Sacked Cathay pilot wins right to UK
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand the moderators concerns about lawyers and website owners. The question is, on an open forum such as this, if unsubstantiated opinions were excluded, how many contributors would remain?
In the case of Crofts, the evidence can be substantiated by reference to court records. The Sun article, in which the story of Crofts' court appearance was originally printed, is now circulating. Does a reference to a newspaper article constitute a libel. If it does not, I shall reproduce the article for the benefit of pprune subscribers, although I regret I shall be unable to reproduce the photograph of Crofts, which also appeared.
Regarding other allegations made against Crofts, contributions are restricted by the fact that few outside of the Hong Kong pilot force would bother to read Fragrant Harbour. Astraeus crews who know Crofts are unlikely to venture this far East and give us the benefit of their experiences.
Neither are many Dan-Air, Airtours and Ansett crews likely to find their way down here. Any that do will certainly remember Mr Crofts.
In the case of Crofts, the evidence can be substantiated by reference to court records. The Sun article, in which the story of Crofts' court appearance was originally printed, is now circulating. Does a reference to a newspaper article constitute a libel. If it does not, I shall reproduce the article for the benefit of pprune subscribers, although I regret I shall be unable to reproduce the photograph of Crofts, which also appeared.
Regarding other allegations made against Crofts, contributions are restricted by the fact that few outside of the Hong Kong pilot force would bother to read Fragrant Harbour. Astraeus crews who know Crofts are unlikely to venture this far East and give us the benefit of their experiences.
Neither are many Dan-Air, Airtours and Ansett crews likely to find their way down here. Any that do will certainly remember Mr Crofts.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have to remain aware of my responsibilities as the website owner. In this instance, there appear to be a few brave souls who fearlessly post potentially libelous rubbish from behind their cloaks of anonymity. Well, I warn them now, that should anyone get a court order asking me to reveal what information I have on them, which includes IP addresses which, if necessary, can be used to trace an individual through their ISP, so that any libel action can pursued, I will not hesitate to do so.
What is in the public domain is one thing. Making unsubstantiated allegations about what isn't is an entirely different matter.
A far as this thread is concerned, some of you obviously have an agenda. Sadly, the agenda appears to reflect the inability of some to understand certain basic principles, one being that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with George Croft's previous history. It just so happens that he is the only one with the stamina to continue with the proceedings to this point. The result is that Uk employment law should have been used when considering dismissal of the 49'ers. George was not fired because of any skeletons in his cupboard. He was fired along with the other VETA pilots unfairly and illegally. If Cathay wanted to fire George because of any skeletons in his cupboard then they should have followed the proper procedures, which they didn't. To raise them now, in the context of this thread is puerile.
George Crofts has successfully taken on Cathay and set a precedent so that the rest of the Cathay pilots have recourse to English employment law where applicable. Whatever George Croft's history, they cannot fire him for it now.
So, can we please concentrate on the issue of the ruling from the House of Lords as it applies to UK run companies based in HK and not on George Croft's past history. If you feel you can't resist the urge to have a go at George then at least have cojones to do so up front and without the comfort blanket of anonymity.
What is in the public domain is one thing. Making unsubstantiated allegations about what isn't is an entirely different matter.
A far as this thread is concerned, some of you obviously have an agenda. Sadly, the agenda appears to reflect the inability of some to understand certain basic principles, one being that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with George Croft's previous history. It just so happens that he is the only one with the stamina to continue with the proceedings to this point. The result is that Uk employment law should have been used when considering dismissal of the 49'ers. George was not fired because of any skeletons in his cupboard. He was fired along with the other VETA pilots unfairly and illegally. If Cathay wanted to fire George because of any skeletons in his cupboard then they should have followed the proper procedures, which they didn't. To raise them now, in the context of this thread is puerile.
George Crofts has successfully taken on Cathay and set a precedent so that the rest of the Cathay pilots have recourse to English employment law where applicable. Whatever George Croft's history, they cannot fire him for it now.
So, can we please concentrate on the issue of the ruling from the House of Lords as it applies to UK run companies based in HK and not on George Croft's past history. If you feel you can't resist the urge to have a go at George then at least have cojones to do so up front and without the comfort blanket of anonymity.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny. The question of unfair dismissal is woven into this case, regardless of the procedures adopted by CX in their treatment of the 49ers. George Crofts has chosen to expose his 'bag of bones' purely by his objection to being unfairly dismissed. We all have skeletons in our cupboard. Most of us give them a wide berth. If we made a big issue about being dismissed, knowing that CX had grounds for doing so, we should not be too surprised if the bones in the bag get raked over.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T & B, the main reason I started the thread on Rumours and News was to include the link to The Cathay Pilots Union website. There you will find a lot of information regarding the case Crofts v Veta.
This is an important issue that will impact thousands of employees in many industries worldwide.
This is an important issue that will impact thousands of employees in many industries worldwide.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Herring
Mr. Crofts past is a red herring. If CX knew about his past, maybe they would not have hired him. If they found out after the fact, there is a CX mickey mouse court he could have gone through. Instead, he and 48 employes we Fired/Terminated/Loss of Confidence/No Particular Reason or whatever on a single day. No procedures were followed.
Mr. Crofts was given a letter stating he was terminated for “No Particular Reason”. I believe some (possibly CX types or Mr. Croft haters or both) are now trying to find reasons for Mr. Crofts termination to justify his termination in the tribunal.
I am sure the Tribunal will look more at the situation surrounding his termination than what Mr. Croft has done in the past. Like I said, it’s a red herring.
Whether Mr. Crofts wins or loses this tribunal, it will be very interesting to see Cathay Laundry hanging for the employees and the world to see.
We are a caring company, to whom, I am not sure.
Mr. Crofts was given a letter stating he was terminated for “No Particular Reason”. I believe some (possibly CX types or Mr. Croft haters or both) are now trying to find reasons for Mr. Crofts termination to justify his termination in the tribunal.
I am sure the Tribunal will look more at the situation surrounding his termination than what Mr. Croft has done in the past. Like I said, it’s a red herring.
Whether Mr. Crofts wins or loses this tribunal, it will be very interesting to see Cathay Laundry hanging for the employees and the world to see.
We are a caring company, to whom, I am not sure.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T & B,
Please tell me:
If you had a D & G procedure in your contract and your employer had a problem with you (all those skeletons!) - would you expect them to use it (D & G) or to give you three months notice (co-incidentaly at the same time as 48 other chaps)?
Please tell me:
If you had a D & G procedure in your contract and your employer had a problem with you (all those skeletons!) - would you expect them to use it (D & G) or to give you three months notice (co-incidentaly at the same time as 48 other chaps)?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX procedure in the past has been to offer the candidate for dismissal an option. He can either go D and G, in which case he would not receive a reference for a future employer, or he can resign. The latter route leaves the door open for some negotiation over terms. If the company had obvious grounds for dismissal, then you would be a fool to choose D and G. Some of the 49ers had good reason to want D and G since the company would have been hard pressed to prove a case against them. Others would have gone quietly knowing they had no defence.
T & B,
I don't think that is correct. A number of pilots were offered a punishment (eg. demotion) or dismissal. They were not offered the D & G procedure. Despite being in our COS it only appears to be used as a grievance procedure instigated by an individual.
I don't think that is correct. A number of pilots were offered a punishment (eg. demotion) or dismissal. They were not offered the D & G procedure. Despite being in our COS it only appears to be used as a grievance procedure instigated by an individual.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you T&B, I believe that you have answered my question. It is obvious from what you have said that you would expect the company to allow the officer to resign or to be put through the D&G.
As you well know, this did not happen in the case of the 49ers. The company action (termination of contract) amounts to anti union intimidation in my opinion and I suspect that the employment tribunal in the UK will be able to see that quite clearly.
As a professional pilot (especially if you are with Cathay) I would expect you to be more outraged by Cathay's action in sacrificing the careers of 49 pilots than by any misdemeanours that any of the pilots may (or may not) have committed.
As you well know, this did not happen in the case of the 49ers. The company action (termination of contract) amounts to anti union intimidation in my opinion and I suspect that the employment tribunal in the UK will be able to see that quite clearly.
As a professional pilot (especially if you are with Cathay) I would expect you to be more outraged by Cathay's action in sacrificing the careers of 49 pilots than by any misdemeanours that any of the pilots may (or may not) have committed.
Last edited by Ricky Whizz; 16th Apr 2006 at 01:00.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of you who were in CX at the time the 49ers had their contracts terminated will remember that there were many issues on which to be outraged. The union leadership had called for a sick-out, which meant that crews would call in sick, sometimes only hours before a flight. The reason given for going sick was generally stress. Not only did this disadvantage the company, but it also inconvenienced the majority of crew members who refused to take part in the union action.
We then had AOA members ringing up non-compliant crew making veiled threats about their future health. That was outrageous. We also had Captains refusing to speak to crew members who were not in the union. The lead would be followed by others in the crew such that, in a four man crew, one of the crew members would be ostracised. In the context of CRM, such behaviour is unprofessional and certainly outrageous.
It is in the context of this poisonous atmosphere that the company actions should be viewed. When your own crews are being intimidated and your passengers are being disadvantaged you have to act.
The management and CC provided 200 names. Some were selected because of the frequency with which they had phoned in sick. Others because they were deemed to have been involved in the intimidation of other crew members. One was an unstable bully, about whom complaints had been made by other crew members and ground staff in several ports. The fate of that particular Captain was sealed when he grabbed a member of ground staff by the lapels. Some cases, including the latter were not union related, but all got swept up as 49ers.
You ask why D and G procedures were not followed. Stress is a valid reason for calling in sick. Indeed, if you have suffered a family crisis, the company are demonstrably generous in giving time off to recover. However, in these instances the terms of the contract were being abused in spirit if not in law. The stress was bogus and by using it as a means of attacking the company, the perpetrators were undermining the position of crew members who may genuinely have been stressed for reasons unrelated to union activity. D and G under those circumstances would have been a charade.
Shortly before the sick-out was called, the union membership elected as their President a Captain who was known for his militant views. It was evident from the beginning that he wanted to take on the company in a trial of strength. Sadly, he persuaded a number of union members to follow him. What he failed to do is get the whole of the membership on side, with the result that the pilot force was polarised; pilot against pilot. The longer term result has been the almost fatal weakening of the union. It now represents less than 50% of the pilot body. The Captain who led the charge against the company, as union President, is still plying his trade with us. He is earning, with benefits, around HK$2,500,000 (US$275000) per annum. When he retires his Provident Fund will be worth several million dollars. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would have resigned in solidarity with the 49ers. If I were a 49er, I would be outraged.
We then had AOA members ringing up non-compliant crew making veiled threats about their future health. That was outrageous. We also had Captains refusing to speak to crew members who were not in the union. The lead would be followed by others in the crew such that, in a four man crew, one of the crew members would be ostracised. In the context of CRM, such behaviour is unprofessional and certainly outrageous.
It is in the context of this poisonous atmosphere that the company actions should be viewed. When your own crews are being intimidated and your passengers are being disadvantaged you have to act.
The management and CC provided 200 names. Some were selected because of the frequency with which they had phoned in sick. Others because they were deemed to have been involved in the intimidation of other crew members. One was an unstable bully, about whom complaints had been made by other crew members and ground staff in several ports. The fate of that particular Captain was sealed when he grabbed a member of ground staff by the lapels. Some cases, including the latter were not union related, but all got swept up as 49ers.
You ask why D and G procedures were not followed. Stress is a valid reason for calling in sick. Indeed, if you have suffered a family crisis, the company are demonstrably generous in giving time off to recover. However, in these instances the terms of the contract were being abused in spirit if not in law. The stress was bogus and by using it as a means of attacking the company, the perpetrators were undermining the position of crew members who may genuinely have been stressed for reasons unrelated to union activity. D and G under those circumstances would have been a charade.
Shortly before the sick-out was called, the union membership elected as their President a Captain who was known for his militant views. It was evident from the beginning that he wanted to take on the company in a trial of strength. Sadly, he persuaded a number of union members to follow him. What he failed to do is get the whole of the membership on side, with the result that the pilot force was polarised; pilot against pilot. The longer term result has been the almost fatal weakening of the union. It now represents less than 50% of the pilot body. The Captain who led the charge against the company, as union President, is still plying his trade with us. He is earning, with benefits, around HK$2,500,000 (US$275000) per annum. When he retires his Provident Fund will be worth several million dollars. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would have resigned in solidarity with the 49ers. If I were a 49er, I would be outraged.
T & B,
You said
"It is in the context of this poisonous atmosphere that the company actions should be viewed. When your own crews are being intimidated and your passengers are being disadvantaged you have to act."
I would point out that the atmosphere you are talking about was created by CX who had regularly implemented changes to contracts and agreements unilaterally.
I myself have had my contract broken by CX twice and was threatened with dismissal in both cases when I complained.
Regardless of this threats to individuals are, as you say, totally unacceptable and your linking the 49'ers to them is in very bad taste.
You said
"It is in the context of this poisonous atmosphere that the company actions should be viewed. When your own crews are being intimidated and your passengers are being disadvantaged you have to act."
I would point out that the atmosphere you are talking about was created by CX who had regularly implemented changes to contracts and agreements unilaterally.
I myself have had my contract broken by CX twice and was threatened with dismissal in both cases when I complained.
Regardless of this threats to individuals are, as you say, totally unacceptable and your linking the 49'ers to them is in very bad taste.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Flagrant Harbour
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I do not agree with most of Turn and Burns posting, It is his opinion. I suppose that is what this forum is about.
However, I do agree with him about the CX pilot he is referring to.
I can remember the person in question standing up at one of the AOA meetings stating that if we do not win the fight, the company will not be worth working for.
We lost and he is still here.
Shows how committed he was in the end. Same for the leading AOA paid employees.
However, I do agree with him about the CX pilot he is referring to.
I can remember the person in question standing up at one of the AOA meetings stating that if we do not win the fight, the company will not be worth working for.
We lost and he is still here.
Shows how committed he was in the end. Same for the leading AOA paid employees.
Some posters keep up a diatribe of malicious falsification, misrespresentation and distortion of the facts. One suspects that one day the boys from spin city will face the music for their actions.
Other posters respond with untiring integrity. They remind us of who we are and what is important. They restore our faith in civilised behaviour and humanity.
Other posters respond with untiring integrity. They remind us of who we are and what is important. They restore our faith in civilised behaviour and humanity.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB. Some of the 49ers were guilty of intimidating fellow crew members. How can it be in bad taste to link them to the activities in which they were involved. Perhaps Flexible response would like to tell us that the intimidation never happened. Or was it the ostracising of fellow crew members that was misrepresented?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything that T&B states about individual behaviour were true then those individuals could have been sacked for cause. THEY WEREN'T... No D & G, no nothing. The were sacked 'for no particular reason', a direct quote from the company.
Nothing said here defaming the plaintiffs or mitigating the company's behaviour has any bearing on the current complaint.
Nothing said here defaming the plaintiffs or mitigating the company's behaviour has any bearing on the current complaint.
T & B,
You've done it again
"Some of the 49'ers"
is what you claim.
All of them were unfairly dismissed. If D & G's had taken place and what you said were true no doubt action could have been taken, but they didn't.
Personally I feel that in a more enlightened country the pilots could have taken out a Grievance against the managers concerned for not managing and therefore bringing the Airline into disrepute! No doubt you'll dispute that as well.
You've done it again
"Some of the 49'ers"
is what you claim.
All of them were unfairly dismissed. If D & G's had taken place and what you said were true no doubt action could have been taken, but they didn't.
Personally I feel that in a more enlightened country the pilots could have taken out a Grievance against the managers concerned for not managing and therefore bringing the Airline into disrepute! No doubt you'll dispute that as well.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 19weeler
T & B
As well as much of your post being factually incorrect, it seems to reek of justification for your apparent lack of moral fibre.
As well as much of your post being factually incorrect, it seems to reek of justification for your apparent lack of moral fibre.