5 weeks in court
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting....
The Judge's comments at close of play on Friday are interesting.
If I am hearing him right, he seems to be stating to Cathay that there is no evidence being offered as to why the 49ers were fired. It seems Tyler and Chen filed Witness Statements on Monday and those Witness Statements are bland and he may disallow them to state why the guys were fired. Effectively, Cathay will offer no defense to the unfair dismal and defamation claims. It seems both sides are lining up Nick Rhodes as the hero or zero in this case.
Tyler and Chen may give evidence next week as space allows (Reserve call-out if you will). Nick Rhodes, however, will command his own day (or longer) on the stand.
If I am hearing him right, he seems to be stating to Cathay that there is no evidence being offered as to why the 49ers were fired. It seems Tyler and Chen filed Witness Statements on Monday and those Witness Statements are bland and he may disallow them to state why the guys were fired. Effectively, Cathay will offer no defense to the unfair dismal and defamation claims. It seems both sides are lining up Nick Rhodes as the hero or zero in this case.
Tyler and Chen may give evidence next week as space allows (Reserve call-out if you will). Nick Rhodes, however, will command his own day (or longer) on the stand.
Liam
Spot on. His Lordship appears less than impressed with 'I'm just doing my job' Muggins for the defense and his line of questions that tend to play the man and not the ball.
His line with Crofty all but sealed the case me thinks.
The inclusion of defense submissions covering generalised criticisms of certain individuals is a fortuitous stroke of luck that did not go unnoticed in the closing remarks.
Muggins must be sinking quite a few down at Joe Bananas and trying to forget how he let that happen and hoping upon high that the Star Chamber List doesn't fall off the back of a truck!
Spot on. His Lordship appears less than impressed with 'I'm just doing my job' Muggins for the defense and his line of questions that tend to play the man and not the ball.
His line with Crofty all but sealed the case me thinks.
The inclusion of defense submissions covering generalised criticisms of certain individuals is a fortuitous stroke of luck that did not go unnoticed in the closing remarks.
Muggins must be sinking quite a few down at Joe Bananas and trying to forget how he let that happen and hoping upon high that the Star Chamber List doesn't fall off the back of a truck!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Court Case
The 49ers' case will continue at 10am on Monday 12th October 2009 in Court 19 on the 9th Floor of the High Court Building, Queensway, Hong Kong. The transcripts of the proceedings so far may be found at:
49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings
Plaintiffs appearing next week are:
Brian Keene
Pierre Morrisette
Damon Neich-Buckley
Chris Sweeney
Henry Van Keulen
Craig Young
Witness Statements for the Defendants have been received from:
Philip Chen
Ronald Davies
Richard Hall
Denley Hau
Christopher Hoyland
Zdenek Kroutil
Sherman Lam
Dennis Leung
Andrew Maddox
Bob Nipperess
Nicholas Rhodes
Antony Tyler
Christina Wong
The case has been progressing more rapidly than expected. Defence witnesses are likely to be called next week to give evidence.
Best wishes
The CPU Admin
The Cathay Pilots Union Home Page
49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings
Plaintiffs appearing next week are:
Brian Keene
Pierre Morrisette
Damon Neich-Buckley
Chris Sweeney
Henry Van Keulen
Craig Young
Witness Statements for the Defendants have been received from:
Philip Chen
Ronald Davies
Richard Hall
Denley Hau
Christopher Hoyland
Zdenek Kroutil
Sherman Lam
Dennis Leung
Andrew Maddox
Bob Nipperess
Nicholas Rhodes
Antony Tyler
Christina Wong
The case has been progressing more rapidly than expected. Defence witnesses are likely to be called next week to give evidence.
Best wishes
The CPU Admin
The Cathay Pilots Union Home Page
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Court Proceedings
There must many of us living outside the Fragrant Harbour who are very interested in this case. Would some kind soul please post a 'brief' summary of the daily proceedings?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crwjerk
Normally when defence lawyers have no case they try and intimidate plantiff witnesses. That's why he's wasting time asking about other employers and why no other applications were made. Unfortunately for CX's lawyers, his Lordship has seen straight through them.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crwjerk
This is but one man's anonymous view on a public internet forum. I have no special information on the case.
I sense what is going on the Court Room is a skirmish; the real battle is being fought behind closed doors.
Most of the evidence is by way of documents (volumes and volumes), which the Judge has read. It seems to be me that the it has almost been agreed by both sides and the Judge that the 49ers have won the unfair dismissal, but not yet the defamation. Right from last Monday the Judge has been talking about "quantum"and pressing both sides to agree or at least set a framework for the scale of damages.
The Defence Barrister is doing most of the talking as he is wishing to discredit each individual 49ers to limit the damage. He is pressing hard on the job applications as he trying to say the 49ers did not aggressively seek work and that is the true reason they struggled to gain further employment; not the negative statements various CX figureheads made in the press, back in 2001.
I sense Mr Grossman (for the 49ers) is only making comment to bring the 49ers back to the documents should they stray (or be lead astray). I further sense Mr Grossman is keeping his powder dry for when Tyler, Chen and Rhodes appear. It is on those days you will see if both Barristers are worth their not inconsiderable fees.
Which leads to the real battle. The costs of these proceedings are potentially dwarfing the damages and I am certain CX is using that as leverage over the 49ers. Again, I have no information on this, but I would wager CX have made a settlement offer to each of the 49ers and should they fail to get a greater amount of damages from his Lordship; they will seek their costs. It's high stakes poker!
Ominously, the Judge is already talking of Appeal: he knows CX very well!!
Again, take the above for what it's worth: anonymous speculative BS on a public internet forum. That said, wouldn't it be nice if his Lordship struck back for the HK Judiciary and slapped some hefty damages on CX as punishment for bully-boy tactics in the HK Courts.
I sense what is going on the Court Room is a skirmish; the real battle is being fought behind closed doors.
Most of the evidence is by way of documents (volumes and volumes), which the Judge has read. It seems to be me that the it has almost been agreed by both sides and the Judge that the 49ers have won the unfair dismissal, but not yet the defamation. Right from last Monday the Judge has been talking about "quantum"and pressing both sides to agree or at least set a framework for the scale of damages.
The Defence Barrister is doing most of the talking as he is wishing to discredit each individual 49ers to limit the damage. He is pressing hard on the job applications as he trying to say the 49ers did not aggressively seek work and that is the true reason they struggled to gain further employment; not the negative statements various CX figureheads made in the press, back in 2001.
I sense Mr Grossman (for the 49ers) is only making comment to bring the 49ers back to the documents should they stray (or be lead astray). I further sense Mr Grossman is keeping his powder dry for when Tyler, Chen and Rhodes appear. It is on those days you will see if both Barristers are worth their not inconsiderable fees.
Which leads to the real battle. The costs of these proceedings are potentially dwarfing the damages and I am certain CX is using that as leverage over the 49ers. Again, I have no information on this, but I would wager CX have made a settlement offer to each of the 49ers and should they fail to get a greater amount of damages from his Lordship; they will seek their costs. It's high stakes poker!
Ominously, the Judge is already talking of Appeal: he knows CX very well!!
Again, take the above for what it's worth: anonymous speculative BS on a public internet forum. That said, wouldn't it be nice if his Lordship struck back for the HK Judiciary and slapped some hefty damages on CX as punishment for bully-boy tactics in the HK Courts.
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 14th Oct 2009 at 01:53.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting reading, and I am only a 3rd of the way through!
I was talking to one of my F/O's recently my about career role models, and started to think about the CX Captains who have helped to make me the Captain I am today.
During my
career, if I had been able to list the very worst dozen (or so!) skippers, then my 1999 hit list would have matched the list of 40-50 guys who eventually took redundancy and left. This was much to the pleasure of those who were left behind.
When it came to many of the 49ers in 2001, it was a completely different event. With one or two exceptions many of my very best skippers/role models were culled.. DouG/JonD/DMc/KM etc. The trips I flew with those guys were the times when I really learned how to be a good Captain.
Close attention is being payed to the court action. All the best....
I was talking to one of my F/O's recently my about career role models, and started to think about the CX Captains who have helped to make me the Captain I am today.
During my
career, if I had been able to list the very worst dozen (or so!) skippers, then my 1999 hit list would have matched the list of 40-50 guys who eventually took redundancy and left. This was much to the pleasure of those who were left behind.When it came to many of the 49ers in 2001, it was a completely different event. With one or two exceptions many of my very best skippers/role models were culled.. DouG/JonD/DMc/KM etc. The trips I flew with those guys were the times when I really learned how to be a good Captain.
Close attention is being payed to the court action. All the best....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fireplace
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll Do My Best
After reading all the transcripts, it seems CX did not like to hear the words,
"I'll do my best"when talking to Crew Control.
I do not remember this advice given in the newsletters, but I will use this phrase from now on, as as very small token to remind myself and management of this dark period in history.
I'll Do My Best
"I'll do my best"when talking to Crew Control.
I do not remember this advice given in the newsletters, but I will use this phrase from now on, as as very small token to remind myself and management of this dark period in history.
I'll Do My Best
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HONG KONG
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tyler And Chen In Court
Weather: Hong Kong 
24°C | Partly Cloudy </SPAN>'; a = a + ''; a = a + '
'; a = a + ''; document.write(a);}else if (location.href == 'http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.b17ba3523c5f6a3034ebbc0a53a0a0a0/?s=idx_Sport'){ var a = ''; a = a + ''; a = a + ''; a = a + '
'; a = a + ''; document.write(a);}//--> 
Last 7 days Archives Since 1993 
Ex-Cathay executive ties firings to union
Sacking of 49 pilots linked to 'disruptive activities'
Yvonne Tsui
Oct 15, 2009
| 
A former top executive of Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) admitted yesterday that the sacking of 49 pilots during an industrial dispute in 2001 was partly due to union activities that disrupted the company's operations.
Philip Chen Nan-lok, who was the airline's director and chief operating officer at the time, was testifying in the Court of First Instance, where Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes was hearing the claims launched by 18 of the pilots who alleged that their sacking - due to their union activities - was unlawful. The pilots are seeking compensation for the loss of their jobs and the distress they say was caused by the defamatory criticism by top airline executives in the media.
Chen told the court the pilots were sacked in July 2001 for the disruption caused by their "individual attitudes and activities", after a thorough review of their records. He said their behaviour caused a number of flight delays and cancellations.
He admitted they were sacked "partly" because of their labour actions, which brought about the disruption.
Earlier, the court had heard that the union, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, had encouraged the airline's pilots to take part in a "contract compliance campaign" that asked them to apply strictly the terms of their contracts. Pilots were asked to make sure they could not be contacted on their days off, so that the company could not rely on off-duty staff, the court heard. The campaign, which caused the delay of flights by about 15 minutes, was aimed at pressing airline management to continue negotiations with the union on various issues.
The 18 pilots were sacked after the start of an industrial action called the "maximum safety strategy" on July 3, 2001, the court heard.
Chen told the court the decision to sack the pilots was based on whether the company could rely on its employees to act in its best interests, in a way "not entirely to do with contract compliance".
Clive Grossman SC, the pilots' barrister, then asked Chen: "So you have confidence in the other 1,500-odd pilots, notwithstanding the fact that they also participated [in the industrial action]?" Chen said: "We had confidence in our staff, except disruptive activities."
Chen had also publicly attacked the pilots' industrial action as a lack of professionalism, the court heard. Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional".
Tony Tyler, the airline's chief executive, also testified. Tyler, then the director of corporate development, had criticised the pilots' behaviour as holding Hong Kong to ransom, the court had heard.
He said he was not involved in the decision to sack the pilots, but was confident it was the result of the pilots' performance and not connected to their union activities.
He said that although he was not involved in identifying the pilots to be sacked, he felt that those picked "could not be relied on to perform their job". He also said he stood by his claim that the 49ers, as the pilots became known, were holding Hong Kong to ransom because travel in and out of the city had been disrupted.
But when Grossman cited comments attributed to Tyler in a CNN report that suggested a link between the labour actions and the firings, Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today.
24°C | Partly Cloudy </SPAN>'; a = a + ''; a = a + ' Last 7 days Archives Since 1993 Ex-Cathay executive ties firings to union
Sacking of 49 pilots linked to 'disruptive activities'
Yvonne Tsui
Oct 15, 2009
| A former top executive of Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) admitted yesterday that the sacking of 49 pilots during an industrial dispute in 2001 was partly due to union activities that disrupted the company's operations.
Philip Chen Nan-lok, who was the airline's director and chief operating officer at the time, was testifying in the Court of First Instance, where Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes was hearing the claims launched by 18 of the pilots who alleged that their sacking - due to their union activities - was unlawful. The pilots are seeking compensation for the loss of their jobs and the distress they say was caused by the defamatory criticism by top airline executives in the media.
Chen told the court the pilots were sacked in July 2001 for the disruption caused by their "individual attitudes and activities", after a thorough review of their records. He said their behaviour caused a number of flight delays and cancellations.
He admitted they were sacked "partly" because of their labour actions, which brought about the disruption.
Earlier, the court had heard that the union, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, had encouraged the airline's pilots to take part in a "contract compliance campaign" that asked them to apply strictly the terms of their contracts. Pilots were asked to make sure they could not be contacted on their days off, so that the company could not rely on off-duty staff, the court heard. The campaign, which caused the delay of flights by about 15 minutes, was aimed at pressing airline management to continue negotiations with the union on various issues.
The 18 pilots were sacked after the start of an industrial action called the "maximum safety strategy" on July 3, 2001, the court heard.
Chen told the court the decision to sack the pilots was based on whether the company could rely on its employees to act in its best interests, in a way "not entirely to do with contract compliance".
Clive Grossman SC, the pilots' barrister, then asked Chen: "So you have confidence in the other 1,500-odd pilots, notwithstanding the fact that they also participated [in the industrial action]?" Chen said: "We had confidence in our staff, except disruptive activities."
Chen had also publicly attacked the pilots' industrial action as a lack of professionalism, the court heard. Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional".
Tony Tyler, the airline's chief executive, also testified. Tyler, then the director of corporate development, had criticised the pilots' behaviour as holding Hong Kong to ransom, the court had heard.
He said he was not involved in the decision to sack the pilots, but was confident it was the result of the pilots' performance and not connected to their union activities.
He said that although he was not involved in identifying the pilots to be sacked, he felt that those picked "could not be relied on to perform their job". He also said he stood by his claim that the 49ers, as the pilots became known, were holding Hong Kong to ransom because travel in and out of the city had been disrupted.
But when Grossman cited comments attributed to Tyler in a CNN report that suggested a link between the labour actions and the firings, Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MARS
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional".
Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today.
Would anyone perhaps know whether The Chen and Tyler-the-Liar are being held individually responsible for the defamation claims?
Hope their bank balances are strong,cause they're GONNA PAY UP!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Israel
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what you've been waiting for is the day Tyler, Chen & Rhodes had to face the music for what they did in 2001, then fill your boots with the excellent cross-examination by Grossman S.C (for the 18 '49ers') on day 7 of the hearing.
It's 148 pages long and it's painful for them but bliss to read!
A taste, from an exchange between his Lordship and Rhodes:
HIS LORDSHIP: I understand your point, Mr Rhodes.
Again, the concern, I think, of Mr Grossman [for the 49ers] is this.
You have a crew controller saying, "This is a difficult
person, I remember such and such an incident, specific
incident". Normally fairness would at least require
that you listen to the other side, if you are going to
look at it objectively, and give the pilot concerned
a chance to explain, if there is explanation, about the
specific incidents referred to by the crew controller,
just to give the pilot some opportunity to explain his
side. That wasn't done.
Mr Grossman is saying, on that basis, can you really
say that it was a fair process, it was a rigorous review
procedure? I think that's what Mr Grossman is
questioning.
RHODES: Yes, sir.
HIS LORDSHIP: What do you say to that, Mr Rhodes?
RHODES: As I've said before, we could have chosen to level
a disciplinary charge against the individuals --
HIS LORDSHIP: I understand that point, Mr Rhodes, but that
sounds possibly even worse, Mr Grossman would say,
because what you're saying is, "Well, we can't prove it,
we don't really have any rigorous or even any real proof
about this, so we'll just get around the difficulty of
the disciplinary and grievance procedure by giving three
months' notice".
RHODES: Well, that, as I've tried to explain, is the entire
reason why the union and why many pilots felt that
having the sick-out and having contract compliance was
the perfect weapon to put pressure on the company,
because the company can't prove anything in
a disciplinary hearing.
HIS LORDSHIP: This was your response to that perfect
weapon?
RHODES: Well, the only response we have is to monitor their
behaviour and hope we would get a deal around the table,
and then the behaviour would all disappear overnight --
HIS LORDSHIP: But this dismissal of the 49 was your
response to the difficulties of proof raised by the
perfect weapon indulged in, engaged in, by the union?
To be continued....
It's 148 pages long and it's painful for them but bliss to read!
A taste, from an exchange between his Lordship and Rhodes:
HIS LORDSHIP: I understand your point, Mr Rhodes.
Again, the concern, I think, of Mr Grossman [for the 49ers] is this.
You have a crew controller saying, "This is a difficult
person, I remember such and such an incident, specific
incident". Normally fairness would at least require
that you listen to the other side, if you are going to
look at it objectively, and give the pilot concerned
a chance to explain, if there is explanation, about the
specific incidents referred to by the crew controller,
just to give the pilot some opportunity to explain his
side. That wasn't done.
Mr Grossman is saying, on that basis, can you really
say that it was a fair process, it was a rigorous review
procedure? I think that's what Mr Grossman is
questioning.
RHODES: Yes, sir.
HIS LORDSHIP: What do you say to that, Mr Rhodes?
RHODES: As I've said before, we could have chosen to level
a disciplinary charge against the individuals --
HIS LORDSHIP: I understand that point, Mr Rhodes, but that
sounds possibly even worse, Mr Grossman would say,
because what you're saying is, "Well, we can't prove it,
we don't really have any rigorous or even any real proof
about this, so we'll just get around the difficulty of
the disciplinary and grievance procedure by giving three
months' notice".
RHODES: Well, that, as I've tried to explain, is the entire
reason why the union and why many pilots felt that
having the sick-out and having contract compliance was
the perfect weapon to put pressure on the company,
because the company can't prove anything in
a disciplinary hearing.
HIS LORDSHIP: This was your response to that perfect
weapon?
RHODES: Well, the only response we have is to monitor their
behaviour and hope we would get a deal around the table,
and then the behaviour would all disappear overnight --
HIS LORDSHIP: But this dismissal of the 49 was your
response to the difficulties of proof raised by the
perfect weapon indulged in, engaged in, by the union?
To be continued....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: hong kong
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastical most interesting reading ! I'm luvin it !
A must read for all CX pilots.......
here is the link again....
49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings
A must read for all CX pilots.......
here is the link again....
49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings