Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union
Any you think it will stop? Seems they are trying to stop everybody from going to court. When was the last time CX finished a court case and won? Seems they want a month by month salary adjustment.
Comments From Cathay’s FAU (Flight Attendants Union)
Our purpose in going to court:
To assert our rights to
• automatic grade jump since 1999 so that we can pursue the salary loss due to the
non-payment of grade jump and the diminishing pay scale since 1999
• continue to be paid according to the traditional pay scale (auto grade jump on top
of any increase) since 1999
Points to consider if we settle out of court
• Public confrontation avoided
• A win/win situation if terms are mutually satisfactory
• No more action possible against the company regarding contractual pay system
• No judgment and therefore no case precedent established in Hong Kong law
• No guarantee of auto grade jump
• Company can continue to apply the diminishing pay scale which they have
adopted since 2000
What was not mentioned in the latest CCNL are the conditions for settlement set out by the Company:-
· The FAU obtain written agreement from the three Plaintiffs in the upcoming High Court action (HCA6733/1999 and HCA3377/2003) to drop their case against the Company.
2 The FAU agree not to support any individual (whether currently or previously employed by the Company) to sue the Company on matters relating to past pay and the years covered under the existing proposal.
· The FAU acknowledge that the Company reserves the right to adjust further salary increments as its own unquestionable judgment based on: [a] the Company’s performance and ability to pay, [b] the principle of “more work, more reward”, [c] the Hong Kong economic situation and competitive environment.
Apart from this last condition (which simply states the obvious), you will see that the Company was only prepared to settle under conditions that amount to EXTREME PREJUDICE. Now, we will turn to the summary of events in the YEN:-
Date EVENTS
8 Dec 2004 1st meeting with ISD -
ISD offered $5 million as “welfare fund” to be distributed to FAU Members; a 2.5% raise for 2005 ; 2% raise for 2006 & 2007 with the above conditions.
The $5million was an estimated amount of legal costs that the company would save if the court case can be avoided. They believe there are no past dues of crew's salaries.
FAU requested a detailed analysis of numbers, by category and date of joining, for full sharing of information in order to reach a settlement that would be reasonable and justifiable.
Your Exco take great pride in negotiating with good faith. In preparation for the YEN, with very imited resources and cooperation from the ISD, your Exco have gone to great lengths to prepare comprehensive remuneration and benefit packages for all Monthly and Hourly Paid Crew. When it became obvious that ISD would never provide the required data in detail and therefore once again showed no genuine desire to negotiate in good faith, we saw no point in continuing this fruitless and frustrating exercise in pursuit of a settlement out of court…
And now, take out your 2004 salary slip and find yourself on the following tables. Then you should have no difficulty in understanding why your Exco and all those members present at the EGM and Tung Chung Forum unanimously rejected Cathay Pacific’s proposal. Should you have difficulties in understanding the tables below, please contact us at the FAU for clarification.
4
What the company tried to show you in the CCNL is what they offered as an out-of-court settlement deal.
What we are showing you in this Infauline is that their offer is a bad deal and we would
benefit more by pursuing our case in court.
11
Aftermaths…
At the first ISD/FAU regular meeting on 11 January, ISD asked FAU to remove the FAU mailbox in the SM room. There is a little story behind this FAU mailbox…
Since the Options in 1999, ISD has been very hostile to FAU and even refused to allow FAU to place a mailbox in the ISM room. Then, a few months ago, FAU staff found a very suspicious box in the crew mail room with “FAU Collection Box” written on it. We had no idea how many “Disclaimer Letters “ or important members’ communications might have been dropped in this box and got lost as it had no locking device.
We asked ISD to conduct an investigation and afterwards the box was returned to us at a recent YEN meeting. We then suggested to put the box in the ISM room. With a very jovial chuckle, MCCR Richard
Sell said, “I thought you were going to say that”…We construed his humourous friendliness as an agreement. (Remember that any agreement can be expressed orally, in writing or by conduct.) So, on
Christmas Eve, we placed a lockable FAU Mailbox in the ISM Room and there was no objection – until the negotiations were broken down by ISD management…
We have no doubt about the genuine personal desire of MCCR to re-build industrial relationship, but we
do understand and sympathise that his freedom to operate is severely restricted by top management policy. Their lack of integrity and habitual refusal to negotiate in good faith with staff unions are now legendary around Hong Kong and the world. Their latest “breakdown” of the recent negotiations and their subsequent attitude was just too predictable.
Well, you can easily imagine what was their answer to our latest request to revert bi-monthly to monthly meetings…
We would like you to ponder upon these points:
Would it make any difference to the way Management treat us whether we win or lose the upcoming court case on annual increment?
Some people may believe avoiding the confrontation will somehow make management treat us better, but with their track record, can anyone guarantee that we will be better off if we settle out of court?
12
We will watch upcoming court proceedings with interest, to see if the Company will maintain this policy of withholding data and refusing to deal in GOOD FAITH.
Finally, remember the old saying:
Don’t make the same mistake twice!
Comments From Cathay’s FAU (Flight Attendants Union)
Our purpose in going to court:
To assert our rights to
• automatic grade jump since 1999 so that we can pursue the salary loss due to the
non-payment of grade jump and the diminishing pay scale since 1999
• continue to be paid according to the traditional pay scale (auto grade jump on top
of any increase) since 1999
Points to consider if we settle out of court
• Public confrontation avoided
• A win/win situation if terms are mutually satisfactory
• No more action possible against the company regarding contractual pay system
• No judgment and therefore no case precedent established in Hong Kong law
• No guarantee of auto grade jump
• Company can continue to apply the diminishing pay scale which they have
adopted since 2000
What was not mentioned in the latest CCNL are the conditions for settlement set out by the Company:-
· The FAU obtain written agreement from the three Plaintiffs in the upcoming High Court action (HCA6733/1999 and HCA3377/2003) to drop their case against the Company.
2 The FAU agree not to support any individual (whether currently or previously employed by the Company) to sue the Company on matters relating to past pay and the years covered under the existing proposal.
· The FAU acknowledge that the Company reserves the right to adjust further salary increments as its own unquestionable judgment based on: [a] the Company’s performance and ability to pay, [b] the principle of “more work, more reward”, [c] the Hong Kong economic situation and competitive environment.
Apart from this last condition (which simply states the obvious), you will see that the Company was only prepared to settle under conditions that amount to EXTREME PREJUDICE. Now, we will turn to the summary of events in the YEN:-
Date EVENTS
8 Dec 2004 1st meeting with ISD -
ISD offered $5 million as “welfare fund” to be distributed to FAU Members; a 2.5% raise for 2005 ; 2% raise for 2006 & 2007 with the above conditions.
The $5million was an estimated amount of legal costs that the company would save if the court case can be avoided. They believe there are no past dues of crew's salaries.
FAU requested a detailed analysis of numbers, by category and date of joining, for full sharing of information in order to reach a settlement that would be reasonable and justifiable.
Your Exco take great pride in negotiating with good faith. In preparation for the YEN, with very imited resources and cooperation from the ISD, your Exco have gone to great lengths to prepare comprehensive remuneration and benefit packages for all Monthly and Hourly Paid Crew. When it became obvious that ISD would never provide the required data in detail and therefore once again showed no genuine desire to negotiate in good faith, we saw no point in continuing this fruitless and frustrating exercise in pursuit of a settlement out of court…
And now, take out your 2004 salary slip and find yourself on the following tables. Then you should have no difficulty in understanding why your Exco and all those members present at the EGM and Tung Chung Forum unanimously rejected Cathay Pacific’s proposal. Should you have difficulties in understanding the tables below, please contact us at the FAU for clarification.
4
What the company tried to show you in the CCNL is what they offered as an out-of-court settlement deal.
What we are showing you in this Infauline is that their offer is a bad deal and we would
benefit more by pursuing our case in court.
11
Aftermaths…
At the first ISD/FAU regular meeting on 11 January, ISD asked FAU to remove the FAU mailbox in the SM room. There is a little story behind this FAU mailbox…
Since the Options in 1999, ISD has been very hostile to FAU and even refused to allow FAU to place a mailbox in the ISM room. Then, a few months ago, FAU staff found a very suspicious box in the crew mail room with “FAU Collection Box” written on it. We had no idea how many “Disclaimer Letters “ or important members’ communications might have been dropped in this box and got lost as it had no locking device.
We asked ISD to conduct an investigation and afterwards the box was returned to us at a recent YEN meeting. We then suggested to put the box in the ISM room. With a very jovial chuckle, MCCR Richard
Sell said, “I thought you were going to say that”…We construed his humourous friendliness as an agreement. (Remember that any agreement can be expressed orally, in writing or by conduct.) So, on
Christmas Eve, we placed a lockable FAU Mailbox in the ISM Room and there was no objection – until the negotiations were broken down by ISD management…
We have no doubt about the genuine personal desire of MCCR to re-build industrial relationship, but we
do understand and sympathise that his freedom to operate is severely restricted by top management policy. Their lack of integrity and habitual refusal to negotiate in good faith with staff unions are now legendary around Hong Kong and the world. Their latest “breakdown” of the recent negotiations and their subsequent attitude was just too predictable.
Well, you can easily imagine what was their answer to our latest request to revert bi-monthly to monthly meetings…
We would like you to ponder upon these points:
Would it make any difference to the way Management treat us whether we win or lose the upcoming court case on annual increment?
Some people may believe avoiding the confrontation will somehow make management treat us better, but with their track record, can anyone guarantee that we will be better off if we settle out of court?
12
We will watch upcoming court proceedings with interest, to see if the Company will maintain this policy of withholding data and refusing to deal in GOOD FAITH.
Finally, remember the old saying:
Don’t make the same mistake twice!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one FR, cripes do I detect the semblance of a sense of humour? But in this case you are as usual wrong. The FA are a group that certainly have been hard done by and I wish them all the best in their arrempt to 'right the wrongs'. They are certainly not a pampered, overpaid bunch of ingrates.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never seems to stop at this place does it.
HEADLINE: Aircrew challenge inflight rest ruling
BODY:
Polly Hui
A Cathay Pacific staff union has applied for a judicial review of the director -general of civil aviation's approval of a new inflight rest schedule, which they claim significantly reduces their minimum resting time on long-haul journeys.
The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union, one of the airline's largest unions, argues in a High Court writ that it filed yesterday that the change is in breach of the Civil Aviation Department's guidelines.
The guidelines contain standard provisions designed to avoid fatigue in aircrew.
The union says the department has a statutory duty to enforce the guidelines.
According to the union, the differences between "minimum bunk rest" - or sleeping time - for flight attendants in the new schedule and in the guidelines can be as much as five hours.
For instance, a cabin-crew member serving on board for 18 to 19 hours would be given a minimum of 4.5 hours of sleeping time under the new practice, compared with the eight to 10 hours required by department guidelines.
The group is seeking High Court action to declare the approval of the schedule by the department's director-general unlawful.
The schedule, effective from January 1, raised concerns about cabin crew fatigue and long-haul flight safety.
The writ also says the union was only made aware of the schedule in December.
It says sufficient rest for crew members is important because they need to be responsive to the needs of passengers and react promptly in times of emergency.
But in a letter to the union last month, the director-general denied the decision was made unlawfully, arguing that the schedule was consistent with the guidelines.
BODY:
Polly Hui
A Cathay Pacific staff union has applied for a judicial review of the director -general of civil aviation's approval of a new inflight rest schedule, which they claim significantly reduces their minimum resting time on long-haul journeys.
The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union, one of the airline's largest unions, argues in a High Court writ that it filed yesterday that the change is in breach of the Civil Aviation Department's guidelines.
The guidelines contain standard provisions designed to avoid fatigue in aircrew.
The union says the department has a statutory duty to enforce the guidelines.
According to the union, the differences between "minimum bunk rest" - or sleeping time - for flight attendants in the new schedule and in the guidelines can be as much as five hours.
For instance, a cabin-crew member serving on board for 18 to 19 hours would be given a minimum of 4.5 hours of sleeping time under the new practice, compared with the eight to 10 hours required by department guidelines.
The group is seeking High Court action to declare the approval of the schedule by the department's director-general unlawful.
The schedule, effective from January 1, raised concerns about cabin crew fatigue and long-haul flight safety.
The writ also says the union was only made aware of the schedule in December.
It says sufficient rest for crew members is important because they need to be responsive to the needs of passengers and react promptly in times of emergency.
But in a letter to the union last month, the director-general denied the decision was made unlawfully, arguing that the schedule was consistent with the guidelines.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay pay-rise row lands in court
Three Cathay Pacific flight attendants took the airline to court yesterday, arguing it had breached their contracts by denying them automatic pay rises.
The outcome of the case will affect more than 4,000 present and former attendants hired before 1996.
Esperanza Cruz Lajom, Calleja Maria Victoria Santos and Sushil Dev Biaspal are seeking a declaration on behalf of the 4,000 that flight attendants are entitled under their contracts to be moved automatically one grade every year on the salary and rank allowances scales.
The plaintiff's legal fight has the backing of the Flight Attendants Union, which negotiates members' work conditions with the company.
John Scott, SC, for the flight attendants, argued in the Court of First Instance that the automatic advancement should be determined by a worker's "seniority", not performance or other factors.
"Seniority is defined by the years of service ... There is no discretion for the employer to change that," he said.
The attendants claimed Cathay announced in December 1998 that there would be no annual increment the next year because of the Asian economic crisis.
They said the automatic grade advancement was terminated as a result.
Flight attendants were only offered their expected 3.5 per cent pay rise if they agreed to increase their monthly maximum working hours from 72 to 76.
They also argued the freeze had significantly affected their salaries in the subsequent years.
But Bob Nipperess, a witness for Cathay who worked as a cabin crew manager in the late-1980s, told the court that in 1991 the airline introduced a merit -based element into the system that had previously determined promotions by a worker's years of service.
The change was intended to recognise the different contribution made by individual employees.
The hearing will continue today before Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes.
The outcome of the case will affect more than 4,000 present and former attendants hired before 1996.
Esperanza Cruz Lajom, Calleja Maria Victoria Santos and Sushil Dev Biaspal are seeking a declaration on behalf of the 4,000 that flight attendants are entitled under their contracts to be moved automatically one grade every year on the salary and rank allowances scales.
The plaintiff's legal fight has the backing of the Flight Attendants Union, which negotiates members' work conditions with the company.
John Scott, SC, for the flight attendants, argued in the Court of First Instance that the automatic advancement should be determined by a worker's "seniority", not performance or other factors.
"Seniority is defined by the years of service ... There is no discretion for the employer to change that," he said.
The attendants claimed Cathay announced in December 1998 that there would be no annual increment the next year because of the Asian economic crisis.
They said the automatic grade advancement was terminated as a result.
Flight attendants were only offered their expected 3.5 per cent pay rise if they agreed to increase their monthly maximum working hours from 72 to 76.
They also argued the freeze had significantly affected their salaries in the subsequent years.
But Bob Nipperess, a witness for Cathay who worked as a cabin crew manager in the late-1980s, told the court that in 1991 the airline introduced a merit -based element into the system that had previously determined promotions by a worker's years of service.
The change was intended to recognise the different contribution made by individual employees.
The hearing will continue today before Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A court case relating to annual increments for monthly paid cabin crew began in the High Court on Wednesday (23 February). The case has been filed against the company by three monthly paid crewmembers (one of who has since left the company).
The crew say that, first, they are contractually entitled to advance on the Master Pay Scale by one point with effect from 1 January each year and, second, claim the effect of the point jump would be a fixed pay increase of around 3.5% annually.
The case dates back to 1999 when the company was facing unprecedented challenges. At the time the company was able to remain viable and competitive only through the enhanced productivity and valuable contribution of its staff.
Despite efforts to reach an agreement on the annual increment issue, it is regrettable that the case will have to be resolved through legal proceedings. This will cause an unnecessary strain on our industrial and employee relations that will not be in the interests of staff, the company or the Flight Attendants Union, which is supporting and funding the court case.
The legal arguments from both sides will be heard in court and I do not intend to go into them here.
The volatile industry environment has made regular annual salary increments untenable. It is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on its performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.
When business is good, all employees benefit and we can continue to reward staff with appropriate salary adjustments, bonus payments and profit share - as we have done in the past.
We take pride in being a responsible employer. We are proud to say we have been rewarding our crew with salary increments well above the average in Hong Kong. At the same time, we are very aware of the need to maintain our competitiveness and viability, and also to meet the company’s investment needs for future growth.
This year and beyond will continue to be challenging for the company. We need to continue to work together as a team to make Cathay Pacific stronger and to achieve our vision of being the world's most admired airline.
The crew say that, first, they are contractually entitled to advance on the Master Pay Scale by one point with effect from 1 January each year and, second, claim the effect of the point jump would be a fixed pay increase of around 3.5% annually.
The case dates back to 1999 when the company was facing unprecedented challenges. At the time the company was able to remain viable and competitive only through the enhanced productivity and valuable contribution of its staff.
Despite efforts to reach an agreement on the annual increment issue, it is regrettable that the case will have to be resolved through legal proceedings. This will cause an unnecessary strain on our industrial and employee relations that will not be in the interests of staff, the company or the Flight Attendants Union, which is supporting and funding the court case.
The legal arguments from both sides will be heard in court and I do not intend to go into them here.
The volatile industry environment has made regular annual salary increments untenable. It is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on its performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.
When business is good, all employees benefit and we can continue to reward staff with appropriate salary adjustments, bonus payments and profit share - as we have done in the past.
We take pride in being a responsible employer. We are proud to say we have been rewarding our crew with salary increments well above the average in Hong Kong. At the same time, we are very aware of the need to maintain our competitiveness and viability, and also to meet the company’s investment needs for future growth.
This year and beyond will continue to be challenging for the company. We need to continue to work together as a team to make Cathay Pacific stronger and to achieve our vision of being the world's most admired airline.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a surprise. A company statement that ends with the usual warning that time are 'challenging' and 'difficult'. I don't think that in the past 10 years there has been a company statement that DOESN'T end with warnings of doom and gloom. Perhaps just once they could see fit to end on a positive note....?
ps. how many more lawsuits from employees is this company going to cause?
ps. how many more lawsuits from employees is this company going to cause?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight attendants victorious in court case against Cathay Company could have to pay out $ 350m after judge rules it was in breach of employment contracts
The Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union has scored a surprising legal victory in a long-running dispute over pay and promotion, which could cost the airline as much as $ 350 million.
The landmark judgment could pave the way for 4,000 present and former flight attendants - hired before 1996 - to seek back-pay from Cathay dating back to 1999.
Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Court of First Instance ruled yesterday that Cathay Pacific was in breach of its employment contracts with three flight attendants by scrapping long-standing annual pay rises in 1998.
He ruled that the employment contracts of Esperanza Cruz Lajom, Maria Victoria Santos Calleja and Sushil Dev Biaspal entitled them to annual automatic advancements in rank and pay.
The judge said Cathay could not unilaterally vary the agreed pay scale with flight attendants.
Union leader Becky Kwan, flanked by Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal, said outside court she was "very pleased" with the outcome.
"We are confident that, as a responsible company, Cathay Pacific will honour and enforce the judgment made by the court."
But she said the union regretted that the dispute with Cathay Pacific had to be decided in court. She was congratulated by a group of more than 20 jubilant flight attendants outside the courtroom. The union estimated the court victory could cost the airline $ 350 million.
An airline spokesperson said, "it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the flight attendants generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs".
Backed by the union, the trio launched their lawsuit in 1999 against the airline's decision in December 1998 to drop the long-standing automatic advancement.
The airline's move came after the 1997 Asian economic crisis. The trio subsequently initiated another legal proceeding against Cathay Pacific in 2003, after the introduction of a new pay scale. They contended the new pay scale effectively reduced their salaries, despite promotions.
Under the automatic advancement scheme, flight attendants were entitled to automatic promotion of one rank after completing a full year of service.
This automatic progression was accompanied by a pay rise, determined by a pay scale.
Mr Justice Reyes said in his ruling, which covered both lawsuits, that there was an implicit promise in the flight attendants' pay scale, meaning that upon completion of a year of service, they would progress to the next point on the pay scale and receive the matching salary.
Mrs Calleja said outside court that the legal victory was "bittersweet" because this came after a tortuous legal process. She left the company in 2001 Both Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal, who is still with the airline, reckoned that they were each owed roughly $ 100,000.
The Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union has scored a surprising legal victory in a long-running dispute over pay and promotion, which could cost the airline as much as $ 350 million.
The landmark judgment could pave the way for 4,000 present and former flight attendants - hired before 1996 - to seek back-pay from Cathay dating back to 1999.
Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Court of First Instance ruled yesterday that Cathay Pacific was in breach of its employment contracts with three flight attendants by scrapping long-standing annual pay rises in 1998.
He ruled that the employment contracts of Esperanza Cruz Lajom, Maria Victoria Santos Calleja and Sushil Dev Biaspal entitled them to annual automatic advancements in rank and pay.
The judge said Cathay could not unilaterally vary the agreed pay scale with flight attendants.
Union leader Becky Kwan, flanked by Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal, said outside court she was "very pleased" with the outcome.
"We are confident that, as a responsible company, Cathay Pacific will honour and enforce the judgment made by the court."
But she said the union regretted that the dispute with Cathay Pacific had to be decided in court. She was congratulated by a group of more than 20 jubilant flight attendants outside the courtroom. The union estimated the court victory could cost the airline $ 350 million.
An airline spokesperson said, "it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the flight attendants generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs".
Backed by the union, the trio launched their lawsuit in 1999 against the airline's decision in December 1998 to drop the long-standing automatic advancement.
The airline's move came after the 1997 Asian economic crisis. The trio subsequently initiated another legal proceeding against Cathay Pacific in 2003, after the introduction of a new pay scale. They contended the new pay scale effectively reduced their salaries, despite promotions.
Under the automatic advancement scheme, flight attendants were entitled to automatic promotion of one rank after completing a full year of service.
This automatic progression was accompanied by a pay rise, determined by a pay scale.
Mr Justice Reyes said in his ruling, which covered both lawsuits, that there was an implicit promise in the flight attendants' pay scale, meaning that upon completion of a year of service, they would progress to the next point on the pay scale and receive the matching salary.
Mrs Calleja said outside court that the legal victory was "bittersweet" because this came after a tortuous legal process. She left the company in 2001 Both Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal, who is still with the airline, reckoned that they were each owed roughly $ 100,000.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jizzmonkey, it was meant tongue in cheek, you know a bit of humour, 
Guess it was wasted!
What is worrying though is the amount of court cases the company has been, is being faced with, a bit of a worrying trend don't you think.
Guess it was wasted!What is worrying though is the amount of court cases the company has been, is being faced with, a bit of a worrying trend don't you think.
Guest
Posts: n/a
and the relevance of this to the court action of the 49'er's...........is........................................ ...................NIL
Tamalai, before you post such irrelevant nonsense again would you please read the title of the thread - thanks, BE
Tamalai, before you post such irrelevant nonsense again would you please read the title of the thread - thanks, BE
Last edited by BlueEagle; 7th Mar 2005 at 22:04.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I apologise, I read the title of this FORUM being "Fragrant Harbour" a place for PILOTS living and working in Hong Kong but I must have missed the bit about "and Flight attendants", I'll go back and look again after I've finished this, so, I mistakenly thought the idea of the posts about court cases/flight attendants was to show that Cathay was WRONG and LOST and that this would garner support for the pilots court case....................
But in my Humble opinion the two are about as alike as Murder and a parking ticket and the fact that some trolley dollys are going to get a few increments has no relevance as to any merit that the pilots case may or may not have........................
Perhaps someone will start a thread about
Once again My most Humble apologies !!!
But in my Humble opinion the two are about as alike as Murder and a parking ticket and the fact that some trolley dollys are going to get a few increments has no relevance as to any merit that the pilots case may or may not have........................
Perhaps someone will start a thread about
Once again My most Humble apologies !!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay Pacific accused of censorship
HONG KONG: Cathay Pacific was accused on Friday of censorship after it removed newspaper cuttings about a flight attendants' pay dispute from a union notice board at its headquarters here._
Management removed the clippings from the Flight Attendants Union notice board in the cabin crew lounge, saying staff must be given only “accurate and unbiased information.”_
The action comes ahead of a union-funded High Court case here on Wednesday when Cathay will be accused of breach of contract. _
Three flight attendants will claim Cathay unlawfully denied them automatic annual pay rises in a case which has implications for thousands of employees.
The victors want the judgment to be representative and apply to all affected flight attendants.
Flight attendants battling to recover unpaid annual pay increases from Cathay Pacific Airways on Friday won their class action against the airline.
Funded by their union, three flight attendants - Cruz Lajom, Santos Calleja and Dev Biaspal - started legal action against the territory\'s flagship carrier in April 1999 on behalf of 4,000 co-workers affected by the termination of the automatic promotion and the pay-rise system.
The ruling in the Court of First Instance could benefit up to 4,000 Cathay staff to the tune of HK$350 million. However, in his 51-page ruling, Justice Anselmo Reyes said: “I do not believe that my judgment can apply to any flight attendant other than Ms Lajom, Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal.”
“The three flight attendants wanted the judgment to be representative\'\' and to apply to all those affected.
The attendants did not seek damages from the airline, but a declaration that attendants were contractually entitled to annual pay increases stemming from automatic promotions after finishing a full year of service.
Last month, the court heard this long-standing practice, in place since 1979, was dropped by the airline in late 1998, after the Asian economic crisis. The plaintiffs\' contracts provided for automatic advancement at the end of each year of service,\'\' Justice Reyes said in his judgment.
Once a flight attendant reached the final grade of the salary scale, there would be no further advancement, unless new grades were created.
The salary of a person on the final grade would only rise by any annual cost of living or other revision in the amount attributable to that last grade.\'\'
Counsel for Cathay Pacific Adrian Huggins argued that there were ``simply no words\'\' in the various contracts to indicate an intention that flight attendants would advance one grade at the end of each year.
Bob Nipperess, the airline\'s manager of cabin crew in the 1990s, told John Scott, lawyer for the flight attendants, that since 1991 the airline had tried to introduce a ``merit element\'\' into the company\'s promotion practice, rather than one based on longevity.
Speaking after the judgment, Flight Attendant Union chairman Becky Kwan said members were very happy. ``We\'re confident that Cathay Pacific is a very responsible company,\'\' Kwan said. “I\'m sure they will observe, honor and enforce the judgment made by the court of law.\'\'
Should that not happen, the flight attendants will take the airline to the labor tribunal, Kwan added. The union represents more than 4,100 people - roughly 70 percent of the airline\'s flight crew community, Kwan said.
Cathay Pacific Airways said: “We will be studying the judgment carefully in consultation with our legal advisers before deciding on any course of action. “In particular, it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the cabin crew generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs.
“We continue to maintain that it is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.\'\'
HONG KONG: Cathay Pacific was accused on Friday of censorship after it removed newspaper cuttings about a flight attendants' pay dispute from a union notice board at its headquarters here._
Management removed the clippings from the Flight Attendants Union notice board in the cabin crew lounge, saying staff must be given only “accurate and unbiased information.”_
The action comes ahead of a union-funded High Court case here on Wednesday when Cathay will be accused of breach of contract. _
Three flight attendants will claim Cathay unlawfully denied them automatic annual pay rises in a case which has implications for thousands of employees.
The victors want the judgment to be representative and apply to all affected flight attendants.
Flight attendants battling to recover unpaid annual pay increases from Cathay Pacific Airways on Friday won their class action against the airline.
Funded by their union, three flight attendants - Cruz Lajom, Santos Calleja and Dev Biaspal - started legal action against the territory\'s flagship carrier in April 1999 on behalf of 4,000 co-workers affected by the termination of the automatic promotion and the pay-rise system.
The ruling in the Court of First Instance could benefit up to 4,000 Cathay staff to the tune of HK$350 million. However, in his 51-page ruling, Justice Anselmo Reyes said: “I do not believe that my judgment can apply to any flight attendant other than Ms Lajom, Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal.”
“The three flight attendants wanted the judgment to be representative\'\' and to apply to all those affected.
The attendants did not seek damages from the airline, but a declaration that attendants were contractually entitled to annual pay increases stemming from automatic promotions after finishing a full year of service.
Last month, the court heard this long-standing practice, in place since 1979, was dropped by the airline in late 1998, after the Asian economic crisis. The plaintiffs\' contracts provided for automatic advancement at the end of each year of service,\'\' Justice Reyes said in his judgment.
Once a flight attendant reached the final grade of the salary scale, there would be no further advancement, unless new grades were created.
The salary of a person on the final grade would only rise by any annual cost of living or other revision in the amount attributable to that last grade.\'\'
Counsel for Cathay Pacific Adrian Huggins argued that there were ``simply no words\'\' in the various contracts to indicate an intention that flight attendants would advance one grade at the end of each year.
Bob Nipperess, the airline\'s manager of cabin crew in the 1990s, told John Scott, lawyer for the flight attendants, that since 1991 the airline had tried to introduce a ``merit element\'\' into the company\'s promotion practice, rather than one based on longevity.
Speaking after the judgment, Flight Attendant Union chairman Becky Kwan said members were very happy. ``We\'re confident that Cathay Pacific is a very responsible company,\'\' Kwan said. “I\'m sure they will observe, honor and enforce the judgment made by the court of law.\'\'
Should that not happen, the flight attendants will take the airline to the labor tribunal, Kwan added. The union represents more than 4,100 people - roughly 70 percent of the airline\'s flight crew community, Kwan said.
Cathay Pacific Airways said: “We will be studying the judgment carefully in consultation with our legal advisers before deciding on any course of action. “In particular, it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the cabin crew generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs.
“We continue to maintain that it is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.\'\'
Last edited by Turbo Beaver; 8th Mar 2005 at 02:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The victors want the judgment to be representative and apply to all affected flight attendants.
Flight attendants battling to recover unpaid annual pay increases from Cathay Pacific Airways on Friday won their class action against the airline.
Funded by their union, three flight attendants - Cruz Lajom, Santos Calleja and Dev Biaspal - started legal action against the territory's flagship carrier in April 1999 on behalf of 4,000 co-workers affected by the termination of the automatic promotion and the pay-rise system.
The ruling in the Court of First Instance could benefit up to 4,000 Cathay staff to the tune of HK$350 million. However, in his 51-page ruling, Justice Anselmo Reyes said: ``I do not believe that my judgment can apply to any flight attendant other than Ms Lajom, Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal.''
The three flight attendants wanted the judgment to be ``representative'' and to apply to all those affected. The attendants did not seek damages from the airline, but a declaration that attendants were contractually entitled to annual pay increases stemming from automatic promotions after finishing a full year of service.
Last month, the court heard this long-standing practice, in place since 1979, was dropped by the airline in late 1998, after the Asian economic crisis.
“The plaintiffs' contracts provided for automatic advancement at the end of each year of service,'' Justice Reyes said in his judgment.
“Once a flight attendant reached the final grade of the salary scale, there would be no further advancement, unless new grades were created.
“The salary of a person on the final grade would only rise by any annual cost of living or other revision in the amount attributable to that last grade.''
Counsel for Cathay Pacific Adrian Huggins argued that there were ``simply no words'' in the various contracts to indicate an intention that flight attendants would advance one grade at the end of each year.
Bob Nipperess, the airline's manager of cabin crew in the 1990s, told John Scott, lawyer for the flight attendants, that since 1991 the airline had tried to introduce a ``merit element'' into the company's promotion practice, rather than one based on longevity.
Speaking after the judgment, Flight Attendant Union chairman Becky Kwan said members were very happy. ``We're confident that Cathay Pacific is a very responsible company,'' Kwan said. “I'm sure they will observe, honor and enforce the judgment made by the court of law.'' Should that not happen, the flight attendants will take the airline to the labor tribunal, Kwan added.
The union represents more than 4,100 people - roughly 70 percent of the airline's flight crew community, Kwan said.
Cathay Pacific Airways said: ``We will be studying the judgment carefully in consultation with our legal advisers before deciding on any course of action.
“In particular, it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the cabin crew generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs.
“We continue to maintain that it is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.''
Flight attendants battling to recover unpaid annual pay increases from Cathay Pacific Airways on Friday won their class action against the airline.
Funded by their union, three flight attendants - Cruz Lajom, Santos Calleja and Dev Biaspal - started legal action against the territory's flagship carrier in April 1999 on behalf of 4,000 co-workers affected by the termination of the automatic promotion and the pay-rise system.
The ruling in the Court of First Instance could benefit up to 4,000 Cathay staff to the tune of HK$350 million. However, in his 51-page ruling, Justice Anselmo Reyes said: ``I do not believe that my judgment can apply to any flight attendant other than Ms Lajom, Ms Calleja and Mr Biaspal.''
The three flight attendants wanted the judgment to be ``representative'' and to apply to all those affected. The attendants did not seek damages from the airline, but a declaration that attendants were contractually entitled to annual pay increases stemming from automatic promotions after finishing a full year of service.
Last month, the court heard this long-standing practice, in place since 1979, was dropped by the airline in late 1998, after the Asian economic crisis.
“The plaintiffs' contracts provided for automatic advancement at the end of each year of service,'' Justice Reyes said in his judgment.
“Once a flight attendant reached the final grade of the salary scale, there would be no further advancement, unless new grades were created.
“The salary of a person on the final grade would only rise by any annual cost of living or other revision in the amount attributable to that last grade.''
Counsel for Cathay Pacific Adrian Huggins argued that there were ``simply no words'' in the various contracts to indicate an intention that flight attendants would advance one grade at the end of each year.
Bob Nipperess, the airline's manager of cabin crew in the 1990s, told John Scott, lawyer for the flight attendants, that since 1991 the airline had tried to introduce a ``merit element'' into the company's promotion practice, rather than one based on longevity.
Speaking after the judgment, Flight Attendant Union chairman Becky Kwan said members were very happy. ``We're confident that Cathay Pacific is a very responsible company,'' Kwan said. “I'm sure they will observe, honor and enforce the judgment made by the court of law.'' Should that not happen, the flight attendants will take the airline to the labor tribunal, Kwan added.
The union represents more than 4,100 people - roughly 70 percent of the airline's flight crew community, Kwan said.
Cathay Pacific Airways said: ``We will be studying the judgment carefully in consultation with our legal advisers before deciding on any course of action.
“In particular, it is not immediately clear how the judgment will impact upon the cabin crew generally, as opposed to the three individual plaintiffs.
“We continue to maintain that it is a fair and reasonable practice for the company to reward staff with increments based on performance and ability to pay, the individual contribution made by staff, competitive market levels and the Hong Kong economic environment.''
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tamalai
PPRuNe is for all comers, provided they abide by the rules of the bulletin board. Whilst this thread, at first sight, may seem more suitable for the Cabin Crew forum the fact is that CX Cabin Crew tend not to use it and their issues can be better dealt with within the Fragrant Harbour forum.
The relevance to the '49ers' situation is that CX can be beaten in a court of law.
The relevance to the '49ers' situation is that CX can be beaten in a court of law.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight attendants line up lawsuits after court ruling on pay rise
Scores of Cathay Pacific flight attendants are lining up to file claims against the airline after a successful High Court challenge over the scrapping of automatic annual pay rises.
Three flight attendants will seek payouts ranging from $ 80,000 to $ 138,000 at Labour Tribunal hearings scheduled for April 13. Meanwhile, new cases are being prepared at a rate of six a day by the union representing cabin crew.
Following the airline's defeat in the High Court, up to 3,400 serving and retired flight attendants hired before 1998 may be entitled to claim the automatic annual increments Cathay abolished during the economic downturn.
Three litigants successfully argued in the Court of First Instance that Cathay was in breach of contract by abolishing the pay scales that existed when they were hired. The case was prepared and funded by the Flight Attendants Union.
The union said it had since sought talks with Cathay to find a way of settling the claims of other flight attendants affected by the ruling but the airline had not responded. "They have snubbed us. We have had no reply," said union leader Becky Kwan Siu-wa.
Ms Kwan said the union did not have enough staff to immediately process the claims of each flight attendant affected by the ruling.
"It is going to take forever so I hope the judge at the Labour Tribunal will do the first three cases and then ask Cathay to sort out the rest of the claims. If we have to take every case individually to the Labour Tribunal, it is going to be a waste of taxpayers' money."
In addition to the three cases scheduled for April 13, about a dozen more cases have been prepared to go before the Labour Tribunal, Ms Kwan said.
If the court decision stands, Cathay could be made to pay up to $ 350 million, according to union estimates, in back-pay to cabin crew hired under the old monthly contracts and denied annual increments.
However, a spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific said yesterday that its lawyers were still studying the court ruling delivered on March 4, and had not yet decided whether to challenge it in the Court of Appeal. An appeal could effectively put on hold any payouts to cabin crew claiming unpaid increments until the matter is settled.
Before the court case, Cathay offered each flight attendant a one-off "goodwill" payment of $ 6,000 to $ 11,000, according to rank, on top of pay rises totalling 7.5 per cent over the next three years.
The out-of-court offer - which would have cost the airline $ 24.3 million - was rejected by the union as "an insult".
Cathay claimed at the hearing that it had been forced to shelve the annual increments because of the economic downturn and increased competition.
It said it had looked after its staff throughout the downturn, paying bonuses and giving other benefits to flight attendants while refusing to cut jobs.
Scores of Cathay Pacific flight attendants are lining up to file claims against the airline after a successful High Court challenge over the scrapping of automatic annual pay rises.
Three flight attendants will seek payouts ranging from $ 80,000 to $ 138,000 at Labour Tribunal hearings scheduled for April 13. Meanwhile, new cases are being prepared at a rate of six a day by the union representing cabin crew.
Following the airline's defeat in the High Court, up to 3,400 serving and retired flight attendants hired before 1998 may be entitled to claim the automatic annual increments Cathay abolished during the economic downturn.
Three litigants successfully argued in the Court of First Instance that Cathay was in breach of contract by abolishing the pay scales that existed when they were hired. The case was prepared and funded by the Flight Attendants Union.
The union said it had since sought talks with Cathay to find a way of settling the claims of other flight attendants affected by the ruling but the airline had not responded. "They have snubbed us. We have had no reply," said union leader Becky Kwan Siu-wa.
Ms Kwan said the union did not have enough staff to immediately process the claims of each flight attendant affected by the ruling.
"It is going to take forever so I hope the judge at the Labour Tribunal will do the first three cases and then ask Cathay to sort out the rest of the claims. If we have to take every case individually to the Labour Tribunal, it is going to be a waste of taxpayers' money."
In addition to the three cases scheduled for April 13, about a dozen more cases have been prepared to go before the Labour Tribunal, Ms Kwan said.
If the court decision stands, Cathay could be made to pay up to $ 350 million, according to union estimates, in back-pay to cabin crew hired under the old monthly contracts and denied annual increments.
However, a spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific said yesterday that its lawyers were still studying the court ruling delivered on March 4, and had not yet decided whether to challenge it in the Court of Appeal. An appeal could effectively put on hold any payouts to cabin crew claiming unpaid increments until the matter is settled.
Before the court case, Cathay offered each flight attendant a one-off "goodwill" payment of $ 6,000 to $ 11,000, according to rank, on top of pay rises totalling 7.5 per cent over the next three years.
The out-of-court offer - which would have cost the airline $ 24.3 million - was rejected by the union as "an insult".
Cathay claimed at the hearing that it had been forced to shelve the annual increments because of the economic downturn and increased competition.
It said it had looked after its staff throughout the downturn, paying bonuses and giving other benefits to flight attendants while refusing to cut jobs.