Judgement in the 49ers case: 11/11/09
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay Pacific to pay $8 million for firing, defaming pilots
Isn't there something in Corporate Policy about bringing the Company into disrepute being a dismissable offence. Surely this kind of press coverage can't be seen as anything else than doing just that.
Isn't there something in Corporate Policy about bringing the Company into disrepute being a dismissable offence. Surely this kind of press coverage can't be seen as anything else than doing just that.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay Up
C'mon CX how about some decent behaviour and pay the compensation to the men (and families) who's lives you destroyed by your brutal and unacceptable actions of 8 years ago. To appeal and have the likes of THE SHERMINATOR to take the stand again will only reinforce the way the entire aviation world takes a dim view of your management style. You were wrong to do what you did and you have been foung guilty of that in court.....pay up! you have caused too much pain already.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the spin on IntraCX.... Why don't they just admit they lost and take it like the spineless, lying (under oath) picks that they are!
Congratulations to all of the 49's.... This is truly a great moral victory, if not an adequate financial one.
Congratulations to all of the 49's.... This is truly a great moral victory, if not an adequate financial one.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Pratt; time to step up to the plate
Cathay have a Corporate Code of Conduct which is accessable to all staff via intracx. It binds all employees, directors included. Due to the magnitude of this Judgment, not only in financial terms, but by the involvement of some very senior Cathay figures, the Chairman of the Board, Chris Pratt, must be seen to take a very close look at the actions and behaviour of these individuals.
The Code promotes acceptable principles for behaviour in the work place, by not permitting any breaches of Employment Law and not condoning bullying, harassment and discrimination (including political views). The Code also cautions against openly advising colleagues to destroy documents. Breaching the code can carry serious sanctions.
Whilst the company has been properly dealt with by a Court, the focus must now turn to the behaviour of some of the individuals concerned.
Firstly, and by no means the worst, the Judge singled out Sherman Lam's testimony and described it as "an embarrasing assertion and name calling" Surely this amounts to bullying and harrassment.
A cornerstone of the Judgement was the very serious non-compliance of Employment Ordinance, notably unfair dismissal and the very real suggestion the dismissals were motivated by union involvement rather than activity (not as subtely suggested by the company's latest missive, union activities in the workplace). Mr Pratt should seek out those who were involved, both directly and indirectly, in the wrongful dismissals and both publicly and forcefully deal with them.
The manner in which Cathay conducted themselves during the Trial seemed to concern the Judge. The issue of the destruction of documents and the often contradictory testimony by Cathay witnesses needs to be considered by Mr Pratt. The fact that one of the defaming statements remained on CX's website until very recently was highlighted by the Judge and those who control the website should be explaining to Mr Pratt how this came about.
Finally, Messers Chen and Tyler. Their words cost Cathay shareholders and staff $60m. If one of us takes an unused newspaper off the aircraft we face dismissal.....
So come on Mr Pratt, show us the Corporate Code of Conduct is not some Management "yuck-speak" designed to placate Listing Authorities, but a meaningful document outlining accepted behaviour for all staff.
Mr Pratt, I look forward to your Friday telex......................
The Code promotes acceptable principles for behaviour in the work place, by not permitting any breaches of Employment Law and not condoning bullying, harassment and discrimination (including political views). The Code also cautions against openly advising colleagues to destroy documents. Breaching the code can carry serious sanctions.
Whilst the company has been properly dealt with by a Court, the focus must now turn to the behaviour of some of the individuals concerned.
Firstly, and by no means the worst, the Judge singled out Sherman Lam's testimony and described it as "an embarrasing assertion and name calling" Surely this amounts to bullying and harrassment.
A cornerstone of the Judgement was the very serious non-compliance of Employment Ordinance, notably unfair dismissal and the very real suggestion the dismissals were motivated by union involvement rather than activity (not as subtely suggested by the company's latest missive, union activities in the workplace). Mr Pratt should seek out those who were involved, both directly and indirectly, in the wrongful dismissals and both publicly and forcefully deal with them.
The manner in which Cathay conducted themselves during the Trial seemed to concern the Judge. The issue of the destruction of documents and the often contradictory testimony by Cathay witnesses needs to be considered by Mr Pratt. The fact that one of the defaming statements remained on CX's website until very recently was highlighted by the Judge and those who control the website should be explaining to Mr Pratt how this came about.
Finally, Messers Chen and Tyler. Their words cost Cathay shareholders and staff $60m. If one of us takes an unused newspaper off the aircraft we face dismissal.....
So come on Mr Pratt, show us the Corporate Code of Conduct is not some Management "yuck-speak" designed to placate Listing Authorities, but a meaningful document outlining accepted behaviour for all staff.
Mr Pratt, I look forward to your Friday telex......................
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where did CCD find in the judgement that union activity that was employed by the pilots at anyway against the employment ord?
I read the judgement that the activites that were pursued were within the confines of our contract. And as the judge ruled in no way our voting in union activities preclude the company from said actions against union members.
Thumbs up asses heads in the sand.....lets move the deck chairs again and still believe we didnt screw up and hit that iceberg.
Keeping Score.
I read the judgement that the activites that were pursued were within the confines of our contract. And as the judge ruled in no way our voting in union activities preclude the company from said actions against union members.
Thumbs up asses heads in the sand.....lets move the deck chairs again and still believe we didnt screw up and hit that iceberg.
Keeping Score.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scorecard
Not sure if I understand your question or even if it's directed at me, however, I am referring to paragraph 4 of today's missive. It refers to the Terminations (Note 1) being for perceived participation in union activities and the ruling reaffirms that union activity in the workplace is in contravention of the Hong Kong Employment Ordinance.
It's either very clumsily worded or for someone not as well read in this case as you (being most of the work force) it could be construed as a continuation of the "they were troublemakers" argument. Just goes to show no lessons have been learnt.
Note 1. CCD seem to have missed out the adjectives wrongful and/or unlawful when describing the terminations. I am sure it is a mere oversight and will be amended in due course.
PS. CCD also say that wrongful dismissal applied to 17 out of the 18. To the not so well read, it would be fair to assume that one deserved to be dismisssed. They of cousre fail to mention that George Crofts succeeded in the UK Courts with his unfair dismissal claim and was therefore not able to persue the matter in HK. But then again, to admit 2 Judges had ruled unfair dismissal doesn't really "spin right" does it?
It's either very clumsily worded or for someone not as well read in this case as you (being most of the work force) it could be construed as a continuation of the "they were troublemakers" argument. Just goes to show no lessons have been learnt.
Note 1. CCD seem to have missed out the adjectives wrongful and/or unlawful when describing the terminations. I am sure it is a mere oversight and will be amended in due course.
PS. CCD also say that wrongful dismissal applied to 17 out of the 18. To the not so well read, it would be fair to assume that one deserved to be dismisssed. They of cousre fail to mention that George Crofts succeeded in the UK Courts with his unfair dismissal claim and was therefore not able to persue the matter in HK. But then again, to admit 2 Judges had ruled unfair dismissal doesn't really "spin right" does it?
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 12th Nov 2009 at 09:48.
The Court Judgment is a stinging rebuke for Tyler, Rhodes and Chen. Apparently, Barley is yet to be fully judged...
CX Management and Swire will be head underground and tail firmly tucked between hind quarters.
It must come as some surprise for the Swire Princes to realize that their day to day decisions and actions are not above the rule of law after all...
CX Management and Swire will be head underground and tail firmly tucked between hind quarters.
It must come as some surprise for the Swire Princes to realize that their day to day decisions and actions are not above the rule of law after all...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HONG KONG
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not on the subject I would like to ask a question.
How come we are the only group in this workforce that are required to wear a name badge depicting our full name not only to all at the city but to the world of folks that we carry.
This started when the intimidation started if I recall.
Throw them away chaps.
And you are not expected to recall 2500 names so if you forget mine just ask and I will understand.
How come we are the only group in this workforce that are required to wear a name badge depicting our full name not only to all at the city but to the world of folks that we carry.
This started when the intimidation started if I recall.
Throw them away chaps.
And you are not expected to recall 2500 names so if you forget mine just ask and I will understand.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: heads down trying to figure out Chinese RVSM
Posts: 200
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come we are the only group in this workforce that are required to wear a name badge depicting our full name not only to all at the city but to the world of folks that we carry.
This started when the intimidation started if I recall.
Throw them away chaps.
This started when the intimidation started if I recall.
Throw them away chaps.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You actually wear your name badge?
Tho' buddy I wouldn't if I looked down and saw Murray Gardner or Steve Turner on it.
That would be too embarrassing.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Gloucestershire
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Kitsune - suggested film
I can't immediately come up with a "snappy" title for a film but if you make anagrams of the names of some of the perceived "protagonists" such as Sir A-rian S-ire you get "Air Wars Insider" and Chen, Tyler, Rhodes gives you "coherently shred"!!
Could be a story line in there somewhere!
Could be a story line in there somewhere!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
83. The evidence from Cathay’s own staff as to the “negative attitude” of given Plaintiffs was itself vague and unparticularised. The following passage from the Witness Statement of Mr. Sherman Lam of Crew Control (which came in as evidence by agreement of the parties without the need to call Mr. Lam) was typical:-
[]
[]
[]
84. Mr. Lam’s statement amounts to no more than embarrassing assertion and name-calling. No specific details are mentioned, so that it was impossible for the Plaintiffs concerned to rebut the same at trial. The statement was of no help to the Court at all.
85. Mr. Rhodes himself candidly admitted that Cathay lacked hard proof in relation to the Plaintiffs’ alleged “conduct”.
[]
[]
[]
84. Mr. Lam’s statement amounts to no more than embarrassing assertion and name-calling. No specific details are mentioned, so that it was impossible for the Plaintiffs concerned to rebut the same at trial. The statement was of no help to the Court at all.
85. Mr. Rhodes himself candidly admitted that Cathay lacked hard proof in relation to the Plaintiffs’ alleged “conduct”.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: HK
Age: 58
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>> Not being a CX Pilot myself I was curious as to why only 18 Pilots were awarded a judgement and not the entire 49.
It is because AOA withdrew its support to the 49ers as a result of the former team of lawyers' advice that the defamation claim was bound to fail. Many of the 49ers, willingly or unwillingly, chose to settle.
It is because AOA withdrew its support to the 49ers as a result of the former team of lawyers' advice that the defamation claim was bound to fail. Many of the 49ers, willingly or unwillingly, chose to settle.
