CX Pilots Case Thrown Out of LA Court
Guest
Posts: n/a
CX Pilots Case Thrown Out of LA Court
Former Cathay Pacific pilots' cases dismissed by California court
The California court yesterday, December 14, dismissed claims made by former Cathay Pacific pilots who had filed for wrongful termination. The court agreed with Cathay Pacific Airways that it is not an appropriate forum to deal with these claims.
The judge ruled that the nine former Cathay Pacific pilots should take their claims to Hong Kong if they wanted to pursue their cases. Under a technicality, three of the nine - who are allegedly California residents - have had their cases stayed. The practical effect of the ruling is that all nine pilots will now need to pursue any claims in the Hong Kong courts.
Cathay Pacific has always believed this cause of action in the California courts was fundamentally misguided. The former company pilots concerned were employed in Hong Kong and, under Hong Kong law, if any dispute needs to be resolved, the Hong Kong courts should deal with it.
Cathay Pacific's Director Corporate Development, Tony Tyler said: "We welcome the court's decision that this is, of course, a matter which should be dealt with by Hong Kong's courts. These former employees who feel they have a case to be heard will now need to have this addressed in Hong Kong, as is fit and proper.
"This is, of course, the second victory for common sense in the past 24 hours. Yesterday, Hong Kong's High Court refused to grant an injunction sought by First Officer Murray Gardner to block the company implementing new roster practices introduced in August 2001. The decision allows Cathay Pacific to continue to implement roster practice changes introduced in August 2001 (RP 2001) and confirmed the Company's argument that the issue can only be resolved at a full trial."
The California court yesterday, December 14, dismissed claims made by former Cathay Pacific pilots who had filed for wrongful termination. The court agreed with Cathay Pacific Airways that it is not an appropriate forum to deal with these claims.
The judge ruled that the nine former Cathay Pacific pilots should take their claims to Hong Kong if they wanted to pursue their cases. Under a technicality, three of the nine - who are allegedly California residents - have had their cases stayed. The practical effect of the ruling is that all nine pilots will now need to pursue any claims in the Hong Kong courts.
Cathay Pacific has always believed this cause of action in the California courts was fundamentally misguided. The former company pilots concerned were employed in Hong Kong and, under Hong Kong law, if any dispute needs to be resolved, the Hong Kong courts should deal with it.
Cathay Pacific's Director Corporate Development, Tony Tyler said: "We welcome the court's decision that this is, of course, a matter which should be dealt with by Hong Kong's courts. These former employees who feel they have a case to be heard will now need to have this addressed in Hong Kong, as is fit and proper.
"This is, of course, the second victory for common sense in the past 24 hours. Yesterday, Hong Kong's High Court refused to grant an injunction sought by First Officer Murray Gardner to block the company implementing new roster practices introduced in August 2001. The decision allows Cathay Pacific to continue to implement roster practice changes introduced in August 2001 (RP 2001) and confirmed the Company's argument that the issue can only be resolved at a full trial."
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we already know that in Hong Kong you can be sacked with your normal notice for no reason so clearly Cathay will be happy with this. Not much in the way of employee rights in Hong Kong!
It is possible that the pilots were trying to approach it from the point that if Cathay have a business address in the US then US law could be applied. They were wrong, according to the US court. It has been succesfully used before by Virgin taking BA to court in the US.
It is possible that the pilots were trying to approach it from the point that if Cathay have a business address in the US then US law could be applied. They were wrong, according to the US court. It has been succesfully used before by Virgin taking BA to court in the US.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised to learn a California court had declined to entertain the pilots' complaint,...considering that a court had accepted a frivolous case of higher proportion: Namely, the suit by an old lady who had spilled her coffee cup, scalded her thigh, and succesfully sued McDonald's for Millions over the coffee having been too hot!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HOHO Kong
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why they are considered as loopholes.
Old lady said she now cannot wear mini skirt in fear of embarassment, even though with the wrinkled skin it would not be noticeable.
Now with this on hand, it lets all employees in Hong Kong know that no union has total protection. THIS IS NOT THE US of A.
Good day
Old lady said she now cannot wear mini skirt in fear of embarassment, even though with the wrinkled skin it would not be noticeable.
Now with this on hand, it lets all employees in Hong Kong know that no union has total protection. THIS IS NOT THE US of A.
Good day
