At Last Some Good News

[FlexibleResponse]

UK hearing for sacked pilots
A London tribunal agrees to rule on the unfair dismissal case of five ex-Cathay staff


CHOW CHUNG-YAN and MIKE DORAN in London

A group of sacked Cathay Pacific pilots yesterday won the right to have a case of unfair dismissal against the company heard by a labour tribunal in Britain.
The five pilots, fired during the dispute between Cathay and its pilots in 2001, were awarded the right to a London hearing on the basis that they were employed by Veta, a UK-registered Cathay subsidiary.


But six other sacked London-based pilots who were directly employed by Cathay in Hong Kong and one New York-based Cathay pilot had their applications for a tribunal hearing thrown out.

The airline last night said it was disappointed at the decision, handed down by the British Employment Tribunal, and would consider lodging an appeal because "an important principle of employment law is at stake".

A Cathay spokesman said: "All the pilots accepted Hong Kong employment contracts and worked under terms governed by Hong Kong employment law.

"Cathay Pacific is surprised the UK employment tribunal should feel it is appropriate to hear a case concerning a dispute located on the other side of the world."

The case is being funded by the 1,000-member Hong Kong Aircrew Officers' Association.

A spokeswoman for the London law firm acting for the association said: "This is a positive result but a temporary victory because of the appeal."

Explaining the reason for pursuing a case at the British Employment Tribunal, she said: "Hong Kong law does not have unfair dismissal procedures and that is why these pilots wanted to pursue their cases through the courts in the United Kingdom."

Sacked employees can claim unlawful dismissal in Hong Kong but there is no provision for unfair dismissal.

No one from the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers' Association was available for comment last night. Details of the judgment were sent via e-mail to union leaders last night by their London law firm.

Yesterday's partial victory for the pilots follows the lodging of a series of lawsuits against Cathay by overseas-based pilots sacked two years ago.

A group of nine sacked US-based pilots had their case thrown out by a court in California in December 2001. Eight pilots are pursuing similar cases in Australia.

Cathay Pacific fired 53 pilots in July 2001 after the Aircrew Officers' Association began an effective work-to-rule campaign in a protracted dispute over pay and rosters.

...and the HKAOA Press Release can be seen here:

http://bbs.hkalpa.org/public/Information/Press/2003%20Press/11%20March%202003%20UK%20Employment%20Tribunal.pdf

[raitfaiter]

If UK has decided it has jurisdiction, doesn't that raise some interesting and potentially expensive questions about National Insurance contributions by CX........or the alleged lack thereof?:eek:

[Snake Hips]

It also, for several mates looking for home country
basings, casts significant doubts on the future of
basings themselves. Reminds of that immortal line
" The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the
few'...Spock to Jim Kirk...first Star Trek movie I think.

[raitfaiter]

Watching the Liverpool vs Man U game reminds me of Shortly at the moment:

Oh its all gone quiet over there.....

alternatively

Sing when you're winning, you only sing when you're winning.....:D :p :D

[FlexibleResponse]

Snake makes a good point on the future of basings outside Hong Kong. However, management has already tried to play this card in December and that in itself has raised some rather interesting questions. Why would a modern day Company say that the viability of basings would be in doubt if the said Company had to comply with modern day labour laws? It rather begs the question on management integrity and intent.

On the other hand, doesn’t the Company already employ non-pilot staff in each of the basing countries who are very clearly protected by the same labour laws that the Company say that they have difficulty complying with in the case of pilots?

Also one might consider that each based pilot saves the Company accommodation, family medical, travel expenses that would otherwise have been paid in Hong Kong along with the reduced basing pay that together totals in the order of HK$ one million per pilot per year on an ongoing basis. Since the based pilots number in the hundreds, we are therefore talking hundreds of millions savings per year. Is this something that the management is likely to sacrifice in a fit of pique?

Watch this space…

[shortly]

Actually Rait I neither like Liverpool nor Man Utd, Spurs man me. Been a long time between drinks in supporting them I can tell you. What is there to say? A labour tribunal rules that it has jurisdiction for some of those who applied for its protection. Mmmm, I don't see that making the company run for cover do you? They would probably like to take this opportunity to settle with a negotiated payment to those few involved. Probably is a good thing as it could pre-empt a settlement overall. Or on the dark side continue the fight, re-write contracts a lot tighter and with even more reduced benefits for those based overseas from HKG. Even if the company lose, what can a Labour Tribunal do? They can recommend re-employment but that is not truly enforceable is it. Compensation in lieu is another option. I am an optimist, good for those who might see some compensation and a settlement overall comes from it. Was that enough for the pit bulls or was I too moderate. Regards.

[raitfaiter]

I rather think that Pandoras box was opened by some unguarded comments by a certain gray haired ex pub owner from England during the pre tribunal sparring with the lawyers.

One thing is absolutely certain, Uncle Gordons ferrets will not have forgotten the allegedly mislaid NI contributions no matter what the outcome of this skirmish.

Theres a very good article in the SCMP regarding the hasty preparations of other companies with wholly owned subsidiaries based in UK to review their own practises in this particularly simple tax matter..........

Don't worry though Shortly, there was just one thing left in Pandoras box after all the misfortunes flew away, I think you're going to need it old mate;)

[FlexibleResponse]

Cathay pilot wins injunction against forced roster change
The High Court ruling may have implications for other members of the airline's 1,600 cockpit crew
SARA BRADFORD

South China Morning Post - April 11, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Captain Murray Gardner leaves the Court of first Instance. His solicitor said he was happy. Picture by Edward Wong)

Cathay Pacific breached the employment contract of one of its pilots when it changed his rosters and forced him to accept an increased workload, a court ruled yesterday.
Although the decision only applies to Captain Murray Gardner, the fall-out may extend to the rest of the airline's 1,600 cockpit crew.
In granting Mr Gardner, 43, an injunction to block the change in rostering practices, the court has declared that the airline breached a contractual agreement, known as COS-99, that it had entered into with the Hong Kong Air Crew Officers' Association on July 1, 1999.
It has also opened the door to damages claims by Cathay pilots who believe they have suffered due to the unilateral amendment to the rostering practice.
A spokesperson for Cathay Pacific said the airline was considering the implication of yesterday's 46-page judgment.
Rostering practices are one of the key points of contention between the airline and the pilots' union in their on-going industrial dispute.
Mr Gardner had argued at the Court of First Instance that under the COS-99 agreement, rostering practices could not be amended without accord between the airline and the union or the resolution of a legal action. That action, which began on March 19, 1999, and is yet to be finalised, involves 704 pilots seeking a declaration that the Rostering Practices "are and were incapable of unilateral amendment or variation by [Cathay]".
Cathay, however, argued that rostering practices could be unilaterally amended as they were lifestyle and money issues and not subject to legal requirements as set out in the Approved Flight Time Limitation (AFTL) scheme. It also said that it should be permitted unilaterally to amend the rostering practices in the interim until either an agreement was reached or the legal action was resolved, provided the changes were not substantial.
But Mr Justice Arjun Sakhrani said that at the time the COS-99 agreement was made, no distinctions were made between rostering practices and the AFTL provisions. He added that if the parties had intended the airline to be able unilaterally to amend rosters in the interim period, it would have been drafted into COS-99.
Mr Justice Sakhrani found Mr Gardner was entitled to an injunction to block the change in rostering practices. "[Mr Gardner] also said, and I accept, that he found it distressing to be forced to accept the unilateral amendments made by [the rostering changes]," he said. "These were made without further agreement between the union and Cathay Pacific Airways or the final resolution of the [legal] action."
Mr Justice Sakhrani said he believed the majority of the rostering changes did place an increased burden on Mr Gardner.
One of the changes included using a minimum of three pilots on long-haul flights instead of four, which Mr Justice Sakhrani said would have caused extra stress. Another was the loss of the entitlement of a duty swap to enable a pilot to arrange time off at short notice for personal or other reasons.
Mr Justice Sakhrani said a reduction of the number of days off after long-haul flights also eroded Mr Gardner's contractual rights.
Mr Gardner's solicitor, Michael Lintern-Smith, said yesterday his client was happy with the decision.
"The court has now declared that they were implementing an illegal rostering system," he said.
Mr Lintern-Smith also said any other crew who felt they had been distressed by the change were also entitled to seek an injunction and claim damages. He said his client did not pursue damages becausehe wanted the matter settled.


Cathay pilot wins injunction against forced roster change

[Maxfli]

Well played Murray, have 1 in Carnegies for me. That looks like 2 in a row for the downtrodden.


It's only over when you say it's over.

[FlexibleResponse]

Will CX’s own Star Chamber members go on parade at the UK Labour Tribunal? Sacked Sainsbury workers recently won a case with similar parallels to the CX 49ers.

From HR Gateway Editorial 21/05/2003

http://www.hrgateway.co.uk/viewnewsdetail.asp?uniquenumber=1757&loginstatus=

Sainsbury managers win unfair dismissal tribunal

A collection of 61 former managers for Sainsbury's won their claim for unfair dismissal today against their employer after the supermarket giant accused them of being unfit to run one of their new stores.

The case led to company director, Stuart Mitchell, being forced to stand in front of the Tribunal at Watford in April after being responsible for the programme that led to a fifth of Sainsbury’s managers losing their positions.

Having served more than 20 years with the company, the managers were invited to a meeting last January where they were told that they didn't have the skills to be a 'new store' manager.

They were offered the choice of a severance package or to submit to a half-day assessment in order to judge their abilities – they were given 48 hours to decide.

As a result, many of the managers were replaced by younger managers who were not members of the firms ailing final salary pension scheme. The managers claimed that being removed from the firm had blighted their employment records.

Mitchell told the tribunal in April that he had chosen not to follow the company’s internal procedures on redundancy as it would have taken a year to complete the process and so told the men to leave just before Christmas.

Sainsbury, which today announced in its preliminary report an underlying profit before tax for the year of £695 million up 10.8%, were unwilling to comment on the result at the time of writing.

The remedy is to be determined this afternoon as the Watford tribunal continues to sit, although lawyers have estimated they could get up to £88,000 each.

[Schrodingers Cat]

Even more good news......thaks to the unswerving self sacrifice of its employees in (in)voluntarily giving up a months unpaid leave, apparently CX has discovered that it's not in such dire straights after all! A forecast of breaking even for the full year from the board makes you wonder how much CX made in the first quarter!
Well done CX employees! :rolleyes:

[Daxon]

World Health Organization changes hong kong, Guangdong travel recommendations

23 May 2003 | GENEVA -- Effective today, the World Health Organization (WHO) is removing its recommendation that people should postpone all but essential travel to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Guangdong Province, China.

The recommendation to consider postponing all but essential travel to Hong Kong and Guangdong was issued on 2 April in order to minimize the international spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). WHO is changing this recommendation as the situation in these areas has now improved significantly.

Recommendations to postpone travel are issued following consideration of several factors, including the magnitude of probable SARS cases, the pattern of recent local transmission, and the last dates of export of cases.

On 27 March, WHO recommended that all areas with recent local transmission should screen all international departing passengers to ensure that those who are sick with SARS or are contacts of SARS cases do not travel. This recommendation is still valid for both Hong Kong and Guangdong Province.

“We are changing the travel advice for Hong Kong and Guangdong effective Friday, 23 May,” said Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of the WHO. “Guangdong was the first place in the world to have cases of SARS but I am pleased to note that due to the efforts of the local and national health authorities, with support from WHO, the outbreaks in Guangdong and in Hong Kong are being contained."

In Hong Kong, the three-day average number of new cases has remained below five over the last six days and the pattern of the outbreak shows a sustained decline since the peak of new cases in late March. The total number of people who are still infectious (all of whom are in hospital) has fallen below 60, although there are other former SARS patients who are still convalescing or being treated for other conditions in hospital. All new cases in the past 20 days have occurred in people who were already identified as contacts of a person with SARS and under active surveillance by the local health authorities. There have been no recent reports of internationally exported cases from Hong Kong.

In Guangdong province, the three-day average number of new cases has been below five for 11 days and the number of SARS patients in hospital fell below 60 on May 20. Due to the efforts of the provincial health authorities, the extent of local transmission has fallen to low levels over recent weeks. There have been no recent reports of internationally exported cases from Guangdong province.

The WHO has also reviewed the travel recommendations for other areas of China, including Beijing, Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, Taiwan and Tianjin. The WHO recommendations to consider postponing non-essential travel to these areas remain in place. The WHO reviews travel recommendations regularly.

The outbreak in many areas of China is ongoing, and will require continuing intensive efforts as well as a rapid injection of new resources to fully contain SARS.

******

In Patterns B and C
Pattern B More than one generation of local probable SARS cases, but only among persons that have been previously identified and followed-up as known contacts of probable SARS cases. Pattern C Local probable cases occurring among persons who have not been previously identified as known contacts of probable SARS cases.



For more information contact:

Dick Thompson - Communication Officer
Communicable Disease Control, Prevention and Eradication
WHO, Geneva
Telephone: (+41 22) 791 26 84
Email: [email protected]

Iain Simpson - Communications Officer
Director-General's office
WHO, Geneva
Telephone: +41 22 791 3215
Mobile phone: +41 79 475 5534
Email: [email protected]

[Schrodingers Cat]

This is the same WHO that removed the ban on Toronto because 'the outbreak was under control'.................:ouch:

[FlexibleResponse]

From the AOA 2 July 2003:

Success in the Legal Case in Australia

A hearing was held in the High Court in Sydney today. The defendants (CX and Veta) sought to have the case on behalf of the Australian based 49ers taken from the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) and heard in the High Court on the basis that the IRC does not have jurisdiction. This was subsequent to a similar hearing held approximately 5 weeks earlier where they attempted to put forward 9 separate arguments as to why the IRC should be barred from hearing the case. At that time, the judge dismissed 7 of their arguments and suggested that they should concentrate on the remaining 2.

This they did today. The judge ruled against their arguments and remitted the case to the IRC for a full hearing on the merits of the case.
Costs were awarded against the defendants.

The defendants indicated to the judge at the previous hearing that they would appeal his decision, if his decision was in fact as he has now decided, on the basis that the High Court [in their opinion] only has authority to refer a case back to another "court" and that the IRC does not meet this definition. We understand that that this line of 'defence' is unlikely to succeed.

We await the next step but today's ruling must be very good news for our 49ers in Australia - and their colleagues elsewhere. Well done the
Australian legal team.

[amos2]

Hmmm!...you obviously have more faith in the Australian IRC than I do!

[Schrodingers Cat]

I assume that all this traveling around by senior management will be at their own expense.........? :p

[FlexibleResponse]

Today, 9 July 2003, marks the second anniversary of the sacking of the 49ers by Cathay Pacific management for “no particular reason” (FlexibleResponse).

Simon Parry of the SCMP reported this morning that the Hong Kong Government Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip Shu-kwan is expected to meet Hong Kong Aircrew Officers’ Association president Captain Nigel Demery and other union representatives in the next few days.

The SCMP also reported that the union’s general secretary John Findlay said, “It has taken two years. We have been asking since 2001 for a meeting with government officials. It seems that in the past week, the government is starting to listen to people at last, with what has happened over Article 23.”

The union first requested its meeting with Mr Ip on June 6,asking to discuss a report issued in March by the United Nations International Labour Organisation (ILO) calling on the government to intervene in the long-running dispute.

The ILO report appealed to the government to “take all necessary measures…to put an immediate end to all acts of interference, anti-union discrimination and intimidation against the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers’ Association and its members,”

The AOA will hold an EGM today to mark the second anniversary of the sacking of the Cathay Pacific pilots, at which members will vote to carry on paying contributions to the 49ers and their families.

(extracts from SCMP, 9 July 2003, Simon Parry)