For those who said it would never happen...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voice of reason
"Call me an ignorant newbie.."
Glad to oblige.... You are an ignorant newbie!
Firstly D&G is a bit up close and personal. Secondly, D&G has an in-house Appeals process and I suppose ultimately, the process, evidence and the decision can all be challenged in Court.
However, this is the chilling bit....
"However he also ruled that, irrespective of the outcome of the DGP, CPA still has the right to terminate the contract without cause under 35.3"
So come the Trial (or Contract in the Mailbox) all the company has to do is say your Contract is being terminated under 35.3 without cause. (for "no particular reason" I seem to recall was the phrase) I emphasis the fullstop at the end of the sentence; they say nothing more.... Trial, contract, career are all endex.
So for any of you still with delusions of being a Career Pilot or living the "Cathay Dream"; you are nothing but a Contract Pilot... albeit a 3 month Contract Pilot.
Hark... did I hear Champagne corks being stuffed back into bottles.....
Glad to oblige.... You are an ignorant newbie!
Firstly D&G is a bit up close and personal. Secondly, D&G has an in-house Appeals process and I suppose ultimately, the process, evidence and the decision can all be challenged in Court.
However, this is the chilling bit....
"However he also ruled that, irrespective of the outcome of the DGP, CPA still has the right to terminate the contract without cause under 35.3"
So come the Trial (or Contract in the Mailbox) all the company has to do is say your Contract is being terminated under 35.3 without cause. (for "no particular reason" I seem to recall was the phrase) I emphasis the fullstop at the end of the sentence; they say nothing more.... Trial, contract, career are all endex.
So for any of you still with delusions of being a Career Pilot or living the "Cathay Dream"; you are nothing but a Contract Pilot... albeit a 3 month Contract Pilot.
Hark... did I hear Champagne corks being stuffed back into bottles.....
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so I was asking for that, but I notice the only person to actually respond to my post, rather than make cheap comments was Liam - he responded, and also made cheap comments!
Liam, you've spelled out more clearly (I didn't realise you needed to be quite this clear on this forum) exactly the point I was making - this is BAD news, not GOOD!
Liam, you've spelled out more clearly (I didn't realise you needed to be quite this clear on this forum) exactly the point I was making - this is BAD news, not GOOD!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um... I did. Twice.
Still stuck with these bits:
and
Perhaps in you guys' obviously superior legal wisdom, you can explain to me how this means anything other than:
1) Yes, we've won an issue saying they should have put the 49ers through a D&G IF THEY ASSUME there were fired for misconduct. As Liam points out, they claim "no apparent reason" or something similar. It seems this point is not yet entirely won. The assumption will only be tested to see if it holds up in October.
2) Even if they HAD put them through a D&G, and found them not guilty of any misconduct, they could then have fired them under 35.3 anyway! So, where does this leave us?
Of course, there is still the defamation issue, which seems to be the killer.
Believe me, I'm grateful for all the work they're putting in, but just trying to see the upside for the rest of us!
Still stuck with these bits:
“I stress that this is merely a working assumption. It remains an unresolved factual issue whether the Defendants actually had any such underlying motivation.”
However he also ruled that, irrespective of the outcome of the DGP, CPA still has the right to terminate the contract without cause under 35.3.
1) Yes, we've won an issue saying they should have put the 49ers through a D&G IF THEY ASSUME there were fired for misconduct. As Liam points out, they claim "no apparent reason" or something similar. It seems this point is not yet entirely won. The assumption will only be tested to see if it holds up in October.
2) Even if they HAD put them through a D&G, and found them not guilty of any misconduct, they could then have fired them under 35.3 anyway! So, where does this leave us?
Of course, there is still the defamation issue, which seems to be the killer.
Believe me, I'm grateful for all the work they're putting in, but just trying to see the upside for the rest of us!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitsune
Whaddareckon paras 92 and 95 mean then... here's a brief extract to give you the flavour...
Issue (1)(b). Yes. Following the logic of Gunton, once disciplinary
proceedings have been carried out and a final outcome is announced, the right to terminate without cause under clause 35.3 may be exercised. This is because, if the outcome of Appendix 1 proceedings is unfavourable to the Defendants, they would be entitled to dismiss without cause under cl.35.3. On the other hand, if the outcome of the proceedings is unfavourable to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants would be entitled to dismiss for misconduct upon giving 3 months’ notice or payment in lieu under the terms of Appendix 1 and cl.35.3
I added the bold..... hope it hasn't removed the fizz from your champers..
Issue (1)(b). Yes. Following the logic of Gunton, once disciplinary
proceedings have been carried out and a final outcome is announced, the right to terminate without cause under clause 35.3 may be exercised. This is because, if the outcome of Appendix 1 proceedings is unfavourable to the Defendants, they would be entitled to dismiss without cause under cl.35.3. On the other hand, if the outcome of the proceedings is unfavourable to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants would be entitled to dismiss for misconduct upon giving 3 months’ notice or payment in lieu under the terms of Appendix 1 and cl.35.3
I added the bold..... hope it hasn't removed the fizz from your champers..
yeah, so how is this good for us?
Seems to be a backward "green light" to the company to do whatever they please.
Before this trial we hoped the company wouldn't go down the route of the 49 ers again, now the judge ruled they can carry out a kangaroo court D&G anytime they wish inside the law.
Well done CPU
This just gave NR more power to run rough shod over us anytime he wants.
"yep you got your D&G now p
ss off"
Seems to be a backward "green light" to the company to do whatever they please.
Before this trial we hoped the company wouldn't go down the route of the 49 ers again, now the judge ruled they can carry out a kangaroo court D&G anytime they wish inside the law.
Well done CPU
This just gave NR more power to run rough shod over us anytime he wants.
"yep you got your D&G now p
ss off"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 18 guys are trying to right a wrong done to them over 8 years ago and all you can think of is YOU. This ruling changed nothing, they could've always done what the judge said they could do, ask a former 49er who is now a freighter Captain.
What this ruling has done is confirm that the company acted in breach of the contract back in July 2001 (provided they were terminated for cause). That's the only issue that was before the judge, not what NR can do to you now. If you want better job security then get that lame-ass organisation that represents you to get clause 35.3 removed from the contract.
By the way, judging by the look on NRs face in court the other day I don't think you have to worry about going down that road again.
What this ruling has done is confirm that the company acted in breach of the contract back in July 2001 (provided they were terminated for cause). That's the only issue that was before the judge, not what NR can do to you now. If you want better job security then get that lame-ass organisation that represents you to get clause 35.3 removed from the contract.
By the way, judging by the look on NRs face in court the other day I don't think you have to worry about going down that road again.
Last edited by cadence; 5th Mar 2009 at 19:46.
The HK 49 ers had their day in court and they won for themselves, good.
BUT some of the posters above alluded to this win as being good for us all.
It's not, it makes no difference. Infact it could be argued all it's done is put the legal aspects into focus for the company and how they can navigate those rough waters next time round.
BUT some of the posters above alluded to this win as being good for us all.
It's not, it makes no difference. Infact it could be argued all it's done is put the legal aspects into focus for the company and how they can navigate those rough waters next time round.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT some of the posters above alluded to this win as being good for us all.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to the 49'ers. You deserve this, you deserve your day in court, you deserve CX to finally come clean on what happened, and you deserve every retribution which is coming your way.
But;
for the rest of us it just goes to show what a completely worthless piece of sh1t the whole CoS is.
Why bother with a chapter about reverse seniority in case of furloughs when they now can, with the courts blessing, fire whoever, whenever, however and for whatever they wish.
"There is no pilot surplus; we're just destroying 150 families and lives for no reason whatsoever. Let us reemphasise that. For no reason what-so-ever."
"And what the hell. While we're at it, let's fire 50 A-scalers (who've been calling in sick a lot lately.) But don't think that that's the reason why we're firing them. Because there is no reason. "
But;
for the rest of us it just goes to show what a completely worthless piece of sh1t the whole CoS is.
Why bother with a chapter about reverse seniority in case of furloughs when they now can, with the courts blessing, fire whoever, whenever, however and for whatever they wish.
"There is no pilot surplus; we're just destroying 150 families and lives for no reason whatsoever. Let us reemphasise that. For no reason what-so-ever."
"And what the hell. While we're at it, let's fire 50 A-scalers (who've been calling in sick a lot lately.) But don't think that that's the reason why we're firing them. Because there is no reason. "
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MARS
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why bother with a chapter about reverse seniority in case of furloughs when they now can, with the courts blessing, fire whoever, whenever, however and for whatever they wish.
I don't know why it's so difficult for some to understand the implications of this ruling..
This was a pre-trial by 9 former 49ers to determine whether there are sufficient grounds and reason to go ahead with a lawsuit against CX,to sue for loss in revenue/benefits..pain,grief and all the rest of it..that came with their sudden and UNLAWFULL termination of contracts..
The ruling was IN FAVOUR of the CPU on behalf of the 9/49ers,who can now go ahead and sue the company for injustice done to them 9 years ago..
If you still don't understand,I shall spell it out in plain english:
- CX CANNOT simply hire and fire as they wish;
- proper D&G procedures MUST be followed and adhered to,and cannot be BY-PASSED,as was the case with the 49ers;
- if valid grounds exist for a dismissal,ie serious misconduct,then an employees services may be terminated,after the D&G..
,who,as the DFO during the star chamber session at the time..did NOT follow the correct procedure..I reckon he's already looking for a new job..because he sure as hell WILL BE after 5 October this year,with lawsuits of 6-digit figures heading his way...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AD POSSE; have you even read the ruling?
Clear as mud?
That's what the judge ruled. Which is why the CPU wrote
Basicly, the judge ruled that the 49'ers should be put through a D&G hearing, then given 3 months notice and may then be fired for no resason. Now, where it gets interesting is how that relates to compensation. Since no D&G has been held, no termination of employment has legalky occured. Hence, CX will be financially liable for all 49ers from July 2001 untill a D&G has (finally) been held, appealed, and then 3 months thereafter. End of story.
Now, where it gets really interesting is that D&G process, and subsequent appeals. That's where heads will roll for Cathay and truths finally be told.
Issue (1)(b). Yes. Following the logic of Gunton, once disciplinary
proceedings have been carried out and a final outcome is announced, the right to terminate without cause under clause 35.3 may be exercised. This is because, if the outcome of Appendix 1 proceedings [D&G] is unfavourable to the Defendants [Cathay Pacific], they would [still] be entitled to dismiss without cause under cl.35.3. On the other hand, if the outcome of the proceedings is unfavourable to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants would be entitled to dismiss for misconduct upon giving 3 months’ notice or payment in lieu under the terms of Appendix 1 and cl.35.3.
proceedings have been carried out and a final outcome is announced, the right to terminate without cause under clause 35.3 may be exercised. This is because, if the outcome of Appendix 1 proceedings [D&G] is unfavourable to the Defendants [Cathay Pacific], they would [still] be entitled to dismiss without cause under cl.35.3. On the other hand, if the outcome of the proceedings is unfavourable to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants would be entitled to dismiss for misconduct upon giving 3 months’ notice or payment in lieu under the terms of Appendix 1 and cl.35.3.
- proper D&G procedures MUST be followed and adhered to,and cannot be BY-PASSED,as was the case with the 49ers, if the real motivation behind the dismissal was misconduct, regardless of any "official" reason stated by the company in order to bypass D&G.
- regardless of whether or not valid grounds exist for a dismissal,ie serious misconduct,an employees services may be terminated,after the D&G..
That's what the judge ruled. Which is why the CPU wrote
However he also ruled that, irrespective of the outcome of the DGP, CPA still has the right to terminate the contract without cause under 35.3. This demonstrates how serious a weakness exists not only in the contracts of employment of CPA pilots but also, possibly more importantly, in labour legislation as a whole in Hong Kong.
Now, where it gets really interesting is that D&G process, and subsequent appeals. That's where heads will roll for Cathay and truths finally be told.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MARS
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quadspeed..
This is where you are wrong mate.
There must be valid grounds to even have a D&G!
If you look at the CoS,there are certain offences that requires certain action,whether it be a verbal warning,final written warning or dismissal for a serious misconduct..
Furthermore,an individual may get any representation in a D&G,naturally a union rep,and then lawyers etc (if you can afford them!) and even labour departement officials if you so wish..
One of the CX lawyers was quite correct in saying that "an investigation will have to be done" to see what the misconduct was..something that should have been done 9 years ago!!!
then given 3 months notice and may then be fired for no resason
There must be valid grounds to even have a D&G!
If you look at the CoS,there are certain offences that requires certain action,whether it be a verbal warning,final written warning or dismissal for a serious misconduct..
Furthermore,an individual may get any representation in a D&G,naturally a union rep,and then lawyers etc (if you can afford them!) and even labour departement officials if you so wish..
One of the CX lawyers was quite correct in saying that "an investigation will have to be done" to see what the misconduct was..something that should have been done 9 years ago!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree.
No there doesn't. If there are no valid grounds, then CX can dismiss without cause under cl.35.3. If there are valid grounds for dismissal, then a D&G must be held.
Correct. Those are all offences. Cathay can still fire you for no offence at all. They just need to give you 3 months notice. End of career.
Great. Bring the US supreme court to argue your case. The fact remains that even if you "win" your D&G procedures, CX can then "fire you again" without cause by giving 3 months notice. Once again... in the words of the judge... "if the outcome of [the D&G] is unfavourable to the Defendants [Cathay Pacific... meaning you "won" the D&G hearing by "beating all charges"], they [Cathay] would [still] be entitled to dismiss without cause under cl.35.3.
Look, the whole thing pisses me off as well, mate. This company is morally bankrupt.
There must be valid grounds to even have a D&G!
If you look at the CoS,there are certain offences that requires certain action,whether it be a verbal warning,final written warning or dismissal for a serious misconduct..
Furthermore,an individual may get any representation in a D&G,naturally a union rep,and then lawyers etc (if you can afford them!) and even labour departement officials if you so wish..
Look, the whole thing pisses me off as well, mate. This company is morally bankrupt.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragon69
You are here to force your views upon us by chastising anyone that offers a balanced view or opinion.
However when you stick to arguments without abuse some of your points are valid. If you agree to a cybertruce I wont rub your cheesburger around the staff toilet bowl.
