49'ers Court of Final Appeal Result
Thread Starter
49'ers Court of Final Appeal Result
The 49'ers Court of Final Appeal judgement can be read here:
Judgment
Good reading, unless you are Cathay Management.
Judgment
Good reading, unless you are Cathay Management.
Next time you decide to work on a G day or help out your dear employer, read this and see what Cathay really thinks about you and your rights, your life, and anything you feel strongly about that differs from their corporate view. You are an inconvenient necessity. You are held in utter contempt. You are of no value and have all the attributes of a moron.
Just as long as you know.
By the way, if you are naive enough to believe otherwise, apply the above hypothesis to EVERYTHING CX comes up with. Then, at least you can help out in the true knowledge of who and what you are actually helping.
Just as long as you know.
By the way, if you are naive enough to believe otherwise, apply the above hypothesis to EVERYTHING CX comes up with. Then, at least you can help out in the true knowledge of who and what you are actually helping.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasnt going to comment.... However
Have a read of Para 85, it is the "guts" of the striking down of the libel damages from $3m to 700k. Essentially, a HK libel case involving a HK solicitor was used as a yardstick by the original Judge to arrive at the $3m dollar figure.
The Appeal Judges ruled libeling a solicitor is more serious than libeling a pilot. I appreciate this is very subjective, however given the Judges are all Solicitors they are treading on eggshells making such a claim, and need to be uttterly certain they understand the world of Pilots. I appreciate that a solicitor wrongly and publicly accused of imbezzlement will have suffered career limiting damage. The Judges readily accepted that the Solicitors damage was obvious, because they are all Solicitors. However, to them the 49'ers damage was less obvious and therefore needed to be proven. How the heck do you prove that? To us it is obvious.
To a fellow pilot, a pilot wrongly accused of being a poor, disloyal employee has his career prospects damaged to the same extent as the solicitor in question. The fact the solicitor was libelled to a wide audience, whereas the 49ers were a narrow audience is irrelevant, as the opinions of a pilot's peers are paramount, because we are peer-reviewed like no other profession on the planet. Whilst people will be reluctant to trust that solicitor with their money, pilots who do not fully appreciate the background to the 49ers will be reluctant to trust their lives with someone "tainted" to the extent the 49ers were. Further, the solicitor got a retraction from the publication, the 49ers got no such retraction. In fact, Nick Rhodes repeated the accusations that the 49ers had sickness issues when announcing the intention to Appeal. These were the same sickness issues he famously couldn't substantiate when he had a bible in his hand.
I cannot help but feel, that yet again, Cathay Pilots were on the raw end of decision by Judges who fundamentally do not understand our profession.
The Appeal Judges ruled libeling a solicitor is more serious than libeling a pilot. I appreciate this is very subjective, however given the Judges are all Solicitors they are treading on eggshells making such a claim, and need to be uttterly certain they understand the world of Pilots. I appreciate that a solicitor wrongly and publicly accused of imbezzlement will have suffered career limiting damage. The Judges readily accepted that the Solicitors damage was obvious, because they are all Solicitors. However, to them the 49'ers damage was less obvious and therefore needed to be proven. How the heck do you prove that? To us it is obvious.
To a fellow pilot, a pilot wrongly accused of being a poor, disloyal employee has his career prospects damaged to the same extent as the solicitor in question. The fact the solicitor was libelled to a wide audience, whereas the 49ers were a narrow audience is irrelevant, as the opinions of a pilot's peers are paramount, because we are peer-reviewed like no other profession on the planet. Whilst people will be reluctant to trust that solicitor with their money, pilots who do not fully appreciate the background to the 49ers will be reluctant to trust their lives with someone "tainted" to the extent the 49ers were. Further, the solicitor got a retraction from the publication, the 49ers got no such retraction. In fact, Nick Rhodes repeated the accusations that the 49ers had sickness issues when announcing the intention to Appeal. These were the same sickness issues he famously couldn't substantiate when he had a bible in his hand.
I cannot help but feel, that yet again, Cathay Pilots were on the raw end of decision by Judges who fundamentally do not understand our profession.
Thread Starter
With respect, I think the main point may have been missed here.
The judgement is a decisive win for the "three legs" of the 49er's/CPU's case. It substantively reinforces [ALL!] HK employees rights with regard to termination and union activity. We should be applauding this landmark win as a victory for all HK workers [that's you and me] and a resounding loss for the employers - in this case ; Cathay Pacific, Veta, USAB.
The thread focus on the reduced defamation award being upheld is an emotive sideline. To quote JW: "Whilst we may be disappointed with this last aspect of the judgment, we have been fully vindicated in our stand for what is right, ethical and moral; words that hitherto have not appeared in our opponents' vocabulary. Now they will have to buy a new dictionary."
I congratulate, and thank the 49er's and CPU.
The judgement is a decisive win for the "three legs" of the 49er's/CPU's case. It substantively reinforces [ALL!] HK employees rights with regard to termination and union activity. We should be applauding this landmark win as a victory for all HK workers [that's you and me] and a resounding loss for the employers - in this case ; Cathay Pacific, Veta, USAB.
The thread focus on the reduced defamation award being upheld is an emotive sideline. To quote JW: "Whilst we may be disappointed with this last aspect of the judgment, we have been fully vindicated in our stand for what is right, ethical and moral; words that hitherto have not appeared in our opponents' vocabulary. Now they will have to buy a new dictionary."
I congratulate, and thank the 49er's and CPU.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a Cathay Pacific spokesperson said:“We respect the judgement of the Court of Final Appeal. Our legal team is studying the respective rulings and the company will consider the necessary steps in their detailed applications.”
What steps can they possibly take with a Court of Final Appeal judgement?
What steps can they possibly take with a Court of Final Appeal judgement?
What can they do?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Noo Yoik
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not good enough.
Even 3 Million wasn't good enough to compensate for the damage caused to those guys! Including the death of that young man. I read that some bird in HKG is suing her ex-boyfriend for 80 MILLION HKD in commission on an apartment block deal she alleges to have facilitated for him.
3 Million is PEANUTS in HKG.
Would this open the way for a Civil case on grounds of pain and sufferring? Or is there even such a law in HKG?
Even 3 Million wasn't good enough to compensate for the damage caused to those guys! Including the death of that young man. I read that some bird in HKG is suing her ex-boyfriend for 80 MILLION HKD in commission on an apartment block deal she alleges to have facilitated for him.
3 Million is PEANUTS in HKG.
Would this open the way for a Civil case on grounds of pain and sufferring? Or is there even such a law in HKG?
Last edited by Meccano; 26th Sep 2012 at 13:39.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in related news: our cabin crew won their fight:
Cathay Pacific lost a long-running dispute with its flight attendants over holiday pay, in the city’s top court on Wednesday.
Quashing the airline’s challenge against an appeal court judgment, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that Cathay should include some allowances and commissions when it calculates its cabin crew’s holiday pay.
The calculation should take into account commissions on duty-free sales, and allowances for line duty and ground duty, earned by attendants in the air and while waiting for flights, the court ruled.
The dispute involved some 4,400 attendants and about HK$100 million in pay, the Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union said.
It stemmed from claims lodged with the Labour Tribunal about four years ago by flight attendants Becky Kwan Siu-wa, Vera Wu Yee-mei and Jenny Ho Kit-man.
The tribunal initially ruled in their favour and ordered Cathay to pay the shortfall, but the airline won on appeal. That ruling was overturned last year by the Court of Appeal.
The union welcomed Wednesday’s ruling, saying it helped to clarify the meaning of holiday pay for employees.
“It helps to avoid further disputes between the employers and employees on this issue,” the union said in a statement.
According to the union, more than 4,000 attendants have filed Labour Tribunal claims for the pay.
Quashing the airline’s challenge against an appeal court judgment, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that Cathay should include some allowances and commissions when it calculates its cabin crew’s holiday pay.
The calculation should take into account commissions on duty-free sales, and allowances for line duty and ground duty, earned by attendants in the air and while waiting for flights, the court ruled.
The dispute involved some 4,400 attendants and about HK$100 million in pay, the Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union said.
It stemmed from claims lodged with the Labour Tribunal about four years ago by flight attendants Becky Kwan Siu-wa, Vera Wu Yee-mei and Jenny Ho Kit-man.
The tribunal initially ruled in their favour and ordered Cathay to pay the shortfall, but the airline won on appeal. That ruling was overturned last year by the Court of Appeal.
The union welcomed Wednesday’s ruling, saying it helped to clarify the meaning of holiday pay for employees.
“It helps to avoid further disputes between the employers and employees on this issue,” the union said in a statement.
According to the union, more than 4,000 attendants have filed Labour Tribunal claims for the pay.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the hold
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that with this ruling the 49ers can now pursue civil cases against individuals. Tony Taylor and his merry men will pay, not Swire, they will leave their Princess (ret.) for the dogs.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually...
I'm not sure it does what you are saying it does.
The judgement seems to be saying that IF the Company wants to sack someone for misbehaving, they have to put us through the D&G. It is already known that they can then sack us afterwards no matter what anyway, but the implication (and kind of referred to in para 75) is that they just need to keep their mouth shut next time they sack 51 pilots, and there isn't anything any of us could do about it.
I'm totally reassured...
The judgement seems to be saying that IF the Company wants to sack someone for misbehaving, they have to put us through the D&G. It is already known that they can then sack us afterwards no matter what anyway, but the implication (and kind of referred to in para 75) is that they just need to keep their mouth shut next time they sack 51 pilots, and there isn't anything any of us could do about it.
I'm totally reassured...