The 49ers and Related Issues(Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The attached letter from Captain ???? to the General Committee is self explanatory. An independent sponsor has come forward and offered substantial funding for the purpose of assisting with financing the legal actions. The extent of this supplementary funding is such that it may well be possible to reduce membership subscriptions whilst continuing to fund the 49er legal actions and subsistence without the need for any Special Levies.
This is obviously a significant development which deserves careful assessment before the Membership is asked to vote on changes to subscriptions or special levies. It is proposed that a fair and representative Sub-Committee be formed to evaluate and report to the Membership on the financial position of the Association with respect to the 49er Legal Cases and in particular the budgeting of the Supplementary legal funding recently offered. Obviously it would be inappropriate for the Membership to vote on the need for special levies before the Sub-Committee has completed their assessment and reported to the Membership.
HKAOA Rule 8.6 states that “the General Committee may, and shall, upon a written requisition signed by not less than one tenth of the number of Members entitled to vote for the time being, convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association.”
It is proposed that the EGM scheduled for 13th April 05 be postponed by petitioning the GC to convene an EGM to vote on the motion below. If you are in agreement with this initiative please print out this email (or page 1 of the document attached), sign and fax to +852 . Once petitions are received from the required 10% of the membership (92 members) they will be presented to the General Committee.
Requisition for Convening an EGM of the HKAOA
In accordance with HKAOA Rule 8.6 I hereby petition the General Committee to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association prior to 13th April 2005 and to put the following motion to the Membership:
Be it resolved that the EGM scheduled for 13 April 05 be postponed until such time as a Sub-Committee evaluates and reports to the Membership on the financial position of the Association with respect to the 49er Legal Cases and in particular the budgeting of the Supplementary legal funding recently offered. Be it further resolved that the Sub-Committee consist of 6 persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one "other Full Member" to be appointed by the General Committee and the "other Full Member" to be appointed by the 49ers, neither "other Full Member" to be a General Committee Member nor a 49er.
Signed:
Name:
Membership Number:
Date:
Letter to the GC:
The President & General Committee
Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association
Haiphong Road
Kowloon
10th March 2005
APRIL EGM
Gentlemen
I write to you all regarding the upcoming EGM scheduled for April in which a number of motions regarding financial assistance to the 49ers are intended to be tabled. Naturally this is a matter of the utmost importance, not only for the 49ers but for the Membership as a whole.
There exists a concern that there are a number of recent developments of which you may not be aware and, therefore, that may not have been taken into account during your deliberations prior to deciding upon the current course of action. Some of these are summarised below.
1. Australian Court Case
At a directions hearing held at the end of February last, the judge set a court date of 6th March 2006 for the case to be heard and set aside 4 weeks for the hearing. This hearing will rule on all matters, both substantive and jurisidictional. In addition, she also set a very detailed timetable of procedural steps to be completed between now and the hearing itself. Now that a specific timetable for this case is available, this facilitates the construction of a more accurate cash flow and business plan regarding possible funding requirements.
2. UK Court Case
The case in the Appeal Court is to be heard on either Monday 14th March or Tuesday 15th March 2005 in the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. This will determine once and for all the issues of jurisdiction. The only possible further avenue of appeal available to either party is the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. In any event, the hearing in the Appeal Court will make case law and set precedent. This is a very significant development on its own. In addition, however, it also has a direct bearing on possible future funding requirements depending on the outcome. Therefore, the view can be held that it would be premature to make irrevocable decisions on funding matters until the result of this hearing is known.
3. Supplementary Funding
Very recently, an independent sponsor has come forward and offered substantial funding for the purpose of assisting with financing the legal actions should this be required. Negotiations on this offer are at an advanced stage and should be completed within the next 3 to 4 weeks. Given that the GC is presently considering a financial plan for the way forward, this is obviously a significant development which should be taken into account.
4. Membership
A significant number of Members, have approached the 49ers and given undertakings to the effect that, should the Association decide to cease funding assistance, they will leave the Association and pay the equivalent of their membership dues directly to the 49ers in order that financial assistance may continue. In addition, it is understood that plans are already in hand to set up an alternative union in such a situation. This is a very serious matter and has significant ramifications for the future viability of the Association itself given that its Membership and finances are already depleted.
Might I suggest that an evaluation of these and other matters be completed by a subcommittee and its report be circulated to the Membership for consideration prior to any irrevocable motions being put to the vote. Might I also suggest that the sub-committee consist of 6-persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one each “other Full Member” to be chosen by the General Committee and the 49ers respectively, although each may be neither a General Committee Member nor a 49er.
It is strongly recommend that until the General Committee has had the opportunity to properly evaluate these matters, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Membership to be asked to decide on the need for special levies.
Yours sincerely
This is obviously a significant development which deserves careful assessment before the Membership is asked to vote on changes to subscriptions or special levies. It is proposed that a fair and representative Sub-Committee be formed to evaluate and report to the Membership on the financial position of the Association with respect to the 49er Legal Cases and in particular the budgeting of the Supplementary legal funding recently offered. Obviously it would be inappropriate for the Membership to vote on the need for special levies before the Sub-Committee has completed their assessment and reported to the Membership.
HKAOA Rule 8.6 states that “the General Committee may, and shall, upon a written requisition signed by not less than one tenth of the number of Members entitled to vote for the time being, convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association.”
It is proposed that the EGM scheduled for 13th April 05 be postponed by petitioning the GC to convene an EGM to vote on the motion below. If you are in agreement with this initiative please print out this email (or page 1 of the document attached), sign and fax to +852 . Once petitions are received from the required 10% of the membership (92 members) they will be presented to the General Committee.
Requisition for Convening an EGM of the HKAOA
In accordance with HKAOA Rule 8.6 I hereby petition the General Committee to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association prior to 13th April 2005 and to put the following motion to the Membership:
Be it resolved that the EGM scheduled for 13 April 05 be postponed until such time as a Sub-Committee evaluates and reports to the Membership on the financial position of the Association with respect to the 49er Legal Cases and in particular the budgeting of the Supplementary legal funding recently offered. Be it further resolved that the Sub-Committee consist of 6 persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one "other Full Member" to be appointed by the General Committee and the "other Full Member" to be appointed by the 49ers, neither "other Full Member" to be a General Committee Member nor a 49er.
Signed:
Name:
Membership Number:
Date:
Letter to the GC:
The President & General Committee
Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association
Haiphong Road
Kowloon
10th March 2005
APRIL EGM
Gentlemen
I write to you all regarding the upcoming EGM scheduled for April in which a number of motions regarding financial assistance to the 49ers are intended to be tabled. Naturally this is a matter of the utmost importance, not only for the 49ers but for the Membership as a whole.
There exists a concern that there are a number of recent developments of which you may not be aware and, therefore, that may not have been taken into account during your deliberations prior to deciding upon the current course of action. Some of these are summarised below.
1. Australian Court Case
At a directions hearing held at the end of February last, the judge set a court date of 6th March 2006 for the case to be heard and set aside 4 weeks for the hearing. This hearing will rule on all matters, both substantive and jurisidictional. In addition, she also set a very detailed timetable of procedural steps to be completed between now and the hearing itself. Now that a specific timetable for this case is available, this facilitates the construction of a more accurate cash flow and business plan regarding possible funding requirements.
2. UK Court Case
The case in the Appeal Court is to be heard on either Monday 14th March or Tuesday 15th March 2005 in the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. This will determine once and for all the issues of jurisdiction. The only possible further avenue of appeal available to either party is the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. In any event, the hearing in the Appeal Court will make case law and set precedent. This is a very significant development on its own. In addition, however, it also has a direct bearing on possible future funding requirements depending on the outcome. Therefore, the view can be held that it would be premature to make irrevocable decisions on funding matters until the result of this hearing is known.
3. Supplementary Funding
Very recently, an independent sponsor has come forward and offered substantial funding for the purpose of assisting with financing the legal actions should this be required. Negotiations on this offer are at an advanced stage and should be completed within the next 3 to 4 weeks. Given that the GC is presently considering a financial plan for the way forward, this is obviously a significant development which should be taken into account.
4. Membership
A significant number of Members, have approached the 49ers and given undertakings to the effect that, should the Association decide to cease funding assistance, they will leave the Association and pay the equivalent of their membership dues directly to the 49ers in order that financial assistance may continue. In addition, it is understood that plans are already in hand to set up an alternative union in such a situation. This is a very serious matter and has significant ramifications for the future viability of the Association itself given that its Membership and finances are already depleted.
Might I suggest that an evaluation of these and other matters be completed by a subcommittee and its report be circulated to the Membership for consideration prior to any irrevocable motions being put to the vote. Might I also suggest that the sub-committee consist of 6-persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one each “other Full Member” to be chosen by the General Committee and the 49ers respectively, although each may be neither a General Committee Member nor a 49er.
It is strongly recommend that until the General Committee has had the opportunity to properly evaluate these matters, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Membership to be asked to decide on the need for special levies.
Yours sincerely
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
49er NEWSLETTER
Gentlemen
As the April EGM approaches, we find ourselves in a situation that none of could have envisioned 12 months ago. For the last 44 months we have pursued our dual goals of fair and equitable treatment for the group of us that were victimised by the management of Cathay Pacific and to ensure that such treatment cannot be meted out to any of our colleagues again. Throughout that time we have had the support of our colleagues in our fight. One of the key weapons that we have employed in that fight is use of the legal process. The road has been hard with our opponents using every means available to them to prevaricate and delay their appearance on the witness stand where they will be required to justify their actions. Despite that, we have remained together as a cohesive group and the end is now in sight.
In Australia, a firm trial date has been set which is now only 11 months away. Between now and then, there is an extensive and definitve timetable that has been set by the court that must be met by our opponents. A significant date is 8th April 2005 by which time the defendants must file their defence on both the substantive and jurisdictional issues. This is the first time that they will be compelled to reveal their justification for the treatment to which they have subjected us. Our lawyers in Australia tell us that we have a very good chance of prevailing there. The remedies available to us under law are also the most favourable in that jurisdiction. The cost estimate from our lawyers for this part of the process is AUD550,000 with 250,000 being the cost of the preparatory process to the end of November and 300,000 for the hearing itself scheduled for 4 weeks commencing on 6th March 2006.
In the UK, we are awaiting the judgement from the Court of Appeal. This judgement will set precedent and form case law. If we are successful, it will mean that all Veta employees based in the UK will enjoy the protection of UK employment legislation. The only further avenue of appeal is to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. The cost estimate from our lawyers is that a further appeal to the Lords would cost GBP45,000 to 60,000 depending on how many barristers we employ.
Until recently, this process has been managed by your Legal Liaison Team (LLT) working in conjunction with the General Committee of our Association and our legal advisers. This process worked well for 3 years.
Towards the end of last year, the President entered into negotiations with a view to finding a resolution to the situation. Some of our group did not wish him to pursue such a path at that time and informed him accordingly. Prior to entering negotiations, he agreed certain objectives namely:
To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.
To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.
These were communicated to you in a newsletter dated 14th October 2004. Nothing further was then heard until the announcement was made of “the offer” on 16th December. This was accompanied by “advice” from our various legal representatives by way of answers to certain questions that had been posed to them by the General Secretary. This was the first that your LLT had heard of this and took place in deliberate secrecy behind our backs. Subsequent to this, the General Secretary initially refused to disclose the full text of this “advice” under the cloak of privilege and also attempted to prevent your LLT from obtaining a hard copy of the letter of enquiry. The nature of the questions and the manner in which they were posed resulted in a much more gloomy forecast of the efficacy of our various legal actions than had previously been the case. This was used to support the case for acceptance of “the offer”.
At a meeting on 17th December, both the President and the General Secretary agreed that “the offer” failed to meet the two stated objectives that had previously been agreed. In answer to the question, “What if the membership reject the offer?” the response was received that, “Then we would continue on our current course with the legal actions. Further, the GC would take such a rejection as a positive direction from the Membership to continue on our current course.”
Initially, our leadership put us in a position where we were deadlined and would have to decide on “the offer” before we knew the result of the vote by the Membership. This was seen by many of us as trying to force us into making a career threatening decision with incomplete information being made available to us. After considerable lobbying, the order of events was reversed. In a poll conducted by the Association, the 49ers voted 41 to 4 against accepting the offer.
In the lead up to that poll, a number of 49ers received personal telephone calls in which they were told that they were definitely on the list of those who would be accepted back into CX should they avail themselves of the job application process. At the same time, the spectre of massive financial costs being awarded against us in the event that we should lose was raised. Other spins and sales pitches were used by our leadership in an attempt to persuade us and the Membership into accepting an offer that is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the previously agreed objectives.
In the event, in accordance with the rules of our Association, the resolution to accept “the offer” failed to be carried by the Membership vote.
In accordance with the undertaking given by the President on 17th December, that should have been the end of the matter. However, our leadership has now decided to take a second bite at the cherry and attempt to use the unlikely prospect of massive costs awards as an excuse to levy greatly increased dues on the Membership.
No proper justification for such increases has been provided. Certain qualified individuals who have analysed the Association’s finances are unable to agree with the Committee’s assessment. Initially these individuals were denied access to our Association’s accounts. Our leadership has decided to depart from a budgeting strategy that has carried us through more than 3 years and now to budget for a worst case catastrophic scenario as a justification for their latest actions.
They have also stated that the GC could “probably” be held personally responsible for those costs. At a meeting with our lawyers in HKG with the General Secretary present held at the beginning of March, a question was posed regarding possible liabilty for costs of our Association, the GC and/or the Membership as a whole. The response was received that, “It is exceedingly unlikely that either the AOA or individual GC members could be held liable for any costs award made against the plaintiffs.” This advice was confirmed in writing on 10th March. Thus, the assertion made previously was simply not true.
Much has also been made of the “paid into court” scenario increasing our costs risk exposure. No such action has been taken by the defendants. Under the terms of “the offer”, each party would bear its own legal costs. In other words, none of our costs to date, other than those already received in Australia, would be recoverable. If we pursue our current course and are successful, then much of these could be recovered irrespective of whether or not an offer is paid into court at a later date.
In an attempt to assist with the potential financial crisis as being painted by our leadership, some 49ers have been looking for sources outside of our Membership to provide supplementary funding. One such possible avenue was mooted to the GC in a letter dated 10th March. At a membership meeting held on 11th March, before any formal response or enquiry was received to that letter, the President described the initiative as a “hollow delaying tactic”.
The IFALPA Annual Conference takes place this week. It was intended that a former President of our Association would attend and use the opportunity to lobby other fellow Member Associations for financial assistance should it be required. Our leadership took active steps to have him barred from attending the conference even in the capacity of observer. Why would our leadership do such a thing? If there truly does exist a potential financial crisis, should we not be pursuing every available source for supplementary funding rather than just attempting to tax our own Membership? Why actively thwart others who are trying to provide alternative solutions?
Rather than raise subscriptions, an alternative of placing a cap on the amount of funding assistance supplied by the Membership has been suggested with our own group being responsible for finding any shortfall in requirements from other sources. Apparently, this solution is not considered to be acceptable. Why not?
Also, why the hurry? The unlikely doomsday scenario of losing multiple appeals in multiple jurisdictions that is being painted is just that; unlikely. On the one hand we are being told by our leadership that results from the legal process are too far in the future to bring any immediate pressure to bear on the defendants yet, at the same time, so close that they must be funded now. There exists ample time to investigate other sources of funding should it become necessary. This is all being done with indecent haste but for what reason?
One possible conclusion is that our current leadership is hell bent on railroading through an offer that is wholly unacceptable to the vast majority of our group before the end of its term of tenure. The terms of “the offer” would effectively preclude any future GC from representing or supporting the 49ers in pursuit of our objectives. One can only speculate on the reasons for adopting such a course of action.
The result of this turn of events is that, if we wish to continue to pursue our stated objectives, then we must be prepared to act on our own behalf in spite of the leadership of our Association. Should the Membership vote against the subscription increases proposed at the EGM and vote in favour of accepting “the offer” at the second time around, then we must be prepared to deal with that situation.
.
To the end, the following actions have been taken.
In accordance with the Association Rules, a petition has been presented to the GC to have the EGM postponed in order that a sub-committee can be formed to properly analyse the financial position and construct a realistic business plan and cash flow. The Labour Department has been briefed and is taking an active interest in the situation.
A supplementary income stream has been identified from a sponsor in HKG to be used to assist the 49ers in their legal costs. This funding would be in the form of a loan repayable in part or in whole only in the event that costs are awarded to us. This fund will be managed and administered by the 49ers themselves in conjunction with the sponsor. For business reasons, the sponsor wishes to remain anonymous.
An alternative union is being set up in HKG. Initially, its main objective will be to support those 49ers who wish to continue to pursue our stated objectives. We have received many calls from Members of the AOA who have stated that, should our funding be removed by the current leadership, they will either leave the AOA and/or pay their subscriptions directly to the 49ers. This union will not be bound by the terms of “the offer” which, should it be accepted by our current leadership, would remove the right to legal recourse in the event of contractual dispute and bar the AOA from providing assistance to such members, either financial or otherwise.
We will continue to focus on our legal actions with emphasis being placed initially on those in Australia & the UK followed by HKG.
con\'t
Gentlemen, it is likely that each of us is going to be faced with making a personal decision by the middle of May. I am aware that many of you are reliant on the subsistence provided by our colleagues to keep your heads above water pending a properly negotiated settlement that meets our objectives. Despite claims to be merely wanting to maintain the status quo, the current leadership of our Association has chosen to put that in jeopardy as well as a means of coercing you into taking “the offer”.
We are currently unable to make any commitment on continued subsistence from other sources although it is planned to set up a benevolent fund. However, there is no guaranteed income stream for this purpose that has been identified as yet. What we can provide is alternate legal funding assistance.
Only each of us individually can decide what to do under the current circumstances. For those who wish to continue with our current strategy, the vehicle is in place for you to do so. For those who feel that they can no longer continue down this path, for whatever reasons, then that is your choice.
Bear in mind, however, that if you accept “the offer” as it stands, you will forfeit all right to any improved offer that is negotiated at a later date. Also, if your sole reason for accepting “the offer” is to avail yourself of the job application process, be aware that, should you be unsuccessful in that application, all you will receive is a lump sum payment that goes nowhere near addressing the loss that you have suffered. Your reputation will not have been restored and your career prospects will remain poor. In fact it could be argued that they will have been damaged further.
In our current situation, the optimum result that we could hope for at the forthcoming EGM, if it is held as proposed by our current leadership, is that the Membership votes in favour of the subscription increases and against acceptance of “the offer”. Even if the Membership votes against the subscription increases then, irrspective of the way in which the resolutions have been worded, if we believe that our current path is the way to go, we should urge the Membership to continue to vote against resolution 4, acceptance of the offer, and use all available communication channels to urge our colleagues to do so.
The fact is that “the offer” does not meet our objectives and is not acceptable to the majority of us. 41 of our group have already stated that clearly. Irrespective of the increased pressure that is being applied to our group and the Membership as a whole by our current leadership, that situation has not changed.
5th April 2005
Gentlemen
As the April EGM approaches, we find ourselves in a situation that none of could have envisioned 12 months ago. For the last 44 months we have pursued our dual goals of fair and equitable treatment for the group of us that were victimised by the management of Cathay Pacific and to ensure that such treatment cannot be meted out to any of our colleagues again. Throughout that time we have had the support of our colleagues in our fight. One of the key weapons that we have employed in that fight is use of the legal process. The road has been hard with our opponents using every means available to them to prevaricate and delay their appearance on the witness stand where they will be required to justify their actions. Despite that, we have remained together as a cohesive group and the end is now in sight.
In Australia, a firm trial date has been set which is now only 11 months away. Between now and then, there is an extensive and definitve timetable that has been set by the court that must be met by our opponents. A significant date is 8th April 2005 by which time the defendants must file their defence on both the substantive and jurisdictional issues. This is the first time that they will be compelled to reveal their justification for the treatment to which they have subjected us. Our lawyers in Australia tell us that we have a very good chance of prevailing there. The remedies available to us under law are also the most favourable in that jurisdiction. The cost estimate from our lawyers for this part of the process is AUD550,000 with 250,000 being the cost of the preparatory process to the end of November and 300,000 for the hearing itself scheduled for 4 weeks commencing on 6th March 2006.
In the UK, we are awaiting the judgement from the Court of Appeal. This judgement will set precedent and form case law. If we are successful, it will mean that all Veta employees based in the UK will enjoy the protection of UK employment legislation. The only further avenue of appeal is to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. The cost estimate from our lawyers is that a further appeal to the Lords would cost GBP45,000 to 60,000 depending on how many barristers we employ.
Until recently, this process has been managed by your Legal Liaison Team (LLT) working in conjunction with the General Committee of our Association and our legal advisers. This process worked well for 3 years.
Towards the end of last year, the President entered into negotiations with a view to finding a resolution to the situation. Some of our group did not wish him to pursue such a path at that time and informed him accordingly. Prior to entering negotiations, he agreed certain objectives namely:
To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.
To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.
These were communicated to you in a newsletter dated 14th October 2004. Nothing further was then heard until the announcement was made of “the offer” on 16th December. This was accompanied by “advice” from our various legal representatives by way of answers to certain questions that had been posed to them by the General Secretary. This was the first that your LLT had heard of this and took place in deliberate secrecy behind our backs. Subsequent to this, the General Secretary initially refused to disclose the full text of this “advice” under the cloak of privilege and also attempted to prevent your LLT from obtaining a hard copy of the letter of enquiry. The nature of the questions and the manner in which they were posed resulted in a much more gloomy forecast of the efficacy of our various legal actions than had previously been the case. This was used to support the case for acceptance of “the offer”.
At a meeting on 17th December, both the President and the General Secretary agreed that “the offer” failed to meet the two stated objectives that had previously been agreed. In answer to the question, “What if the membership reject the offer?” the response was received that, “Then we would continue on our current course with the legal actions. Further, the GC would take such a rejection as a positive direction from the Membership to continue on our current course.”
Initially, our leadership put us in a position where we were deadlined and would have to decide on “the offer” before we knew the result of the vote by the Membership. This was seen by many of us as trying to force us into making a career threatening decision with incomplete information being made available to us. After considerable lobbying, the order of events was reversed. In a poll conducted by the Association, the 49ers voted 41 to 4 against accepting the offer.
In the lead up to that poll, a number of 49ers received personal telephone calls in which they were told that they were definitely on the list of those who would be accepted back into CX should they avail themselves of the job application process. At the same time, the spectre of massive financial costs being awarded against us in the event that we should lose was raised. Other spins and sales pitches were used by our leadership in an attempt to persuade us and the Membership into accepting an offer that is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the previously agreed objectives.
In the event, in accordance with the rules of our Association, the resolution to accept “the offer” failed to be carried by the Membership vote.
In accordance with the undertaking given by the President on 17th December, that should have been the end of the matter. However, our leadership has now decided to take a second bite at the cherry and attempt to use the unlikely prospect of massive costs awards as an excuse to levy greatly increased dues on the Membership.
No proper justification for such increases has been provided. Certain qualified individuals who have analysed the Association’s finances are unable to agree with the Committee’s assessment. Initially these individuals were denied access to our Association’s accounts. Our leadership has decided to depart from a budgeting strategy that has carried us through more than 3 years and now to budget for a worst case catastrophic scenario as a justification for their latest actions.
They have also stated that the GC could “probably” be held personally responsible for those costs. At a meeting with our lawyers in HKG with the General Secretary present held at the beginning of March, a question was posed regarding possible liabilty for costs of our Association, the GC and/or the Membership as a whole. The response was received that, “It is exceedingly unlikely that either the AOA or individual GC members could be held liable for any costs award made against the plaintiffs.” This advice was confirmed in writing on 10th March. Thus, the assertion made previously was simply not true.
Much has also been made of the “paid into court” scenario increasing our costs risk exposure. No such action has been taken by the defendants. Under the terms of “the offer”, each party would bear its own legal costs. In other words, none of our costs to date, other than those already received in Australia, would be recoverable. If we pursue our current course and are successful, then much of these could be recovered irrespective of whether or not an offer is paid into court at a later date.
In an attempt to assist with the potential financial crisis as being painted by our leadership, some 49ers have been looking for sources outside of our Membership to provide supplementary funding. One such possible avenue was mooted to the GC in a letter dated 10th March. At a membership meeting held on 11th March, before any formal response or enquiry was received to that letter, the President described the initiative as a “hollow delaying tactic”.
The IFALPA Annual Conference takes place this week. It was intended that a former President of our Association would attend and use the opportunity to lobby other fellow Member Associations for financial assistance should it be required. Our leadership took active steps to have him barred from attending the conference even in the capacity of observer. Why would our leadership do such a thing? If there truly does exist a potential financial crisis, should we not be pursuing every available source for supplementary funding rather than just attempting to tax our own Membership? Why actively thwart others who are trying to provide alternative solutions?
Rather than raise subscriptions, an alternative of placing a cap on the amount of funding assistance supplied by the Membership has been suggested with our own group being responsible for finding any shortfall in requirements from other sources. Apparently, this solution is not considered to be acceptable. Why not?
Also, why the hurry? The unlikely doomsday scenario of losing multiple appeals in multiple jurisdictions that is being painted is just that; unlikely. On the one hand we are being told by our leadership that results from the legal process are too far in the future to bring any immediate pressure to bear on the defendants yet, at the same time, so close that they must be funded now. There exists ample time to investigate other sources of funding should it become necessary. This is all being done with indecent haste but for what reason?
One possible conclusion is that our current leadership is hell bent on railroading through an offer that is wholly unacceptable to the vast majority of our group before the end of its term of tenure. The terms of “the offer” would effectively preclude any future GC from representing or supporting the 49ers in pursuit of our objectives. One can only speculate on the reasons for adopting such a course of action.
The result of this turn of events is that, if we wish to continue to pursue our stated objectives, then we must be prepared to act on our own behalf in spite of the leadership of our Association. Should the Membership vote against the subscription increases proposed at the EGM and vote in favour of accepting “the offer” at the second time around, then we must be prepared to deal with that situation.
.
To the end, the following actions have been taken.
In accordance with the Association Rules, a petition has been presented to the GC to have the EGM postponed in order that a sub-committee can be formed to properly analyse the financial position and construct a realistic business plan and cash flow. The Labour Department has been briefed and is taking an active interest in the situation.
A supplementary income stream has been identified from a sponsor in HKG to be used to assist the 49ers in their legal costs. This funding would be in the form of a loan repayable in part or in whole only in the event that costs are awarded to us. This fund will be managed and administered by the 49ers themselves in conjunction with the sponsor. For business reasons, the sponsor wishes to remain anonymous.
An alternative union is being set up in HKG. Initially, its main objective will be to support those 49ers who wish to continue to pursue our stated objectives. We have received many calls from Members of the AOA who have stated that, should our funding be removed by the current leadership, they will either leave the AOA and/or pay their subscriptions directly to the 49ers. This union will not be bound by the terms of “the offer” which, should it be accepted by our current leadership, would remove the right to legal recourse in the event of contractual dispute and bar the AOA from providing assistance to such members, either financial or otherwise.
We will continue to focus on our legal actions with emphasis being placed initially on those in Australia & the UK followed by HKG.
con\'t
Gentlemen, it is likely that each of us is going to be faced with making a personal decision by the middle of May. I am aware that many of you are reliant on the subsistence provided by our colleagues to keep your heads above water pending a properly negotiated settlement that meets our objectives. Despite claims to be merely wanting to maintain the status quo, the current leadership of our Association has chosen to put that in jeopardy as well as a means of coercing you into taking “the offer”.
We are currently unable to make any commitment on continued subsistence from other sources although it is planned to set up a benevolent fund. However, there is no guaranteed income stream for this purpose that has been identified as yet. What we can provide is alternate legal funding assistance.
Only each of us individually can decide what to do under the current circumstances. For those who wish to continue with our current strategy, the vehicle is in place for you to do so. For those who feel that they can no longer continue down this path, for whatever reasons, then that is your choice.
Bear in mind, however, that if you accept “the offer” as it stands, you will forfeit all right to any improved offer that is negotiated at a later date. Also, if your sole reason for accepting “the offer” is to avail yourself of the job application process, be aware that, should you be unsuccessful in that application, all you will receive is a lump sum payment that goes nowhere near addressing the loss that you have suffered. Your reputation will not have been restored and your career prospects will remain poor. In fact it could be argued that they will have been damaged further.
In our current situation, the optimum result that we could hope for at the forthcoming EGM, if it is held as proposed by our current leadership, is that the Membership votes in favour of the subscription increases and against acceptance of “the offer”. Even if the Membership votes against the subscription increases then, irrspective of the way in which the resolutions have been worded, if we believe that our current path is the way to go, we should urge the Membership to continue to vote against resolution 4, acceptance of the offer, and use all available communication channels to urge our colleagues to do so.
The fact is that “the offer” does not meet our objectives and is not acceptable to the majority of us. 41 of our group have already stated that clearly. Irrespective of the increased pressure that is being applied to our group and the Membership as a whole by our current leadership, that situation has not changed.
5th April 2005
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people will do anything to hurt the company regardless of the affect to them or their co-workers and other's will always be problem children either in or out of the company.
It's easy to paint a dark picture and some thrive on it...I don't!
It's easy to paint a dark picture and some thrive on it...I don't!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe the comment about "problem children" is a valid one. Some people simply have higher morals than others, if they suffer or see wrong doing they wish to do something about it. I am sure I was a "problem" when with CX, but as I now work for an employer which treats me with dignity and respect this is certainly not the case now, nor was it for my previous 15 years in the industry prior to my employment with CX.
Its appears a little strange that people with perfect careers suddenly become troublemakers who wish to harm the company when they work for CX, only to revert to type and be satisfied competent individuals again once they have left.
Good luck to the 49ers - I watch with interest.
Its appears a little strange that people with perfect careers suddenly become troublemakers who wish to harm the company when they work for CX, only to revert to type and be satisfied competent individuals again once they have left.
Good luck to the 49ers - I watch with interest.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure there is not one pilot in CX that at some point or time has been treated poorly or incorrectly by an individual or a department within the company. You can jump up and down and bring attention to yourself followed by more hardship either by design or just coincident or you can just let it go and possibly it will just stay in the past. Some have elected to jump up and down and the results are mixed. You place your bet and take your chances. But just because one elects to jump doesn't mean we all should or will!
Bottom line...is it a good job? Yes it is! Is it a great job? I have yet to ever find a great job and I don't believe it exists!
I believe like most, if not all, that the 49rs were treated poorly and I wish all of them good luck in the future but more importantly I hope they get over their anger and resentment and start to move on in life.
Bottom line...is it a good job? Yes it is! Is it a great job? I have yet to ever find a great job and I don't believe it exists!
I believe like most, if not all, that the 49rs were treated poorly and I wish all of them good luck in the future but more importantly I hope they get over their anger and resentment and start to move on in life.
Cpdude,
You really are a hypocrite,
"Some people will do anything to hurt the company regardless of the affect to them or their co-workers and other's will always be problem children"
Lets worry about people who have been hurt by CX.
You disgust me.
You really are a hypocrite,
"Some people will do anything to hurt the company regardless of the affect to them or their co-workers and other's will always be problem children"
Lets worry about people who have been hurt by CX.
You disgust me.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consequences of “the offer”
In recommending “the offer” to the Membership, it has frequently been stated that it should be accepted because then “…those who wish to come back to work may do so, and those who wish to continue to sue the company may continue to pursue that course…” i.e. acceptance is being represented as the best of both worlds.
This is a misleading misrepresentation of the facts.
Please examine the Agreement between CPA and the HKAOA, section 3 on pages 2 & 3: “The HKAOA’s Obligation”
Under this section, the Agreement requires the HKAOA immediately to cease provision of:
financial assistance
advice
facilities
or even encouragement
to any of the following:
any of the 49ers
any individual, corporation, unincorporated organisation, society or union which seeks to assist any 49er
in any existing or future Legal Action against CPA and any subsidiary or holding company of CPA, including any subsidiary of a holding company of CPA, and their officers and employees, both past and present.
Quite apart from withdrawing financial assistance to the 49ers, this agreement means that HKAOA Officers and Members would not be permitted to assist the 49ers in any way whatsoever with their legal actions against CPA and they may not even be allowed to offer to testify in such matters, except on behalf of the company.
This seeks to remove one of the few protections that are conferred by Section S72B(1)(a) of the Employment Ordinance; your right not to be dismissed, threatened with dismissal or otherwise discriminated against for giving evidence or agreeing to give evidence in a legal action brought under the Ordinance.
Such an agreement would also be binding on any future GC that might seek to take a different path from that being currently espoused. Is this where you want our Association to go?
Acceptance of “the offer” means not just ceasing financial assistance but total abandonment of those 49ers who wish to continue the legal actions in pursuit of a negotiated settlement that meets our stated and agreed objectives. The agreement also denies legal recourse to any 49ers who accept “the offer” should CPA abuse the employment application procedure.
In recommending “the offer” to the Membership, it has frequently been stated that it should be accepted because then “…those who wish to come back to work may do so, and those who wish to continue to sue the company may continue to pursue that course…” i.e. acceptance is being represented as the best of both worlds.
This is a misleading misrepresentation of the facts.
Please examine the Agreement between CPA and the HKAOA, section 3 on pages 2 & 3: “The HKAOA’s Obligation”
Under this section, the Agreement requires the HKAOA immediately to cease provision of:
financial assistance
advice
facilities
or even encouragement
to any of the following:
any of the 49ers
any individual, corporation, unincorporated organisation, society or union which seeks to assist any 49er
in any existing or future Legal Action against CPA and any subsidiary or holding company of CPA, including any subsidiary of a holding company of CPA, and their officers and employees, both past and present.
Quite apart from withdrawing financial assistance to the 49ers, this agreement means that HKAOA Officers and Members would not be permitted to assist the 49ers in any way whatsoever with their legal actions against CPA and they may not even be allowed to offer to testify in such matters, except on behalf of the company.
This seeks to remove one of the few protections that are conferred by Section S72B(1)(a) of the Employment Ordinance; your right not to be dismissed, threatened with dismissal or otherwise discriminated against for giving evidence or agreeing to give evidence in a legal action brought under the Ordinance.
Such an agreement would also be binding on any future GC that might seek to take a different path from that being currently espoused. Is this where you want our Association to go?
Acceptance of “the offer” means not just ceasing financial assistance but total abandonment of those 49ers who wish to continue the legal actions in pursuit of a negotiated settlement that meets our stated and agreed objectives. The agreement also denies legal recourse to any 49ers who accept “the offer” should CPA abuse the employment application procedure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
well, logically, there will be all sorts of huffing and puffing, and various factions will "Continue court action" but it will all fade into obscurity and in three years time not many people will recall the events surrounding this sorry affair..........................
on the plus side will come fairly rapidly no doubt .........
retirement at 60 (or 55+ anyway) which will hopefully be tied to a fairly substantial pay increase, when was the last one 2001 ?
4% x 4 years = 16% so ask for 30% and work back ...............
Various other agreements that are outstanding and (Hopefully) a new era of Cx/AoA co-operation......................
Cathay will continue to expand as fast as possible and will process the re-application of those who wish to go through this somewhat demeaning process, ................
No doubt the freighter boys are waiting with bated breath to welcome the first returning 49'er to the right handseat !!!
on the plus side will come fairly rapidly no doubt .........
retirement at 60 (or 55+ anyway) which will hopefully be tied to a fairly substantial pay increase, when was the last one 2001 ?
4% x 4 years = 16% so ask for 30% and work back ...............
Various other agreements that are outstanding and (Hopefully) a new era of Cx/AoA co-operation......................
Cathay will continue to expand as fast as possible and will process the re-application of those who wish to go through this somewhat demeaning process, ................
No doubt the freighter boys are waiting with bated breath to welcome the first returning 49'er to the right handseat !!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a sad, sad story, going absolutely nowhere!
Haven't you guys heard about the 89' dispute in OZ??
OR, have you conveniently forgotten about it??
After 4 yrs this is a nowhere exercise!!
Haven't you guys heard about the 89' dispute in OZ??
OR, have you conveniently forgotten about it??
After 4 yrs this is a nowhere exercise!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Vote: 2 out of 3
Union accepts Cathay offer for sacked pilots Members reject increased dues to fund legal action, reversing earlier 'no' vote on airline's settlement
Cathay Pacific pilots have done a U-turn and voted to accept an offer of 10 -month payouts or job interviews for the group of sacked pilots known as the 49ers.
With weeks to go before the airline's May 16 deadline for the withdrawal of the offer, the Aircrew Officers Association voted to accept it - after narrowly rejecting it at a meeting two months ago.
The vote, taken at an extraordinary meeting of the union, effectively ends one of the longest disputes in world aviation.
The 49ers were dismissed by Cathay during a bitter 2001 dispute over pay and rosters, and have been supported by union members for the 31/2 years since.
The union, which backed the Cathay offer, warned members after the "no" vote in February that they faced a "very real membership crisis" if they continued to pay for costly court cases over the sackings.
But a majority of the 49ers wanted the union to continue supporting them and their legal actions, believing they could ultimately win more through legal actions in Hong Kong, Britain and Australia.
The union has been paying up to $ 25,000 a month to each of the sacked pilots since 2001, pushing union dues up to 5 per cent of salaries and leading to a sharp fall in union membership.
February's motion to accept the Cathay offer narrowly failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority after a bitter debate between rival union factions.
At a follow-up extraordinary meeting earlier this month, the union asked members to either vote in favour of a huge increase in union dues to continue the legal fight or to consider accepting the Cathay offer after all.
Members voted overwhelmingly against increasing dues. About 73 per cent of members then voted to reverse February's decision and accept the Cathay offer.
The vote represents a major victory for union leader Murray Gardner and fellow committee members who have been battling to stem a fall in membership numbers as a result of the dispute, and can now sharply reduce union dues.
But it is also expected to lead to resignations by hard-core members who believed the union had a moral responsibility to continue supporting the legal action of the 49ers.
Some of the 49ers are expected to refuse to accept the pay-offs or job interviews and to continue legal actions, but they will no longer be funded by the union.
The union - which had about 1,300 members in 2001 - now counts only 925 of the airline's 1,912 pilots as members.
Most of the 49ers wanted to continue with their legal battle, and supporters accused the union committee of bad faith for resubmitting the Cathay offer to members.
One of the pilots who voted 'no' to the Cathay offer said: "The 49ers and their supporters are very disappointed by this development."
A spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific, said: "This settlement will enable both parties to move forward together to grow a stronger airline."
Cathay Pacific pilots have done a U-turn and voted to accept an offer of 10 -month payouts or job interviews for the group of sacked pilots known as the 49ers.
With weeks to go before the airline's May 16 deadline for the withdrawal of the offer, the Aircrew Officers Association voted to accept it - after narrowly rejecting it at a meeting two months ago.
The vote, taken at an extraordinary meeting of the union, effectively ends one of the longest disputes in world aviation.
The 49ers were dismissed by Cathay during a bitter 2001 dispute over pay and rosters, and have been supported by union members for the 31/2 years since.
The union, which backed the Cathay offer, warned members after the "no" vote in February that they faced a "very real membership crisis" if they continued to pay for costly court cases over the sackings.
But a majority of the 49ers wanted the union to continue supporting them and their legal actions, believing they could ultimately win more through legal actions in Hong Kong, Britain and Australia.
The union has been paying up to $ 25,000 a month to each of the sacked pilots since 2001, pushing union dues up to 5 per cent of salaries and leading to a sharp fall in union membership.
February's motion to accept the Cathay offer narrowly failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority after a bitter debate between rival union factions.
At a follow-up extraordinary meeting earlier this month, the union asked members to either vote in favour of a huge increase in union dues to continue the legal fight or to consider accepting the Cathay offer after all.
Members voted overwhelmingly against increasing dues. About 73 per cent of members then voted to reverse February's decision and accept the Cathay offer.
The vote represents a major victory for union leader Murray Gardner and fellow committee members who have been battling to stem a fall in membership numbers as a result of the dispute, and can now sharply reduce union dues.
But it is also expected to lead to resignations by hard-core members who believed the union had a moral responsibility to continue supporting the legal action of the 49ers.
Some of the 49ers are expected to refuse to accept the pay-offs or job interviews and to continue legal actions, but they will no longer be funded by the union.
The union - which had about 1,300 members in 2001 - now counts only 925 of the airline's 1,912 pilots as members.
Most of the 49ers wanted to continue with their legal battle, and supporters accused the union committee of bad faith for resubmitting the Cathay offer to members.
One of the pilots who voted 'no' to the Cathay offer said: "The 49ers and their supporters are very disappointed by this development."
A spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific, said: "This settlement will enable both parties to move forward together to grow a stronger airline."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: honkers
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vote, taken at an extraordinary meeting of the union, effectively ends one of the longest disputes in world aviation.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the AOA has more than fulfilled its obligations to the forty niners, many, if not all, of whom, probably deserved their fate at the time.
That anyone would still wish to continue being financially supported by former colleagues four years after the event is rather sad, if not shameless.
That anyone would still wish to continue being financially supported by former colleagues four years after the event is rather sad, if not shameless.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is your head in 6' of sand buddy? Although PP may strike a nerve with his statement of the 49rs, it is true that the majority took advantage of an overly generous payment scheme and I too find it shameful that some would continue to collect charity handouts from the union. It's called milking the system and I for one would never due it! But then some guys just don't have any pride or morals do they?