The Appeal
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once - just this once - could they not have done the right thing? Could they not have shown that there are actually living, breathing human beings behind the corporation, who through conceptions such as decency, empathy, natural justice and self-conscience remind us that corporate values still reflect upon those who create them?
"Do to others what you would like to be done to you."
Taking orders from within the walls of corporate greed and pure pursuit of profit doesn't excuse the individual from his or her human existence and underlying accountability for actions taken in the name of shareholders.
"Do to others what you would like to be done to you."
Taking orders from within the walls of corporate greed and pure pursuit of profit doesn't excuse the individual from his or her human existence and underlying accountability for actions taken in the name of shareholders.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Defamation
The Company had been tracking attendance records, in great detail, for
30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on
the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation
in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on
the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation
in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
Isn't this Newsletter a repeat of the defamation they have just been in court for and found guilty of???
But anyway weren't the 49ers fired "for no particular reason"?
More lies.
As mentioned in a previous Update
I was quite keen to bring this whole matter to a close but there is too
strong a feeling amongst the legal team that the judge has got it wrong
in terms of his interpretation of the Employment Ordinance.
I was quite keen to bring this whole matter to a close but there is too
strong a feeling amongst the legal team that the judge has got it wrong
in terms of his interpretation of the Employment Ordinance.
The CX legal team were dealt a devastating blow with this loss. But, if they get even more money from CX by talking CX into an appeal, then the sting of the next defeat will be sooth by cash and made more bearable.
They sure know how to play up to those management big swinging dicks with testicles ten times the size of their brains.
Bring it on! The managers responsible for the mass sackings have not been punished or even publicly humiliated enough for their lies and for their reprehensible actions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Company had been tracking attendance records, in great detail, for
30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on
the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation
in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on
the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation
in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They didn't bring it up in court because it's not the truth and therefore they were unable to produce any evidence or credible witnesses to support it.
Day 7 Transcript
Star Chamber Hit List
The Hit List shows that the wrongfully terminated pilots were those the Star Chamber managers or crew controllers didn't like. If attendance/sickness was really an issue they would have sacked the top 49 on the list but they didn't because it was union bust. They also swore on oath that no documents were used or produced in the Star Chamber meetings; that was until the Hitlist appeared and they changed their story. Not surprisingly there were documents used and produced and they simply lied. How else could they remember the 49 names of the pilots they then went away to sack?
Day 7 Transcript
Star Chamber Hit List
The Hit List shows that the wrongfully terminated pilots were those the Star Chamber managers or crew controllers didn't like. If attendance/sickness was really an issue they would have sacked the top 49 on the list but they didn't because it was union bust. They also swore on oath that no documents were used or produced in the Star Chamber meetings; that was until the Hitlist appeared and they changed their story. Not surprisingly there were documents used and produced and they simply lied. How else could they remember the 49 names of the pilots they then went away to sack?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
missing the point
Guys, they're not appealing because it's of benefit to them. They're doing it because the ruling has
"has serious implications for all employers in Hong Kong."
Once again, Cathay is coming to the rescue of Hong Kong, which is again under threat from militant pilots
"has serious implications for all employers in Hong Kong."
Once again, Cathay is coming to the rescue of Hong Kong, which is again under threat from militant pilots
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"has serious implications for all employers in Hong Kong."
so noble, I am sure they are writing to all HK emloyers asking them for a contribution towards the lawyers fees.
so noble, I am sure they are writing to all HK emloyers asking them for a contribution towards the lawyers fees.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
49er Court Case
On Wednesday 9th December the CX legal team filed an appeal against the High Court judgment in the 49er Case. As mentioned in a previous Update I was quite keen to bring this whole matter to a close but there is too strong a feeling amongst the legal team that the judge has got it wrong in terms of his interpretation of the Employment Ordinance. The EO does provide a level of protection for employees
engaging in legitimate trade union activity outside of the workplace but this was not the basis for selecting any of the 49ers for termination of employment in 2001.
The Company had been tracking attendance records, in great detail, for 30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
The CX legal team believes that the judge's conclusion, that employees engaging in industrial action such as “Sick Outs” or “Go Slows” is a protected union activity under the EO, is wrong in law and has serious implications for all employers in Hong Kong.
Furthermore, if the Court of Appeal accepts this submission then our legal team believes that the Company was justified in saying that the plaintiffs were not working in the airline’s best interest. This would also bring into question the award of record libel damages to the dismissed pilots.
Hopefully the appeal will be heard without too much delay although this will depend on how busy the courts are.
Nick Rhodes
DFO
On Wednesday 9th December the CX legal team filed an appeal against the High Court judgment in the 49er Case. As mentioned in a previous Update I was quite keen to bring this whole matter to a close but there is too strong a feeling amongst the legal team that the judge has got it wrong in terms of his interpretation of the Employment Ordinance. The EO does provide a level of protection for employees
engaging in legitimate trade union activity outside of the workplace but this was not the basis for selecting any of the 49ers for termination of employment in 2001.
The Company had been tracking attendance records, in great detail, for 30 months prior to July 2001 and the 49ers were selected, primarily, on the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
The CX legal team believes that the judge's conclusion, that employees engaging in industrial action such as “Sick Outs” or “Go Slows” is a protected union activity under the EO, is wrong in law and has serious implications for all employers in Hong Kong.
Furthermore, if the Court of Appeal accepts this submission then our legal team believes that the Company was justified in saying that the plaintiffs were not working in the airline’s best interest. This would also bring into question the award of record libel damages to the dismissed pilots.
Hopefully the appeal will be heard without too much delay although this will depend on how busy the courts are.
Nick Rhodes
DFO
What a tosser.
Presumably it will be about how the appeal judges got it wrong as well?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A New Court Case
the 49ers were selected, primarily, on the basis of their attendance records i.e. their level of participation in the so-called “Sick Out” campaign.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow hoofharted,
How long did it take you to come up with that well thought out, mature and intellectual masterpiece of a reply?????
I see by your previous posts you like a good whinge and whine.
How long did it take you to come up with that well thought out, mature and intellectual masterpiece of a reply?????
I see by your previous posts you like a good whinge and whine.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong K ong
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SCMP Dec 16, 2009
Cathay fails to block payout to '49ers'
Yvonne Tsui
Dec 16, 2009
Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) has failed to stop a judgment ordering it to pay more than HK$61 million to eighteen of the "49ers" - the pilots sacked en masse during an industrial dispute in 2001 - despite the airline having an appeal under way.
The 18 won the compensation and damages last month for unfair dismissal and defamation. The other 49ers had already accepted settlement offers from the airline.
Yesterday Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes, of the Court of First Instance, declined a request from the airline for a stay of execution of the judgment he gave on November 11.
Launching the application on behalf of the airline, barrister Robin McLeish indicated to the court that the airline had filed an appeal against Reyes' judgment. Refusing the request, Reyes said: "I don't see that there is very strong ground for success. There is absolutely no reason for me to grant a stay."
He also made an order to release money put into court before trial as security by the airline and by pilots residing outside Hong Kong. A total of HK$6.47 million had been deposited by the airline, and seven pilots had together put in about HK$2 million.
In his judgment, Reyes held that the airline had contravened the Employment Ordinance by dismissing the 18 pilots without a valid reason.
The pilots were sacked between July 9 and 11, 2001 during a dispute over pay and rosters. Their contracts were terminated with three months' pay. They had allegedly taken part in union actions including "work-to-rule" schemes that had slowed down the daily operation of the airline.
Reyes held that the dismissal of the pilots was based on their support for the union and their alleged involvement in the union's activities, although he found that there was no evidence showing the pilots had actually participated.
He also found that the airline failed to invoke prescribed disciplinary procedures in the pilots' contracts, though it claimed that the underlying reason for the dismissals was "gross misconduct".
After his judgment, the pilots also succeeded in claiming for defamation, for remarks made after the sacking by two Cathay executives - Philip Chen Nan-lok, in 2001 the director and chief operating officer, and Tony Tyler, now the chief executive.
Chan had publicly accused the pilots of having shown a lack of "total professionalism", and disrupting the airline's operation and the reputation of Hong Kong.
Tyler had accused them of holding Hong Kong to ransom and failing to act in the company's interests.
Reyes had ordered the airline to compensate the pilots, except Gregory England, who died in January 2001, HK$3.3 million each for the defamation.
He also awarded HK$150,000 to each pilot - except one, who had won his claim in a London employment tribunal - for the unfair dismissal.
Yvonne Tsui
Dec 16, 2009
Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) has failed to stop a judgment ordering it to pay more than HK$61 million to eighteen of the "49ers" - the pilots sacked en masse during an industrial dispute in 2001 - despite the airline having an appeal under way.
The 18 won the compensation and damages last month for unfair dismissal and defamation. The other 49ers had already accepted settlement offers from the airline.
Yesterday Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes, of the Court of First Instance, declined a request from the airline for a stay of execution of the judgment he gave on November 11.
Launching the application on behalf of the airline, barrister Robin McLeish indicated to the court that the airline had filed an appeal against Reyes' judgment. Refusing the request, Reyes said: "I don't see that there is very strong ground for success. There is absolutely no reason for me to grant a stay."
He also made an order to release money put into court before trial as security by the airline and by pilots residing outside Hong Kong. A total of HK$6.47 million had been deposited by the airline, and seven pilots had together put in about HK$2 million.
In his judgment, Reyes held that the airline had contravened the Employment Ordinance by dismissing the 18 pilots without a valid reason.
The pilots were sacked between July 9 and 11, 2001 during a dispute over pay and rosters. Their contracts were terminated with three months' pay. They had allegedly taken part in union actions including "work-to-rule" schemes that had slowed down the daily operation of the airline.
Reyes held that the dismissal of the pilots was based on their support for the union and their alleged involvement in the union's activities, although he found that there was no evidence showing the pilots had actually participated.
He also found that the airline failed to invoke prescribed disciplinary procedures in the pilots' contracts, though it claimed that the underlying reason for the dismissals was "gross misconduct".
After his judgment, the pilots also succeeded in claiming for defamation, for remarks made after the sacking by two Cathay executives - Philip Chen Nan-lok, in 2001 the director and chief operating officer, and Tony Tyler, now the chief executive.
Chan had publicly accused the pilots of having shown a lack of "total professionalism", and disrupting the airline's operation and the reputation of Hong Kong.
Tyler had accused them of holding Hong Kong to ransom and failing to act in the company's interests.
Reyes had ordered the airline to compensate the pilots, except Gregory England, who died in January 2001, HK$3.3 million each for the defamation.
He also awarded HK$150,000 to each pilot - except one, who had won his claim in a London employment tribunal - for the unfair dismissal.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HONG KONG
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barrister Robin McLeish indicated to the court that the airline had filed an appeal against Reyes' judgment. Refusing the request, Reyes said: "I don't see that there is very strong ground for success.
Does this court know who they are dealing with?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let them at it
Let them at the appeal, there is a good chance that management will land themselves in deep legal water personally during same. I wonder did the legal team advise the appeal, or were they pushed by certain individuals to find an undotted i or uncrossed t in the judgement to launch same under.
The Judge obviously does not see even a minor chance of success when he ordered the payouts to go ahead, or perhaps he viewed the application as a further attempt to increase the suffering of the 49ers.
Whats the money..........on an appeal of the result of failing to obtain a stay of execution on the payouts?
The Judge obviously does not see even a minor chance of success when he ordered the payouts to go ahead, or perhaps he viewed the application as a further attempt to increase the suffering of the 49ers.
Whats the money..........on an appeal of the result of failing to obtain a stay of execution on the payouts?