Sacked Cathay pilot wins right to UK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sacked Cathay pilot wins right to UK
Sacked Cathay pilot wins right to UK
hearing
RUSSELL BARLING
Britain's top appeals court has given some employees of Cathay Pacific Airways recourse
to British labour laws in a decision that has wider implications for how British-controlled
firms in Hong Kong handle staff dismissals.
The House of Lords upheld an appeals court decision allowing George Crofts, one of 51
pilots sacked by Cathay in 2001, to seek compensation for what he saw as unfair
dismissal at the hands of Veta, a wholly owned subsidiary of the airline. In 2004,
Britain's Employment Tribunals had said it was within its jurisdiction to hear Mr Crofts'
complaint, a finding Cathay appealed at the tribunal and appeals court levels.
"I think not only that the tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion which it did, but
also that it was right," Lord Hoffmann said in the 5-0 decision in Mr Crofts' favour. "I
would therefore dismiss Veta's appeal."
While Cathay is unlikely to suffer substantial financial losses from the subsequent
tribunal hearing - 11 of the 12 British-based pilots sacked in 2001 accepted an offer from
the airline in April last year - Mr Crofts undoubtedly will see the decision as an
important symbolic victory.
Those close to Mr Crofts say his five-year battle with the airline was less about
compensation - the tribunal's cap is said to be less than the amount that Cathay offered
him to settle last year - than it was about gaining public acknowledgment that he and his
colleagues were unfairly dismissed.
Cathay said it was seeking counsel in Hong Kong and Britain to see if the decision was
"compliant with the letter of the UK labour law". "We are disappointed with the ruling," a
spokeswoman said. "It has always been the company's belief that the dismissal of Mr
Crofts was carried out entirely in accordance with the terms of his contract and was
perfectly legal under Hong Kong law."
Mr Crofts is favoured to win the tribunal hearing.
In a letter last year to fellow "49ers", as the sacked pilots are known, Mr Crofts urged
them to turn down Cathay's offer - believed in his case to be 10 months' salary and reemployment.
"[The] 49ers are black-banned with virtually every prestige airline in the world as a result
of being branded troublemakers. This offer makes no attempt to rectify that wrong. It
does not in any way clear our names or record," Mr Crofts wrote. "Expunging the unjust,
unlawful termination of the 49ers is paramount to us all. It is, in fact, your careers that
rest on this action."
Most of those rehired by Cathay were taken back as cargo pilots at lower wages and less
senior positions. Cathay and the pilots' union have mended fences recently after almost
five years of acrimony. But that did not lessen the importance of Mr Crofts' victory in
union eyes.
SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. With a click, you will be able to access information on Business,
Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong,
China, Asia and the World. Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and brought to you by the South China Morning
Post, Hong Kong's premier English language news source.
Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved.
hearing
RUSSELL BARLING
Britain's top appeals court has given some employees of Cathay Pacific Airways recourse
to British labour laws in a decision that has wider implications for how British-controlled
firms in Hong Kong handle staff dismissals.
The House of Lords upheld an appeals court decision allowing George Crofts, one of 51
pilots sacked by Cathay in 2001, to seek compensation for what he saw as unfair
dismissal at the hands of Veta, a wholly owned subsidiary of the airline. In 2004,
Britain's Employment Tribunals had said it was within its jurisdiction to hear Mr Crofts'
complaint, a finding Cathay appealed at the tribunal and appeals court levels.
"I think not only that the tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion which it did, but
also that it was right," Lord Hoffmann said in the 5-0 decision in Mr Crofts' favour. "I
would therefore dismiss Veta's appeal."
While Cathay is unlikely to suffer substantial financial losses from the subsequent
tribunal hearing - 11 of the 12 British-based pilots sacked in 2001 accepted an offer from
the airline in April last year - Mr Crofts undoubtedly will see the decision as an
important symbolic victory.
Those close to Mr Crofts say his five-year battle with the airline was less about
compensation - the tribunal's cap is said to be less than the amount that Cathay offered
him to settle last year - than it was about gaining public acknowledgment that he and his
colleagues were unfairly dismissed.
Cathay said it was seeking counsel in Hong Kong and Britain to see if the decision was
"compliant with the letter of the UK labour law". "We are disappointed with the ruling," a
spokeswoman said. "It has always been the company's belief that the dismissal of Mr
Crofts was carried out entirely in accordance with the terms of his contract and was
perfectly legal under Hong Kong law."
Mr Crofts is favoured to win the tribunal hearing.
In a letter last year to fellow "49ers", as the sacked pilots are known, Mr Crofts urged
them to turn down Cathay's offer - believed in his case to be 10 months' salary and reemployment.
"[The] 49ers are black-banned with virtually every prestige airline in the world as a result
of being branded troublemakers. This offer makes no attempt to rectify that wrong. It
does not in any way clear our names or record," Mr Crofts wrote. "Expunging the unjust,
unlawful termination of the 49ers is paramount to us all. It is, in fact, your careers that
rest on this action."
Most of those rehired by Cathay were taken back as cargo pilots at lower wages and less
senior positions. Cathay and the pilots' union have mended fences recently after almost
five years of acrimony. But that did not lessen the importance of Mr Crofts' victory in
union eyes.
SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. With a click, you will be able to access information on Business,
Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong,
China, Asia and the World. Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and brought to you by the South China Morning
Post, Hong Kong's premier English language news source.
Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK Veta Pilots owe Mr. Croft’s a very big “Thank You”. At least now we fall under UK law.
The British-controlled firms in Hong Kong must be very impressed with Cathay. There has to be some ear bending at the Hong Kong Club as of late.
The CPU is doing a better job at protecting our contract than the AOA.
Can't wait to see how this unfolds.
The British-controlled firms in Hong Kong must be very impressed with Cathay. There has to be some ear bending at the Hong Kong Club as of late.
The CPU is doing a better job at protecting our contract than the AOA.
Can't wait to see how this unfolds.
All EU based pilots owe Mr Crofts a thank-you.
As far as who has done the job I would say that it is all the AOA and ex AOA members who have contributed over the last 4-5 years. Childish tantrums over who is doing what only helps management!!
As far as who has done the job I would say that it is all the AOA and ex AOA members who have contributed over the last 4-5 years. Childish tantrums over who is doing what only helps management!!
Hearing anything doesn't make it true.
For some 49'ers, nothing except a legal battle to the end would suffice.
For other 49'ers the risk of losing what they had left in costs was too great and a compromise was wanted.
The AOA had to work with what people were prepared to pay and what was wanted. If they want to be represented and have at least a chance of affecting their working conditions they can join the AOA. The CPU can't help you there.
It seems to me that dividing those who've supported the 49'ers for so long is not a particularly clever thing to do.
For some 49'ers, nothing except a legal battle to the end would suffice.
For other 49'ers the risk of losing what they had left in costs was too great and a compromise was wanted.
The AOA had to work with what people were prepared to pay and what was wanted. If they want to be represented and have at least a chance of affecting their working conditions they can join the AOA. The CPU can't help you there.
It seems to me that dividing those who've supported the 49'ers for so long is not a particularly clever thing to do.
Well the eight 49'ers back at CX don't say that, I've spoken to them.
The point I made was that they didn't all have the resources to want the same thing. The AOA certainly didn't have the support to do everything that everybody wanted. There isn't a black or white in reality its all shades of grey.
The point I made was that they didn't all have the resources to want the same thing. The AOA certainly didn't have the support to do everything that everybody wanted. There isn't a black or white in reality its all shades of grey.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a 49er to those who aren't.
You were all conned by the union leadership. This was not a **** deal...it was far worse. Abandoned and let down doesn't adequately describe what you and your peers did to (for) us. We told you to decline this settlement offer and yet, in your infinite wisdom, you decided that what we thought and wanted was irrelevant and accepted, on our behalf, a crap deal.
Well I guess you are now reaping what you sowed. Look forward to being screwed for the rest of your career.
Age 60...on B scale reduced pay and benefits. You didn't stand up for us so screw you.
George...I take my hat off to you.
Wally
You were all conned by the union leadership. This was not a **** deal...it was far worse. Abandoned and let down doesn't adequately describe what you and your peers did to (for) us. We told you to decline this settlement offer and yet, in your infinite wisdom, you decided that what we thought and wanted was irrelevant and accepted, on our behalf, a crap deal.
Well I guess you are now reaping what you sowed. Look forward to being screwed for the rest of your career.
Age 60...on B scale reduced pay and benefits. You didn't stand up for us so screw you.
George...I take my hat off to you.
Wally
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And those guys are going to confide in you BusyB? I think not, they have already been screwed once by the company and you guys screwed them again. What do you expect them to say? Remember they are being very closely watched and listened to. They are also on probation for the second time in a company that already fired them once without cause.
Those guys are born again, the DFO couldn't have asked for more ideal employees.
Those guys are born again, the DFO couldn't have asked for more ideal employees.
And let's not forget those who supported the ridiculous employment ban on the promise that the HKAOA would "Support their applications" once the ban was over- Only to be told "Sod off, you're not a member" when the time came.
The HKAOA was willing to screw over other pilots rather than make a stand themselves, then screw over the 49ers when fighting on got too expensive.
NOT the actions of an hounorable group.
The HKAOA was willing to screw over other pilots rather than make a stand themselves, then screw over the 49ers when fighting on got too expensive.
NOT the actions of an hounorable group.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wally Gun
From a 49er to those who aren't.
You were all conned by the union leadership. This was not a **** deal...it was far worse. Abandoned and let down doesn't adequately describe what you and your peers did to (for) us. We told you to decline this settlement offer and yet, in your infinite wisdom, you decided that what we thought and wanted was irrelevant and accepted, on our behalf, a crap deal.
Well I guess you are now reaping what you sowed. Look forward to being screwed for the rest of your career.
Age 60...on B scale reduced pay and benefits. You didn't stand up for us so screw you.
George...I take my hat off to you.
Wally
You were all conned by the union leadership. This was not a **** deal...it was far worse. Abandoned and let down doesn't adequately describe what you and your peers did to (for) us. We told you to decline this settlement offer and yet, in your infinite wisdom, you decided that what we thought and wanted was irrelevant and accepted, on our behalf, a crap deal.
Well I guess you are now reaping what you sowed. Look forward to being screwed for the rest of your career.
Age 60...on B scale reduced pay and benefits. You didn't stand up for us so screw you.
George...I take my hat off to you.
Wally
Take look around you and take notice if you can. The screwed ones are ALL of us in this industry called aviation and we (CX) happen to be doing a little better than almost everyone else!
I think its strange that one 49'er who voices his feelings deludes himself that others won't voice their feelings to me.
Slagging off others who are still contributing to 49'ers welfare also seems extraordinarally shortsighted.
Dividing the pilot workforce as some are attempting can only help CX.
6ft and woz, are you management?
Slagging off others who are still contributing to 49'ers welfare also seems extraordinarally shortsighted.
Dividing the pilot workforce as some are attempting can only help CX.
6ft and woz, are you management?
6ft and woz, are you management?
No, I am mearly an interested observer. I consider the action of CX management in sacking the 49ers reprehensible. I consider the HKAOA response weak, selfish and ridiculous.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just some comments to the above threads.
The 49ers will confide in very few people, especially if he has any doubt it will be repeated or even mentioned in a casual manner elsewhere. It depended on how you expressed your opinion in the past and how the 49 er thought you voted. They are all on probation. It seems the 49ers that were vocally opposed to the deal and the one’s that were not, had two very different outcomes. CX desires obedience.
Prude, “should have been fired 49 times”, you are such an excrement cranium and a down right uknt. Please don’t take offence to this because I know you won’t. I have never seen a person so judgmental against the 49ers. Is there a reason for this?
If the 12 rehires got fired for no particular reason, then got rehired because they were not vocal about the crap deal, which the members chose for them, well there was no reason to fire them in the first place. Except to show the AOA leadership that CX can do and get away with it.
Other business.
If the members did not stand up for the 49ers, how can you negotiate your contract upwards? It is not going to happen. The Pilot group will receive what the company thinks they should have or what CX can get away with. I would suspect a new COS post June 2006 with this expansion.
The AOA will represent your conditions downward. Of course the company will only talk to the AOA, wouldn’t you. I just can’t realise how 30 days free reserve benefits My Family and I. I must have missed that part of negotiation school. What did we get for it? That’s correct, nothing. Save your money.
All those other pilots with 10 years experience coming to CX, it is not their first choice. If it were, they would have been here 10 years ago. It’s a matter of need.
I look forward to the outcome of Mr. Croft’s case. In due course, this will clear the name of all 49ers, which they all deserve. It will also show CX, if they want to dismiss people, they will be subject to the laws in which person lives/based. CX will dismiss more pilots, but will have strict guidelines in which to do so, if they don’t, we will see them in Tribunals.
Good luck Mr. Crofts, you have my support.
The 49ers will confide in very few people, especially if he has any doubt it will be repeated or even mentioned in a casual manner elsewhere. It depended on how you expressed your opinion in the past and how the 49 er thought you voted. They are all on probation. It seems the 49ers that were vocally opposed to the deal and the one’s that were not, had two very different outcomes. CX desires obedience.
Prude, “should have been fired 49 times”, you are such an excrement cranium and a down right uknt. Please don’t take offence to this because I know you won’t. I have never seen a person so judgmental against the 49ers. Is there a reason for this?
If the 12 rehires got fired for no particular reason, then got rehired because they were not vocal about the crap deal, which the members chose for them, well there was no reason to fire them in the first place. Except to show the AOA leadership that CX can do and get away with it.
Other business.
If the members did not stand up for the 49ers, how can you negotiate your contract upwards? It is not going to happen. The Pilot group will receive what the company thinks they should have or what CX can get away with. I would suspect a new COS post June 2006 with this expansion.
The AOA will represent your conditions downward. Of course the company will only talk to the AOA, wouldn’t you. I just can’t realise how 30 days free reserve benefits My Family and I. I must have missed that part of negotiation school. What did we get for it? That’s correct, nothing. Save your money.
All those other pilots with 10 years experience coming to CX, it is not their first choice. If it were, they would have been here 10 years ago. It’s a matter of need.
I look forward to the outcome of Mr. Croft’s case. In due course, this will clear the name of all 49ers, which they all deserve. It will also show CX, if they want to dismiss people, they will be subject to the laws in which person lives/based. CX will dismiss more pilots, but will have strict guidelines in which to do so, if they don’t, we will see them in Tribunals.
Good luck Mr. Crofts, you have my support.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it were that long ago, should something have been done then. Bit of a delayed reaction don’t you think.
There will be skeletons in everyone's closet. What soundness does“no particular reason” have to do with getting dismissed.
Although Mr. Croft is the only one left in the UK case, I wish him and the other 49ers the best in there court cases.
Any skeletons on the rest? Maybe a sense of humour failure on behalf of management.
There will be skeletons in everyone's closet. What soundness does“no particular reason” have to do with getting dismissed.
Although Mr. Croft is the only one left in the UK case, I wish him and the other 49ers the best in there court cases.
Any skeletons on the rest? Maybe a sense of humour failure on behalf of management.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resolution
Fellow Aircrew,
I don't believe that we will achieve much by denograting any of our fellow aircrew. What happened to the 49's was terrible. I don't believe there is anyone in the industry that doesn't feel for the loss and hardship all those professionals and their families went through. But the facts are as as follows:
a. The decision was in UK, against aircrew employed and living in the UK. i.e it doesn't apply to anyone outside UK, however in a court "OS" the ruling could (under certain circumstances) be admissable as evidence, i.e. could hold water OS but don't bank on it.
b. The case in the UK, to follow, may not even reap the benefits of what (I think we all agree) was dissapointing, but the best on offer by the company, i.e. a victory in a the house of Lords is great, but in the bank account of Mr Croft, well I guess we will see, that my friends, is the key point to remember, is Mr Croft going to be financially better off, remembering that he has turned down an offer of a lousy freighter job/ interview or 10 months pay??? Watch this space.
c. Remember, its was the membership (that some of you critize) that supported these guys for many years. I tip my hat to them and wish that they all could have got a better outcome, I'll be watching the court case in the UK with interest.
Good luck to all those aircrew that fight the fight, any win could be a potential win for us all, if we suffer the same fate.
BP
I don't believe that we will achieve much by denograting any of our fellow aircrew. What happened to the 49's was terrible. I don't believe there is anyone in the industry that doesn't feel for the loss and hardship all those professionals and their families went through. But the facts are as as follows:
a. The decision was in UK, against aircrew employed and living in the UK. i.e it doesn't apply to anyone outside UK, however in a court "OS" the ruling could (under certain circumstances) be admissable as evidence, i.e. could hold water OS but don't bank on it.
b. The case in the UK, to follow, may not even reap the benefits of what (I think we all agree) was dissapointing, but the best on offer by the company, i.e. a victory in a the house of Lords is great, but in the bank account of Mr Croft, well I guess we will see, that my friends, is the key point to remember, is Mr Croft going to be financially better off, remembering that he has turned down an offer of a lousy freighter job/ interview or 10 months pay??? Watch this space.
c. Remember, its was the membership (that some of you critize) that supported these guys for many years. I tip my hat to them and wish that they all could have got a better outcome, I'll be watching the court case in the UK with interest.
Good luck to all those aircrew that fight the fight, any win could be a potential win for us all, if we suffer the same fate.
BP
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: U.K.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the court case, in which Crofts got the GBH conviction, it was also revealed that he had taken a drug overdose. Must have felt bad about hitting his mistress so hard that her front tooth was buried in the roof of her mouth.
If CX had known about the overdose they would have had another reason not to hire him. Not only that but the Hong Kong CAD would have been interested. UK CAA must take a more relaxed view.
Crofts had no option but to keep the fight going. When his past was in the open, he knew that he had no chance of re-hire by CX.
If CX had known about the overdose they would have had another reason not to hire him. Not only that but the Hong Kong CAD would have been interested. UK CAA must take a more relaxed view.
Crofts had no option but to keep the fight going. When his past was in the open, he knew that he had no chance of re-hire by CX.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
????
Interesting call. Any chance you could expand on this. i.e. Dates , places, details of the conviction, GBH I understand? Maybe you could attach a transcript from the judge and his summary????
I just want to get the truth!!!
BP
I just want to get the truth!!!
BP
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Penarth South Wales
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
for the record , the said individual left AEU for no other reason than a better job offer. There were no complaints made against him. On the basis that this accusation is false, can I caution you all to be sure of your FACTS if you are going to put them on this bulletin board.
Grand slam, I assume you are willing to back up your post with dates and facts, should we be required to present them to lawyers. If you can't, I'd suggest an edit to something that CAN be backed up.
H
for the record , the said individual left AEU for no other reason than a better job offer. There were no complaints made against him. On the basis that this accusation is false, can I caution you all to be sure of your FACTS if you are going to put them on this bulletin board.
Grand slam, I assume you are willing to back up your post with dates and facts, should we be required to present them to lawyers. If you can't, I'd suggest an edit to something that CAN be backed up.
H