Salt & Pepper...

[BlankBox]

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/3007151/cathay-pacific-cracks-down-petty-theft-cabin-crew-hong

...better flush all those 1/2 bottles o' booze...wouldn't want 'em to go stale between flights...:ok:

[Slasher1]

I don’t think the policy of not taking things off the jet is really at issue here (which everyone agrees is pretty much wrong). What is at issue is to what extent an employer can search an employee’s personal belongings. Especially when such a search might take place off company property (and without probable cause or the assistance of law enforcement investigating an alleged crime).

Different jurisdictions have different laws, and the employment law would defer to the locality of the employment contract in force for the person searched. For example, a SFO based individual would follow civil law of the US and of California.

I know of no CA/EA/CBA provisions delineating negotiated procedures for an employee search. The searches are apparently broadband and random (i.e. without probable cause or reasonable suspicion). The searches are occurring through personal effects and not company property (i.e. looking through a bag or purse and not in a company owned locker). And it sounds like they are happening not on company property itself.

So I see the company once again opening up a minefield. Hopefully a based crew will take them to task if and when this happens to them.

[Freehills]

In general - it is legal, as long as the company has told you that it is in T&C's/ contract. Ditto accessing all your emails/ drug tests any other privacy violations.

[FlexibleResponse]

In general - it is legal, as long as the company has told you that it is in T&C's/ contract. Ditto accessing all your emails/ drug tests any other privacy violations.

Legal? Possibly, but there is precedent for defamation...

SCMPThe issue of petty theft has a storied past at Cathay, dating back to a crippling three-week strike in 1993 by flight attendants demanding better working conditions.

A prominent leader of the strike, Courtney Chong Cheng-lin, was sacked months later, accused of stealing some nuts, a bottle of water and an in-flight magazine.

After a five-year battle to claim damages for defamation, she won a multimillion-dollar, out-of-court settlement.

[unitedabx]

Legal? Possibly, but there is precedent for defamation...

The fact that the two local pilots were NOT searched is alarming. Smacks of discrimination. If the company is going to search the crew then tahtmeans the entire crew.

[A3301FD]

Pilots not searched as their bags are private property - owned and paid for by them. Cabin crew bags are owned by the company. Cabin crew do not pay for them.

[cxorcist]

Pilots not searched as their bags are private property - owned and paid for by them. Cabin crew bags are owned by the company. Cabin crew do not pay for them.

That’s a sick joke. My uniform is paid for by the Company. Does that mean they have the right to look inside? Are cabin crew not entitled to privacy wrt their personal belongings? Is the Company implicitly encouraging those cabin crew wanting privacy to use their own luggage? I remember watching Saudi customs officials go through women’s luggage and holding up panties while snickering to each other. Is that the type of society we want to live in?

[Slasher1]

That’s a sick joke. My uniform is paid for by the Company. Does that mean they have the right to look inside? Are cabin crew not entitled to privacy wrt their personal belongings? Is the Company implicitly encouraging those cabin crew wanting privacy to use their own luggage? I remember watching Saudi customs officials go through women’s luggage and holding up panties while snickering to each other. Is that the type of society we want to live in?



Actually not quite so much and kinda clever (if it’s true) in a sordid way.

At least on an employment contract under US jurisdiction, employee searches are a sticky wicket. Random drug tests (if clearly informed by policy and actually random) are generally allowed. Absent probable cause (and absent bona-fide security concerns) courts generally frown on bag or personal searches even while on company property and it’s a bit of a minefield. A private company search OFF company property of personal effects (like on a jet bridge or common area of an airport) which was not a part of a real customs or LE inspection (and not consensual or based upon probable cause of a crime) would almost certainly violate US law and the company liable for damages. The location where it happened (if it were a private employer) wouldn’t matter; the contract law follows the basing.

On the other hand, the law almost always sides with the employer when it comes to searches of items contained in company property itself (desks, spaces, computers, lockers, etc.—even if a company issued locking device is issued—although one woman prevailed under litigation when she used a private personal lock to lock her locker and the company searched it anyway). And can certainly make a reasonable search a prerequisite to enter company property (as well as refuse or deny access to whom it pleases). This gets a bit stickier when searching personal effects contained within company property (which generally would require probable cause or legitimate security concern).

So by declaring a company bag company property there might not be an expectation of privacy. But I think a real court would likely throw the BS flag when looking at the bigger picture.

[FlexibleResponse]

SCMP
April 24, 2019 — 6.22am

Champagne and ice cream: Cathay Pacific is cracking down on thieving flight attendants

The news adds to what has been a embarrassing year in the news for the airline, which is struggling to turn its fortunes around while competition intensifies from Chinese and budget airlines.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/champagne-and-ice-cream-cathay-pacific-is-cracking-down-on-thieving-flight-attendants-20190424-p51gnl.html



Now Worldwide news...

Cathay Pacific Mis-managers sure do have a knack of scoring "own goals".

[cpdude]

You can advertise ticket at pennies on the dollar and cost the company millions...twice...no problem.

You can totally screw up a fuel hedge costing the company billions over several years...no problem.

But take a bag of peanuts or a bottle of water off an aircraft after working 15 hours and BIG PROBLEM, you're sacked.

Draw your own conclusions about this company!

[petrichor]

So long as there's nothing in the bag, I think any crew member concerned has every right to demand the presence of the police if accused. Open up the bag in their presence - no nicked goods and voila, a police report for slander/defamation or whatever is appropriate. Law suit follows.

[Klimax]

What a lovely employer that company is. No wonder there´s nothing but bad press in The International media. It seems like a bunch of clowns in a circus attempting to run the show out there in Hong Kong. As amusing as it´s sad, really.

[cannot]

There is actually a very simple fix to this , run spot checks If you want , anyone caught with company property is charged 3 times the cost of the items but no further action is taken against the individuals . Then anyone can decide if it’s worth the risk . Personally I scoff down 3 hargen das ice creams just before I get off then I have no desire to take anything from the aircraft .or alternatively decant the ice creams into a flask for later consumption , your flask the company has no right to look inside .

[Farman Biplane]

Perhaps some randomised targeted checks on some management bags when they next operate?
Who knows what we might find, perhaps;
SHP corrections,
Bases, Permanent, Temp and Swap,
Payrises,
13th month 2017,
Profit share......And a host of other things that have been stolen!

[cxorcist]

Perhaps some randomised targeted checks on some management bags when they next operate?
Who knows what we might find, perhaps;
SHP corrections,
Bases, Permanent, Temp and Swap,
Payrises,
13th month 2017,
Profit share......And a host of other things that have been stolen!


Where is the LIKE button?

RPs and ARAPA also come to mind.

[VR-HFX]

Yet another manifestation of a management that has lost its moral authority and therefore its ability to lead the workforce. Using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut is the classic policy response to this loss of authority. The costs involved will far outweigh the "loss" of catering supplies. I would expect the next management initiative will be to introduce the Chinese system of social credits to manage promotions and the 13th month.

[main_dog]

Perhaps some randomised targeted checks on some management bags when they next operate?
Who knows what we might find, perhaps;
SHP corrections,
Bases, Permanent, Temp and Swap,
Payrises,
13th month 2017,
Profit share......And a host of other things that have been stolen!


Spot on Farman!