendency to fall out of line. Do you want to be that next person? If you are terminated at The CPG, the other airlines of the world will see you as a difficult pilot and will not want to hire such a troublesome pilot. It will serve us well and good luck in finding that next employer.

If you don’t know, this case has been decided at the Hong Kong Club months ago, as we are impervious to Hong Kong Law. The current Judge will show leniency to The CPG as not to make a mockery of Hong Kong Law. Don’t expect large payouts as one may expect in the United States of America if any at all.

Remember, the DFO is still your boss and you are still the employee. He does not care what you may think of him when this is all over and he will never lose any sleep for ruining the families of 51 of his employees and a catalyst in the death of two.

To My Bonus.

The Management

[Calibre hily]

"The current judge has been spoken to months ago..."

Well, The Management, when your insinuation, in a public forum, that a judge of the HK judiciary has been 'spoken to' - with all the libellous connotations that such a scandalous remark carries - reaches his Lordship's attention, you better hope that Pprune are willing to protect your indentity when a Summons for Contempt of Court is issued against you and them.

Know what, I think I might just email the Court myself.

Here's to your imprisonment!

[Tiddly Eater]

Having just read Day 1 transcript it appeared that Huggins SC had been instructed by CX to really batter the 3 witnesses to fix a particular point in the judge's mind that they were unreliable witnesses with precious little moral scruples:

MR HUGGINS: In my respectful submission, on issues of credibility, even discovery doesn't require documents to be disclosed

HIS LORDSHIP: In my court it does. This is not Perry Mason, Mr Huggins.

[Follow the Follow Me]

A judge has been libeled by The Management. Il-thought out, shooting from the hip, insensitive, without legal cross checking, ruthless and defamatory.

He really is a pilot manager.

[Liam Gallagher]

Mr Grossman represents 18/49 and is speaking to Nick Rhodes.

MR GROSSMAN Well, yes. This is what this case is about, isn't it?
What you decided to do was, because there was threatened industrial action, to get rid of a whole lot of people, shoot the hostages, as it were, to encourage the others not to participate?

HIS LORDSHIP: I think you can make that submission, Mr Grossman.
MR GROSSMAN: Very well.
HIS LORDSHIP: You have effectively put the point.
MR GROSSMAN: Very well.

Chaps, The Management's post may be offensive to you but I believe it to be one of his best posts. He most certainly is not a Pilot Manager and I invite you to study the final paragraph of his post. Whilst the above attack by Mr Grossman hits hard, The Management's final paragraph is brutal and, sadly, poignant.

[VR-HFX]

I think we have seen the last of The Management for a while...:E

Having read the transcripts, I take my hat of to NR for at least being honest in describing what was done.

The thing that troubles me however is that he used probability theory as his key defence.

What then is the probability of JSW being fingered after he appeared as number 180 on a Star Chamber list of 184 with a score of 2

As to the hand-written CCList at the bottom...:yuk:

His Lordship is remarkably well informed on the whole sad saga and I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't use his own probability theory model on the 'cull' to flush out the key issues and reach a fair conclusion, although it is likely to be fish heads and rice and not the filet and cab sav appropriate for ex-Brittania F/O's.

[Liam Gallagher]

Huggins to Rhodes, Day 6 Page 183

Huggins. Finally, subject to any reminder that Mr McLeish may give to me about anything I have left out, tape-recordings on the flight deck: was there a routine whereby flight decks were recorded? Crew control --
there were tape-recordings, were there not, of exchanges between crew control and individual pilots?

Rhodes. Yeah, I was going to say there are tape-recordings on the flight deck, but the tape-recordings in crew control, we tape every conversation between the pilots and the crew controllers, and those tapes are discarded after nine months to a year, I believe.......

My understanding of the CVR is that it is voice recording on a special device that can only be interogated by a special machine and there are limited machines in the world. I further understand CVR's are not routinely interogated, only when a serious event has occurred. I therefore don't believe Rhodes is referring to the CVR; what is he referring to or is this a typo?

[Busbert]

To my knowledge all communications with IOC and Crew Control are recorded for 'quality assurance' purposes.

[Steve the Pirate]

I know I'm new here but isn't The Management being ironic?

Or am I missing something....?

STP

[ron burgandy]

the only thing you're missing is that apparantly half the people on this forum can't understand sarcasm, even when nearly 4 years of posts by a certain author are dripping with it.........:ugh::E

[Steve the Pirate]

Thanks for clearing that up Ron. Say "hi" to Veronica for me.

STP

[Dan Winterland]

Blackadder: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"

Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron."

[BusyB]

It is amazing how many on this forum must have Baldrick as their middle name:}

[Sqwak7700]

Hey Ron, how's the weather in "Whale's Vagina"? :}

I can't believe that people still don't get the management. I think they understand that it is meant as satire, I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think it is actually Cathay Management making these posts.

My opinion is that the truth hurts, and people like Calibre Hily wear their heart on their sleeve. Grow some skin Calibre, instead of getting angry at the truth, try and redirect that anger were it really belongs. :D

[iceman50]

Sqwak7700

"The Management" is boring, that is why we do not"get" him or her. The supposed satire or whatever is just tedious.

[BusyB]

Gosh iceman, can't wait to fly with your scintillating sense of humour:{

[Neptunus Rex]

I think 'The Management' is Nuri Vittachi 'avin' a laugh!

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/jester.gif

[VR-HFX]

The Management

You were wise to edit. Satire it certainly was but if you rely on what 'right thinking people' make of it, then it pays to be a bit more circumspect in a public forum.

DEFAMATION:
Defamation is an injury to a person's character or reputation such that a right thinking person would think less of the injured person as a result of the injurious act. For there to be a defamation, the person injured must be living. There are two types of defamation, libel which is a defamation which is written down and slander which is a spoken defamation. It is a defense to an action for defamation that the words said or written were true.

SATIRE:
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

SARCASM:
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

[Calibre hily]

7700,

I don't for one moment believe The management is CX management and frankly, even if he were management, it wouldn't make any difference to me.

For the record I use to find his posts quite incisive, but since returning from his self-imposed exile, he has lost his edge and sounds more like the shadow of his or her former self - a bit like a 10th re-run of Friends - not that witty or clever anymore.

My objection is not that 'the truth hurts' or other such like rubbish you claim. I object to him libelling a High Court judge in a public forum.

He/she has wisely censured himself since, quite obviously, he couldn't stand by 'the truth' of his allegation.

In the process of this - his very first climb down on Pprune - he has, once and for all, demonstrated that he has very little else to contribute to this forum in the name of veracity, sarcasm or irony.

Sad self-destruction, in some ways, but he he was waning anyway.

HC

[valhalla634]

Indeed, the AOA membership majority voted in favour of withdrawing financial and legal aid to the 49ers. Despite 90%+ of them telling us NOT to accept the interview deal for a position at the bottom of the seniorty list in return for dropping all legal challenges. Most of the 49ers were then forced to capitulate and it was only the determined 18 which brought about the court case these last few weeks. A grand total of three CX pilots turned up to hear any of the case - outnumbered by FAU members! Shame on us.

Anyway, back to more brave talk about current trivia.

[Giuseppe Giovanni]

Does one need to be present to be supportive? After all, the Court case will proceed whether one or one thousand people attend. I'm quite certain the outcome will be the same.

I also don't appreciate your suggestion that the AOA as a whole, didn't support the 49ers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain that I contributed a sizable sum of my monthly salary, as did every AOA member, to help support the 49ers for a number of years. I have no qualms with that at all.

You may also recall, the first vote to withdrawal financial support was voted down by the AOA membership. The President at the time elected to hold a second vote, something which should never have happened. Personally I voted 'no' on both counts.

What tarnished my perception, was the hostility displayed by a number of 49ers towards colleagues, including myself, who had unquestionably displayed support morally, politically, industrially and financially but where labeled 'screw you Jack', simply by execution of the final vote. Very similar I might add, to what N.R. stated in day 7 when a number of 49ers where terminated, simply due to the unjust reason of 'guilty by probability'.

In summary, please don't misconstrue my words here. To this day, the 49ers have my full support, but please don't state the the AOA wholeheartedly abandoned them. We are a democracy and unfortunately the voting margin, on the second vote, tipped the way it did. It certainly was not a landslide vote and as such, clearly no reason to tarnish everyone with the same brush.

[aislinn]

Agree 100% with GG. Couldn`t have said it better myself. Speclialy tonight!:ok:

[raven77]

GG very well put. I was in the same boat as you and agree with all your points. When is the next day in court anyone ?

[Tiddly Eater]

Final submissions were last week - next step should be judgement.

[Tonto Kowalski]

And then the inevitable appeal..... :ugh:

[6feetunder]

Maybe, maybe not. Since this is not a class action the company would have to appeal 18 seperate judgements. A bit unlikely..... unless of course there are one or two they particularly dislike.

[Checkmate]

"Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice":- Chapman J in (R v Warne(1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42). It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.

In most cases, an offence of perjury will also amount to perverting the course of justice. If the perjury is the sole or principal act, then it will be normal to charge perjury. If the perjury is part of a much more significant series of acts aimed at perverting justice, then a charge of perverting the course of justice would be more appropriate"

Hmmm! If I was any one of the CX managers who have lied under oath in the past 8 years I would be rather worried. The HKG judgement is just the start!!!