S/O Bypass Case
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: Paradise
Hong Kong employment contracts.. now in 3-ply packs!
yb,
I've read the finding, allow me to paraphrase:
"CPA can do what they want, when they want because the contract is so full of legal holes as to make it worthless... That is all."
I wish I was kidding, I really do.
I've read the finding, allow me to paraphrase:
"CPA can do what they want, when they want because the contract is so full of legal holes as to make it worthless... That is all."
I wish I was kidding, I really do.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: HKG
Hold on. We dont yet know on what points they had a win. The case is not as simple as a yes / no.
This is not the end of it.
I am also really looking forward to the DFO letter on friday - would be interesting to see how they go about telling us that they were right when we all know the reality of this farce.
Please justify how one SO got two years of bypass and another one number down in seniority got none?
I also wonder if management ever consider the effect long term. 200 + guys at the beginning of their careers who now will show so much less goodwill thanthey would have if they were treated right over the next 25 years. I bet that will cost more than the bypass bill....
This is not the end of it.
I am also really looking forward to the DFO letter on friday - would be interesting to see how they go about telling us that they were right when we all know the reality of this farce.
Please justify how one SO got two years of bypass and another one number down in seniority got none?
I also wonder if management ever consider the effect long term. 200 + guys at the beginning of their careers who now will show so much less goodwill thanthey would have if they were treated right over the next 25 years. I bet that will cost more than the bypass bill....
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 361
Likes: 1
From: Hong Kong
I also wonder if management ever consider the effect long term. 200 + guys at the beginning of their careers who now will show so much less goodwill thanthey would have if they were treated right over the next 25 years. I bet that will cost more than the bypass bill....
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Muppet Town - HK
10-20 years to Command, makes no difference, those S/Os who stay will remember this day for the rest of their careers at CX.
Now will come the self-indulgent smug gloating from a management team that includes perjurers and an adulterer (C&T 777) who personally threatened the career of an S/O. That man needs to be given a boot party. Enough said.
They are the biggest liars and thieves...and can never really look you in the eye.
For us F/Os the result is also bad news, lack of precedence.
Now will come the self-indulgent smug gloating from a management team that includes perjurers and an adulterer (C&T 777) who personally threatened the career of an S/O. That man needs to be given a boot party. Enough said.
They are the biggest liars and thieves...and can never really look you in the eye.
For us F/Os the result is also bad news, lack of precedence.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Lion rock bottom
I guess that first Judge was a complete idiot then? I mean, how else would you explain each and every one of his judgements being overturned by one of his peers?
...
Well, at least we know that doesn't work... Time for plan B.
...Well, at least we know that doesn't work... Time for plan B.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I think I'm going to change my vote
I had voted as recommended by the GC.
The overwhelming feeling of being crapped on by this judgement has convinvced me to change my vote.
"For" and "For".
I'm not an S/O.
The overwhelming feeling of being crapped on by this judgement has convinvced me to change my vote.
"For" and "For".
I'm not an S/O.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: Hong K ong
Cathay Pacific has won a ruling
Cathay Pacific has won a ruling that it need not assess all second officers for promotion to junior first officer before it can hire one from outside. Overturning a ruling in the Labour Tribunal that Cathay had an obligation to do so, Court of First Instance judge Madam Justice Carlye Chu Fun-ling said the tribunal had erred in some legal points and that the matter should not only be viewed from the employee's perspective.
The judge wrote in her judgment that the employment contract stated that the airline had a right to decide when it needed to promote a second officer, which the tribunal had failed to take into account.
The appeal stemmed from a claim by Scott Williams, a second officer, who argued that Cathay had delayed his promotion by six months contrary to the terms of his employment and as a result he should be compensated for the difference in salary between the two positions.
After winning in the tribunal, Williams was to have received up to HK$270,000, withheld pending the decision of the appeal. As well as failing to get this money he was ordered yesterday to pay Cathay's legal costs in the appeal - lodged by the airline because, it said, it estimated there were about 150 similar cases.
A deputy presiding officer in the tribunal found that Cathay had an implied obligation to exhaust assessment of second officers before it began recruitment of a direct-entry first officer. The judge yesterday overturned the tribunal's finding that holding upgrade courses for junior first officers was not at the discretion of Cathay. She said the tribunal had wrongly found an implied obligation to assess junior officers first because it had failed to take into account another clause, which reserved a Cathay discretion on promotion.
The judge said: "I am unable to agree with the claimant's argument that the question of requirement should only be viewed from the employee's perspective."
The judge also overturned the tribunal officer's finding that Cathay had breached a contractual obligation by failing to arrange two assessments for Williams - a technical assessment and the upgrade-review-board assessment - because he was the next most senior second officer suitable for promotion in February 2008. The judge said the tribunal had come to this conclusion in the absence of evidence and through misunderstanding of evidence.
She said the tribunal had wrongly accepted a method that Williams used to show he was the next most senior person to be promoted
The judge wrote in her judgment that the employment contract stated that the airline had a right to decide when it needed to promote a second officer, which the tribunal had failed to take into account.
The appeal stemmed from a claim by Scott Williams, a second officer, who argued that Cathay had delayed his promotion by six months contrary to the terms of his employment and as a result he should be compensated for the difference in salary between the two positions.
After winning in the tribunal, Williams was to have received up to HK$270,000, withheld pending the decision of the appeal. As well as failing to get this money he was ordered yesterday to pay Cathay's legal costs in the appeal - lodged by the airline because, it said, it estimated there were about 150 similar cases.
A deputy presiding officer in the tribunal found that Cathay had an implied obligation to exhaust assessment of second officers before it began recruitment of a direct-entry first officer. The judge yesterday overturned the tribunal's finding that holding upgrade courses for junior first officers was not at the discretion of Cathay. She said the tribunal had wrongly found an implied obligation to assess junior officers first because it had failed to take into account another clause, which reserved a Cathay discretion on promotion.
The judge said: "I am unable to agree with the claimant's argument that the question of requirement should only be viewed from the employee's perspective."
The judge also overturned the tribunal officer's finding that Cathay had breached a contractual obligation by failing to arrange two assessments for Williams - a technical assessment and the upgrade-review-board assessment - because he was the next most senior second officer suitable for promotion in February 2008. The judge said the tribunal had come to this conclusion in the absence of evidence and through misunderstanding of evidence.
She said the tribunal had wrongly accepted a method that Williams used to show he was the next most senior person to be promoted
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: Hong K ong
Cathay pilot says sacking was unfair
A FORMER senior captain with Cathay Pacific is set to argue his claim of unfair dismissal against the airline in the Labour Tribunal. Val McCarthy, 54, was sacked in January after 21 years with the company. He had been due to retire in October, and will need to return from Britain to appear before the hearing.
The case was first taken to the tribunal in mid-April but had been adjourned. Mr McCarthy claims his dismissal was related to a dispute over his contract and money the airline claimed he owed it.
Yesterday, the tribunal's presiding officer, Tong Man, adjourned the case to August 30, because the airline said it had to discuss the facts of the sacking with the pilot.
Mr McCarthy says the row dates back to early last year when he accepted a five per cent salary increase. At the time, an industrial dispute by Cathay staff seeking better pay was headline news.
The airline eventually sent cockpit crews new contracts containing an eight per cent pay rise, but stipulating increased productivity.
As Mr McCarthy and about 45 others insisted on keeping their old contracts, they were told to pay back the five per cent pay rise, taken from the beginning of the year, he says.
Several members of staff reportedly refused for months, though all but Mr McCarthy later gave in.
The airline denied any relation between the dispute and the captain's dismissal.
The case was first taken to the tribunal in mid-April but had been adjourned. Mr McCarthy claims his dismissal was related to a dispute over his contract and money the airline claimed he owed it.
Yesterday, the tribunal's presiding officer, Tong Man, adjourned the case to August 30, because the airline said it had to discuss the facts of the sacking with the pilot.
Mr McCarthy says the row dates back to early last year when he accepted a five per cent salary increase. At the time, an industrial dispute by Cathay staff seeking better pay was headline news.
The airline eventually sent cockpit crews new contracts containing an eight per cent pay rise, but stipulating increased productivity.
As Mr McCarthy and about 45 others insisted on keeping their old contracts, they were told to pay back the five per cent pay rise, taken from the beginning of the year, he says.
Several members of staff reportedly refused for months, though all but Mr McCarthy later gave in.
The airline denied any relation between the dispute and the captain's dismissal.