S/O Bypass Case

[CokeZero]

Just in today

Judge is making her ruling today in the courts. No idea how it turned out - have to wait for more information to come in from others in the know.

CZ

[bushcat400]

Cathay Won.

[superfrozo]

yb,

I've read the finding, allow me to paraphrase:

"CPA can do what they want, when they want because the contract is so full of legal holes as to make it worthless... That is all."

I wish I was kidding, I really do.

:oh:

[MrClaus]

A sad day for many I think. The biggest lesson from this whole exercise is that Hong Kong labour contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[yokebearer]

Hold on. We dont yet know on what points they had a win. The case is not as simple as a yes / no.

This is not the end of it.

I am also really looking forward to the DFO letter on friday - would be interesting to see how they go about telling us that they were right when we all know the reality of this farce.

Please justify how one SO got two years of bypass and another one number down in seniority got none?:hmm:

I also wonder if management ever consider the effect long term. 200 + guys at the beginning of their careers who now will show so much less goodwill thanthey would have if they were treated right over the next 25 years. I bet that will cost more than the bypass bill....

[Harbour Dweller]

I also wonder if management ever consider the effect long term. 200 + guys at the beginning of their careers who now will show so much less goodwill thanthey would have if they were treated right over the next 25 years. I bet that will cost more than the bypass bill....

Well said :ok:

[bonaqua]

Revenge is a best dish served cold!! Remember this when all these 200+ guys are Capt's!

[Team America]

Hope you have a good memory as it will be about 20 years for these guys to become Capts! :E

[bushcat400]

10-20 years to Command, makes no difference, those S/Os who stay will remember this day for the rest of their careers at CX.

Now will come the self-indulgent smug gloating from a management team that includes perjurers and an adulterer (C&T 777) who personally threatened the career of an S/O. That man needs to be given a boot party. Enough said.

They are the biggest liars and thieves...and can never really look you in the eye.

For us F/Os the result is also bad news, lack of precedence.

[Capt Toss Parker]

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4347/cathaysux.jpg

[Ex Cathedra]

I guess that first Judge was a complete idiot then? I mean, how else would you explain each and every one of his judgements being overturned by one of his peers?

:hmm:...

Well, at least we know that doesn't work... Time for plan B.

[CokeZero]

One word

Appeal

Time to think like management - they would have appealed :)

[HaveQuick]

That will put every CoS 99 S/O and F/O in CC, if they aren't already.
Cokezero, you beat me to it...

A P P E A L..........

[PNM]

I had voted as recommended by the GC.

The overwhelming feeling of being crapped on by this judgement has convinvced me to change my vote.

"For" and "For".

I'm not an S/O.

[Sand Man]

Now, be honest, are who is really surprised.

[F_one]

"Sand Man: Now, be honest, are who is really surprised."

Good Chinglish.....:D:D:D:D

[Farman Biplane]

Will this appeal result influence the proposed FO BPP case?

[Frogman1484]

You mean you are actually planing to work for Cx for the next 20-25 years? Then they have wone!!!

[crewsunite]

Cathay Pacific has won a ruling that it need not assess all second officers for promotion to junior first officer before it can hire one from outside. Overturning a ruling in the Labour Tribunal that Cathay had an obligation to do so, Court of First Instance judge Madam Justice Carlye Chu Fun-ling said the tribunal had erred in some legal points and that the matter should not only be viewed from the employee's perspective.

The judge wrote in her judgment that the employment contract stated that the airline had a right to decide when it needed to promote a second officer, which the tribunal had failed to take into account.
The appeal stemmed from a claim by Scott Williams, a second officer, who argued that Cathay had delayed his promotion by six months contrary to the terms of his employment and as a result he should be compensated for the difference in salary between the two positions.
After winning in the tribunal, Williams was to have received up to HK$270,000, withheld pending the decision of the appeal. As well as failing to get this money he was ordered yesterday to pay Cathay's legal costs in the appeal - lodged by the airline because, it said, it estimated there were about 150 similar cases.
A deputy presiding officer in the tribunal found that Cathay had an implied obligation to exhaust assessment of second officers before it began recruitment of a direct-entry first officer. The judge yesterday overturned the tribunal's finding that holding upgrade courses for junior first officers was not at the discretion of Cathay. She said the tribunal had wrongly found an implied obligation to assess junior officers first because it had failed to take into account another clause, which reserved a Cathay discretion on promotion.
The judge said: "I am unable to agree with the claimant's argument that the question of requirement should only be viewed from the employee's perspective."
The judge also overturned the tribunal officer's finding that Cathay had breached a contractual obligation by failing to arrange two assessments for Williams - a technical assessment and the upgrade-review-board assessment - because he was the next most senior second officer suitable for promotion in February 2008. The judge said the tribunal had come to this conclusion in the absence of evidence and through misunderstanding of evidence.
She said the tribunal had wrongly accepted a method that Williams used to show he was the next most senior person to be promoted

[crewsunite]

A FORMER senior captain with Cathay Pacific is set to argue his claim of unfair dismissal against the airline in the Labour Tribunal. Val McCarthy, 54, was sacked in January after 21 years with the company. He had been due to retire in October, and will need to return from Britain to appear before the hearing.

The case was first taken to the tribunal in mid-April but had been adjourned. Mr McCarthy claims his dismissal was related to a dispute over his contract and money the airline claimed he owed it.
Yesterday, the tribunal's presiding officer, Tong Man, adjourned the case to August 30, because the airline said it had to discuss the facts of the sacking with the pilot.
Mr McCarthy says the row dates back to early last year when he accepted a five per cent salary increase. At the time, an industrial dispute by Cathay staff seeking better pay was headline news.
The airline eventually sent cockpit crews new contracts containing an eight per cent pay rise, but stipulating increased productivity.
As Mr McCarthy and about 45 others insisted on keeping their old contracts, they were told to pay back the five per cent pay rise, taken from the beginning of the year, he says.
Several members of staff reportedly refused for months, though all but Mr McCarthy later gave in.
The airline denied any relation between the dispute and the captain's dismissal.

[crewsunite]

This Company is a bunch of bullies, and middle management is made up of slime. We are the last line of defense!

Take them on together in a well though out plan and do it NOW!!!
Bring on CC. Don't let them get away with it!

While doing that, put on your white suit and do it our own subtle way.

Either way stay professional when doing your job!
Don't drop your guard to safety!

If you're too stressed or sick in the slightest stay at home, I refuse to fly with those whom are not focused on flying and working as a team!

Nether will I enjoy flying with those wishee washee pilots with a carrot up your b.m whom are not in the union and not helping the cause. Take it out, grow some & show integrity & pride in yourself & your occupation. Don't be bullied any longer!

You live once, so make it count! Take a hard look at yourself in the mirror and decide man or mouse?

If u decide mouse, then at least be a clever cunning one like the Lion & mouse story. Then at least we stand a chance but by doing nothing we'll constantly see this career become one of regret!

[yokebearer]

Has the judge bothered to take into account WHY bypass is written into the contract at all then.If It is completely at the discretion of the company to upgrade people and pay bypass why do we have seniority at all. Seems to me the judge fails to understand our system and contract.

[EXEZY]

Seems to me she was offered something she couldn't refuse, typical HK.

[Capt Toss Parker]

I'd like to offer some assistance to those who need some guidance over the coming months .....

Please take the time to read my : 5 step program (http://www.wikihow.com/Call-in-Sick-when-You-Just-Need-a-Day-Off)

[Freehills]

Judgement is online now

Judgment (http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=73753&currpage=T)

[Gone Down]

As a current SO, vie changed my vote from No, Yes to Yes, Yes and have entereed voluntary CC.. I hope others will join me.

[The Wraith]

So, Gone Down, you are only NOW entering voluntary CC? So you weren't bothering to do it before? But NOW you want us all to join you?
Been doing it since I got here, so you go ahead and do whatever you want.
:ugh:

[NoseGear]

C'mon mate, I'm sure most of us are already doing it, I certainly haven't been a "compulsory" answerer of my phone. Why dig at someone who has just been shafted, in a big way, with such a divisive post? Are we all trying to achieve the same end result?:ok:

Solidarity:ok::D

Nosey

[The Wraith]

Fair enough, Nose Gear. You're right.
It infuriates me that the company take this right out of the hands of deserving SOs and it takes my level of utter loathing for this management team to new depths. I am glad that personally I don't do anything other than what I have to for these people. The thought of showing them ANY goodwill makes me wretch. And it speaks volumes for the judicial service in this part of the World, because if someone wasn't "coerced" here I would eat my cheap, Shenzhen, 2HKD, piece of crap hat.
I hope the SOs collectively see the day when these sorry excuses for human beings get their own comeuppance. :yuk:

[flyhardmo]

I dont see how cc is going to achieve anything since our contracts are worth sh!t. The Hk judicial system has just proven that. :ugh:

[bobrun]

A surprising ruling that will raise eyebrows.

An average person reading our contract to the best of his abilities would be expected to understand that he will receive BPP if not promoted while DEFO are hired. The intent of the contract is quite clear and playing with words and definitions or digging deep into documents to try to come up with a reason why the company doesn't have to pay BPP is just senseless.

If it takes months for a judge to come up with a reason why the company doesn't have to pay BPP, it's obviously a flawed reason. Otherwise, how could anyone expect an average pilot to understand his employment contract then?

If the judge is right, then there is a case to say that the contract is intentionally misleading, obscure and with illusions of benefits that the company has no intention to give. It's close to coercion.

The judge wrote in her judgment that the employment contract stated that the airline had a right to decide when it needed to promote a second officer, which the tribunal had failed to take into account.

The airline certainly always has the option of upgrading an officer or not. It has always been the case but isn't relevant to BPP. What is relevant however, is that should the airline decide not to upgrade an officer then they have to pay BPP. Sure, the airline has a right to decide when to promote, but they also have an obligation to pay BPP should they use that right against an officer.

Interests and politics probably played a role, by the looks of it.

[superfrozo]

Bobrun, an excellent and eloquent post - could not agree more.

Well said sir!

:D

[Bob Hawke]

I think with this ruling and what has already been stated; the confusion implied in the contract without clearly defining promotion prospects, the industry slow down cycles, the tardy response to pay claims, housing, etc, Minimal expansion, continued threat of outsourcing, would make it a very SECOND option to consider coming to Cathay for a career. Then again, maybe that is what they want. It is not a career airline.

It would be nice to see a change to the attitude towards pilots and I am sure the company would reap the benefits to get them on side, but the message is becoming louder and louder.

[crewsunite]

After a few drinks in town last night a Swire employee told me in a round about way that CX, is setting up to a big share sale to Air China.

That leaves me thinking that costs and control of employees are vital to reduce ATK and for financial leverage to have MAX effect at a time when yield and revenue are on the increase.

It ties up well with why Cx no don't care much about us and our good will for the long run as we'll be become more and more a Chinese company.

With more and more support of the big knobs in Beijing do we ever stand a chance in court?

Worth a try and to keep doing so, but I'd say crank up the industrial pressure in a professional way. As they are going to try and make us look like the bad ones..

Not standing up together & NOW, will result in a very slippery slope!

[Ex Douglas Driver]

Bobrun - A second to the "good post" call.

Hopefully, something along the lines of what you've raised is the basis for our appeal... and hopefully our lawyers get a kick in the pants for screwing up the basics of appeal procedure the first time around.

One theme from the verdict was that not enough evidence was produced to support our arguments. How about calling on 2000 pilots to explain their understanding of their contractual rights to BPP and what promotion times written meant to them?

Were we seeking the right answers through all of this? This case started as one about Bypass Pay, but morphed into one of delayed promotion. I'm still not sure that a judicial decision was made on the contractual "approximately 18 months" + "delayed by no more than 12 months while recruiting DEFOs"?

[SweepTheLeg]

What Cathay doesn't seem to realize is that these pilots directly (and indirectly) affected by this ruling are at the beginning of their careers. Do you ever think they'll ever show CX any goodwill after this? Ever? As in for the rest of their careers?

It's going to cost CX a lot more money in the long run than paying out a one time BPP payment to a few hundred guys.

Why CX management thinks of its employees as liabilities as opposed to their greatest assets is beyond me... especially in a commodity driven business where the only differentiation is through its employees.

Southwest Airlines has a good relationship between management and its employees. They are by far the highest paid 737 drivers in NA. And they're also the most profitable airline in NA. Does anyone really believe that's by coincidence?

[Flaps10]

If there's ever a week that I could do without seeing TT's smiling face on the Friday Telex it's this one. :ouch::uhoh::mad::mad::mad::ugh:

[crewsunite]

I wish we had interdepartmental Boxing or Ice Hockey as a CX Sport. I'd happily to get into the ring: me against all 4 (TT, RH, NR, SK )

I'd sure get red carded if not banded for life! But then again these sports allow you to settle an "emotional build up :mad:" & then to get on with playing the game.

Sadly in this job we only have Pprune.. :{ ( Or can we work together :confused:)

But dare I find them in a dark Alley! :eek: :ouch:

[Five Livers]

SweepTheLeg you are absolutely right!

CX won in the tribunal this week unfortunately.

You have hit the nail right on the head.

Give it a few years [??] and the SOs that CX have just pissed off big time are going to be in the left seat, making decisons on Commanders Discretion, Fuel Policy, etc, etc.

The guys flying the aircraft control the fuel burn by the way they choose to manage the flight!

Piss the flight crew off at your peril CX!

[yokebearer]

RE: above post about revenge

I feel truly sad that i have been reduced to working in an environment where many feel so negative about management that they take a certain pride in stooping morally down to their level and perversely now take pride in it. But the above poster is correct - many will make cx pay in some form or another....

[V1V2rotate]

Oh you better believe those current S/O's/future captains will LOVE flying around lower and bumping the power levers up!!:E

[smilingknife]

A good proportion of these SO's will not even be here in the future as many continue to leave this place.
This whole BPP case has just been another nail in the coffin of what was once a career.

Your contract has been and will continue to be a worthless piece of paper. I don't know why we even bother to sign it.

All I can say is it is only going to get much worse as they fatten the pig in order to ready it for sale to Air China. Then we can really look forward to one party rule.:eek:

[The Wraith]

Two guys sadly died of cancer recently, gentlemen both. The wrong people were taken.:(

[fire wall]

Yes Wraith, and both were consummate professionals who would not accommodate the unprofessional conduct endorsed by cries of revenge on this website.

[The Wraith]

I didn't say anything about revenge, Fire Wall. I'm simply pointing out that the good guys get taken away too soon and the lowest form of human life that make up our present management seem to live forever. It just doesn't seem fair.:=

[MrClaus]

I agree Wraith. Taking the moral highground with basically immoral managers results in us getting taken to the cleaners on a regular basis. To much of our contracts rely on their "goodwill" and as long as we do that we are truly in a gunfight with only a knife.

[sjj]

Just a question from a former employee.....how many SO's have pulled the pin in the last couple of years? I won't claim to be the first, but I was very much at the start of the wave when I bailed in '06. Best decision ever it seems reading the comments in this thread!!

Stay strong lads. Fight the good fight, and don't be afraid to vote with your feet!!

[The Wraith]

Crew Control called me today....on a G day....asking if I could help them out... When will these halfwits realize that I would rather gouge out my own eyes than "help them out"?
Oh, and good luck with the "defensive rostering" RH, looks like you need it already.:yuk:

[crwjerk]

It's very defensive right now, Crew Direct has been " busy" all morning. Go figure.

[Bye Bye Baby]

So far been asked to do 5 flights on G days this month (its only the 15th) 3xULH 2 local. All were messages left on a G day to work on a G day.
Keep your eyes, sit back and watch them implode in their own stupidity.

[crwjerk]

I was called 3 times in 2 days to do the same flight. I just checked who the lucky guy that accepted the flight was.... HE WAS ON STANDBY!!! If you are stupid enough to pick up your phone on your day off, at least check how many are on Standby first.

[The Wraith]

It is all just such a shame because it really doesn't need to be like this. If we just had management who had even a strain of decency, honesty and humanity running through them, who knew the value of integrity and goodwill, this company could go from strength to strength with EVERYBODY on board and singing from the same hymn sheet. But, instead, they lie, deceive, and treat their staff with utter contempt while telling us we are part of "the team' and essentially steal their bonuses from the very people, ground staff, cabin crew, engineers and pilots, who generate the public image and profits for this once proud company. It is sickening, more so when you see pilots such as RH join their ranks, turning his back on the very colleagues who share a flight deck with him.
So, in this environment, I will NEVER so much as take a step out of my way to help these people. I will do my job, nothing more, nothing less, and should one of these people spontaneously combust in front of me I will look on with wonderment and fascination whilst thinking that in a few minutes' time someone should probably think about getting a fire extinguisher.:ok:

[Flaps10]

The AOA's latest missive states that the judge has turned down our request to appeal.

I still don't see how we can go from a complete victory to a complete loss with no chance of appeal. Gotta love the HK justice system. :ugh:

Are the F/O's still going to pursue their bypass case?

[Black Cloud]

I wouldn't p*ss on them even if they were on fire.

[req visual]

Last year has in more ways than one convinced me which way giving and taking goes with this company. I have estimated 25-35 years left in the company best(/worst) case scenario. Don't expect me to do ANY favours or do ANY extra miles during any of that time. Nice played management!! I know alot of the crew feel exactly the same!! I am sure that could have paid of very differently in the future. Also so much for making "the most admired airline"...

Not exactly "team"-player any more. Much so with the crew still though, just with the few exceptions certain "pilot-managers" who very decidedly jumped fence.. (to greener grass, aka bonuses)

[fly123456]

I guess there's no chance a new case filed by a fellow S/O could turn into a win, because of case law?

[cxorcist]

The "Honorable" Madam Justice Chu denied appeal because "I do not consider that the issues sought to be raised by the claimant constitute matters of general public importance."

Oh really, that is a pretty bold statement when you think about it in a larger context. Ensuring that employment contracts are honored by employers in Hong Kong is not important? This seems like an issue of "general public importance" to me. Am I missing something?

I think this issue is fundamental to any just society and the cornerstone of a strong business economy. Expats and other seeking employment in HKG beware!!! Perhaps not much has changed in the last 10 years after all. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[missingblade]

Keep in mind the SO who filed this case was on bypass pay all along - his case claimed that he should have gotten it a few months sooner than he did. In the end he received about 18 months ( or more - not sure of exact number ) of bypass.
A big part of the judges rejection of it was that the method used by the labour tribunal to work out when he should have started getting bypass was making assumptions and not very accurate.

There are many many of them who received none whatsoever. So there possibly is a second case in there somewhere for the guys who did not get any I would guess???

How can it be fair that one guy gets 18 months worth of bypass and the next guy in seniority gets practically none - purely because the company stopped assesments.

[coonabarabran]

How can it be fair that one guy gets 18 months worth of bypass and the next guy in seniority gets practically none - purely because the company stopped assessments.

Of course it's not fair. But then again the remedy was always industrial not legal.

[boxjockey]

They will never get one ounce of extra out of me, for the remainder of my career. How short sighted can they be.....

box

[Clear_sky]

It's offical then.

Contracts are really not worth the paper they are written on. :*

I had more hope for the legal system here. Mabye I should know better.....

[MrClaus]

SO bypass, RIP.

The lesson from this is that we need to use onshoring to our advantage.

The HK legal system is what it is, the legal department of HK big business. The sooner we all realise this the sooner we stop wasting our money. The FO bypass case would be better fought first in Canada and Australia; where there exists independent legal systems, before we fight the case in HK. Set precedents overseas and we have more chance of the company coming to the party in HK. We may as well throw a bucket of money into the harbour, as that is what we will be essentially doing if we put the FO bypass case to the HK courts.