KIWIS BEAT CX IN COURT
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't saying the guys hadn't worked hard for the union just stating the simple fact that the court case has shown they are employed under NZ employment law which doesn't have a retirement age. Just like AirNZ. Therefore, just like Air NZ, at age 65 when the first of those on the NZ base hit 65 and can't legally fly to HKG but have the right under NZ law to be still employed by the company one of three things will happen:
1) The company finds the employee alternative employment within the Cathay group.
2)The company pays out redundancy.
3)The pilot voluntarily retires.
Given the chance of #1 being remote, why would you take retirement knowing the company will haveto pay you 2-4 years? annual pay as redundancy instead. From the company's perspective why pay out redundancy everytime crew on the base hit 65 if closing the base may be cheaper.
I'm probably completely wrong.
1) The company finds the employee alternative employment within the Cathay group.
2)The company pays out redundancy.
3)The pilot voluntarily retires.
Given the chance of #1 being remote, why would you take retirement knowing the company will haveto pay you 2-4 years? annual pay as redundancy instead. From the company's perspective why pay out redundancy everytime crew on the base hit 65 if closing the base may be cheaper.
I'm probably completely wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fenwick Dock
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loopdeloop
Really?..viable?...or have they begrudgingly lived with it?
Low frequency, high sickness rates and poor reserve coverage.
This ruling has exposed what many perceive as a vulnerable base, simple as that. Something will change, time will tell.
base has been viable for many years with the current frequency
Low frequency, high sickness rates and poor reserve coverage.
This ruling has exposed what many perceive as a vulnerable base, simple as that. Something will change, time will tell.
Missed the point as usual..it's about the company abusing current retirement age both in hk and on bases to force transferees to sign new contracts on lesser pay than they were already on to get the basing..or remain on one. Or,like the USA...once on the base, impose a hefty pay cut!! $1300 USD/month for F/O's. What can happen now is ALL NZ based pilots can sue for their original salaries and age 65 retirement be reinstated.. Not forced out at 55 because they wouldn't accept onerous salary and contract cuts. The no limit retirement age in NZ is irrelevant flying CX aircraft.
When will they EVER learn!! Wait until you see the lawsuits when they go 'onshore' USA.
When will they EVER learn!! Wait until you see the lawsuits when they go 'onshore' USA.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front page of the NZ Herald website
Kiwi pilots keep jobs after retirement row - Business - NZ Herald News
Kiwi pilots keep jobs after retirement row
1:28 PM Monday Dec 22, 2014
Two Kiwi pilots have won the right to stay in their jobs, after arguing that being forced to retire at the age of 55 was discrimination under New Zealand laws.
David Brown and Glen Sycamore are employed by New Zealand Basing Limited (NZBL) as senior captains, flying aircrafts for Cathay Pacific Limited (Cathay Pacific), of which NZBL is a wholly owned subsidiary.
Under both men's employment agreements a clause stated they were required to retire at the age of 55.
Mr Brown and Mr Sycamore will turn 55-years-old in 2015, and have claimed being forced to retire then was discrimination.
Mr Brown and Mr Sycamore took their argument to the Employment Relations Authority, and the matter has now appeared before the Employment Court.
Following the incorporation of NZBL in 2000, both pilots signed employment agreements, the authority said.
The employment agreements signed by the pilots included the usual conditions of employment, and a provision that the retirement age would be 55.
In 2009, the pilots had the opportunity of agreeing to slightly different terms and conditions of employment, including a retirement age of 65.
However, neither of the pilots elected to transfer to the new employment agreement at that time, the authority said.
The pilots then requested to transfer to the new employment agreement in order to have a retirement age of 65, but NZBL refused their request, the authority said.
The pilots claimed the law of New Zealand applied, not the law of Hong Kong and under the Human Rights Act, it was unlawful for NZBL to discriminate against them because of age.
However, NZBL contended the laws of Hong Kong and not New Zealand applied to the situation.
NZBL claimed the retirement age for both men under their employment agreements was 55 and such retirement age was lawful under the laws of Hong Kong, as that was stated in their employment agreements.
The matter was first taken to the Employment Relations Authority, however authority member Anna Fitzgibbon passed the matter straight through to the Employment Court.
"I am persuaded that the matters arising are important questions of law. There are important issues of law as to the applicability of the law of New Zealand or of Hong Kong and the interface in the particular circumstances with the Human Rights Act," Ms Fitzgibbon said.
"Further, there will be a number of employees who will be affected by the decision. The other matter which I take into consideration is the fact that the parties require the matter to be dealt with urgently given the Captains turn 55 years of age next year."
The Employment Court in Auckland has found it would be discriminatory for NZBL to require employees to retire on the grounds of age as defined in the Human Rights Act.
Judge Bruce Corkill dismissed the airline's claims that the laws of Hong Kong and not New Zealand applied to the situation.
"I am satisfied that recognition of Hong Kong law rather than New Zealand law would in the present circumstances be unjust or unconscionable, having regard to the significant importance which should be attached to New Zealand's age discrimination legislation, and to the conduct of NZBL in the particular circumstances." Costs were reserved.
Mr Brown and Mr Sycamore's lawyer, Garry Pollak, said the Employment Court made a "bold decision" they were very pleased with.
"They've been employees of [Cathay Pacific] for many many years and they are both senior pilots, the Employment Court really spelt it out in all the details and factual background quite accurately.
"There is still an appeal period of two weeks, I am not sure if the company intends to appeal but that's their right."
Comment was being sought from Cathay Pacific Airways Limited.
Kiwi pilots keep jobs after retirement row - Business - NZ Herald News
Kiwi pilots keep jobs after retirement row
1:28 PM Monday Dec 22, 2014
Two Kiwi pilots have won the right to stay in their jobs, after arguing that being forced to retire at the age of 55 was discrimination under New Zealand laws.
David Brown and Glen Sycamore are employed by New Zealand Basing Limited (NZBL) as senior captains, flying aircrafts for Cathay Pacific Limited (Cathay Pacific), of which NZBL is a wholly owned subsidiary.
Under both men's employment agreements a clause stated they were required to retire at the age of 55.
Mr Brown and Mr Sycamore will turn 55-years-old in 2015, and have claimed being forced to retire then was discrimination.
Mr Brown and Mr Sycamore took their argument to the Employment Relations Authority, and the matter has now appeared before the Employment Court.
Following the incorporation of NZBL in 2000, both pilots signed employment agreements, the authority said.
The employment agreements signed by the pilots included the usual conditions of employment, and a provision that the retirement age would be 55.
In 2009, the pilots had the opportunity of agreeing to slightly different terms and conditions of employment, including a retirement age of 65.
However, neither of the pilots elected to transfer to the new employment agreement at that time, the authority said.
The pilots then requested to transfer to the new employment agreement in order to have a retirement age of 65, but NZBL refused their request, the authority said.
The pilots claimed the law of New Zealand applied, not the law of Hong Kong and under the Human Rights Act, it was unlawful for NZBL to discriminate against them because of age.
However, NZBL contended the laws of Hong Kong and not New Zealand applied to the situation.
NZBL claimed the retirement age for both men under their employment agreements was 55 and such retirement age was lawful under the laws of Hong Kong, as that was stated in their employment agreements.
The matter was first taken to the Employment Relations Authority, however authority member Anna Fitzgibbon passed the matter straight through to the Employment Court.
"I am persuaded that the matters arising are important questions of law. There are important issues of law as to the applicability of the law of New Zealand or of Hong Kong and the interface in the particular circumstances with the Human Rights Act," Ms Fitzgibbon said.
"Further, there will be a number of employees who will be affected by the decision. The other matter which I take into consideration is the fact that the parties require the matter to be dealt with urgently given the Captains turn 55 years of age next year."
The Employment Court in Auckland has found it would be discriminatory for NZBL to require employees to retire on the grounds of age as defined in the Human Rights Act.
Judge Bruce Corkill dismissed the airline's claims that the laws of Hong Kong and not New Zealand applied to the situation.
"I am satisfied that recognition of Hong Kong law rather than New Zealand law would in the present circumstances be unjust or unconscionable, having regard to the significant importance which should be attached to New Zealand's age discrimination legislation, and to the conduct of NZBL in the particular circumstances." Costs were reserved.
Mr Brown and Mr Sycamore's lawyer, Garry Pollak, said the Employment Court made a "bold decision" they were very pleased with.
"They've been employees of [Cathay Pacific] for many many years and they are both senior pilots, the Employment Court really spelt it out in all the details and factual background quite accurately.
"There is still an appeal period of two weeks, I am not sure if the company intends to appeal but that's their right."
Comment was being sought from Cathay Pacific Airways Limited.
Don't you just love the way Cathay stumbles around the world expecting the pathetic Hong Kong labour laws to be relevant in modern democracies. If it wasn't so tragic it'd be funny.
Of course it's nobody's fault is it. Just like fuel hedging losses. And freight cartels. Wonder how RH will spin this.
Of course it's nobody's fault is it. Just like fuel hedging losses. And freight cartels. Wonder how RH will spin this.
This is all so f.....g unnecessary. The company needs them, they need the company. What in the hell is going on?
Like many on extended OZ bases, the best outcome is to return to HKG and do some time before pulling stumps. Strangely CX is a HKG company and we all knew what we were signing up for...however flawed.
There has to be a two-way split in all this.
If the company wants to get rid of guys on a base at 55 then just close the bloody base.
A Sydney "big-base" would work better anyway.
But let's be practical folks, fighting minor battles on the perimeter does nothing to protect or enhance the core.
FWIW
Like many on extended OZ bases, the best outcome is to return to HKG and do some time before pulling stumps. Strangely CX is a HKG company and we all knew what we were signing up for...however flawed.
There has to be a two-way split in all this.
If the company wants to get rid of guys on a base at 55 then just close the bloody base.
A Sydney "big-base" would work better anyway.
But let's be practical folks, fighting minor battles on the perimeter does nothing to protect or enhance the core.
FWIW
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing the point. It's not about whether the company 'needs' the pilots or not. It's about spite and ultimate control over peoples lives. Whether it be retirement age, rostering or command upgrades, the company enjoys the unhealthy influence they can wield against us in all cases. I emphasis the phrase 'wield against us'. In a normal, law based society there would be rules and regulations that would govern the behaviour of both sides. In CX, the complete absence of real labour protections means that the Swire's have developed a corrupted and mean spirited attitude towards their employees. That is why there are SO many court cases pertaining to labour strife in HK between staff and the company.
Our managers feel they are doing 'good' work on behalf of the owners. In reality, they are soulless creatures who's most important decisions seem solely designed to make individuals and groups within the company as unsettled, miserable and insecure as possible.
What a heck of a way to run a business. Slowly but surely the laws of other jurisdictions around the world will force CX to get into line with 21st century norms. They will only get there through being dragged and beaten into submission. Sad but true...
Our managers feel they are doing 'good' work on behalf of the owners. In reality, they are soulless creatures who's most important decisions seem solely designed to make individuals and groups within the company as unsettled, miserable and insecure as possible.
What a heck of a way to run a business. Slowly but surely the laws of other jurisdictions around the world will force CX to get into line with 21st century norms. They will only get there through being dragged and beaten into submission. Sad but true...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Few place
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arfur Dent
Loved that first line of yours and bang on too.
They do don't they.
Like the IQ challenged kid pushed out the front door by his mum, stumbling around and crashing into sh!t, one unbalanced step after another....
...generally f**king about in a most uncommon way until some responsible sod (1st world country) shows him the way home with an assertive nudge to the shoulder....
....returning home to his mothers bosom with a big toothy grin and sense of achievement.
Go CX!!!
They do don't they.
Like the IQ challenged kid pushed out the front door by his mum, stumbling around and crashing into sh!t, one unbalanced step after another....
...generally f**king about in a most uncommon way until some responsible sod (1st world country) shows him the way home with an assertive nudge to the shoulder....
....returning home to his mothers bosom with a big toothy grin and sense of achievement.
Go CX!!!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know it really isn't that hard just to do the right thing. And it usually saves you money in the long run anyway in many ways.
And one usually finds out any influence and power they think they wield isn't really there at the end of the day. Like it or not any real power you wind up having comes from your employees confidence and trust.
And one usually finds out any influence and power they think they wield isn't really there at the end of the day. Like it or not any real power you wind up having comes from your employees confidence and trust.
I have just read the article in today's NZ Herald and the final sentence from CX would suggest this matter is far from over.
John Warham's book " The 49ers" gave the lay person an insight into the management practices within CX at the time. If I were a betting sole, I reckon those practices are now called business as usual.
John Warham's book " The 49ers" gave the lay person an insight into the management practices within CX at the time. If I were a betting sole, I reckon those practices are now called business as usual.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the fatigue curve
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summary
Brown v New Zealand Basing Limited [2014] NZEmpC 229 (15 December 2014)
Should you wish to read the legal summary you will find it on the link above.
Should you wish to read the legal summary you will find it on the link above.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I go, therefore I am there!
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company will be considering two options:
1. On-shore the base, with the result being the requirement to pay NZ tax, which I can't imagine would be considered a WIN by the majority on the base; or
2. Close the base. Surely, not a popular option.
As someone said earlier, ... this could end up a "Pyrrhic victory".
1. On-shore the base, with the result being the requirement to pay NZ tax, which I can't imagine would be considered a WIN by the majority on the base; or
2. Close the base. Surely, not a popular option.
As someone said earlier, ... this could end up a "Pyrrhic victory".
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
curtain rod
How about a bit of perspective. Look at all the cabin crew who were supposed to leave in their 40s who are now legally allowed in their 50s?
For the pilots - the 'monetary package' has changed enough to make working to 65 more a necessity rather than an option.
EG just from my point of view - being Oz based has cost me a few years of extra work for nothing ie if i had stayed on COS99 and retired at 55 my total assets would have equalled X. To get to 'X'on the base will take me till 58or 59 at least due to local tax, lower salary, loss of benefits etc
Not having a whinge - my choice to take the salary/benefit cuts - but often people working past 55 are doing so to recover lost benefits...it is not necessarily about getting extra gravy from the trough!
For the pilots - the 'monetary package' has changed enough to make working to 65 more a necessity rather than an option.
EG just from my point of view - being Oz based has cost me a few years of extra work for nothing ie if i had stayed on COS99 and retired at 55 my total assets would have equalled X. To get to 'X'on the base will take me till 58or 59 at least due to local tax, lower salary, loss of benefits etc
Not having a whinge - my choice to take the salary/benefit cuts - but often people working past 55 are doing so to recover lost benefits...it is not necessarily about getting extra gravy from the trough!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curtain Rod
Your analogy, albeit brutally honest concerning cabin crew, is clearly correct. The same comparison could also be used for those managers in many office positions, hence the envy/jealousy we know many of them have - I'd wager after a one week 'conversion' many of us could do their job adequately, and would get better at it very quickly. Conversely, letting arbitrary non-pilot managers loose on the a/c we fly, would no doubt mean we would lose a lot of airframes and bodies.
But back to thread, I think it's great the 2 boys have had a win, no doubt to be appealed, and all the possible result scenarios of what CX may do, including the option that CX may just abide by the courts decision, were well thought through. Yes there's an outside chance CX may do something dumb to show they're 'still in control!', we've all see them drop a dollar to pick up a cent, and at times rationality has not been their strong point.
But overall, good on the boys.
As for people you say need to stay longer because they took a base.
Rod, I normally agree with most you write, but NC I'd suggest explains well the why one often stays longer in financial terms. Most didn't govon the base for the money. It was a lifestyle issue.
I know of parents who've gone because their kids had either mental or physical disabilities, and the help in HK was not as good as they could obtain in their home country. Others are looking after ailing parents to save them being 'well looked after' in a nursing home.
Many take the base because they married someone above the line on the hot crazy matrix, and whilst we all know deep down they are all bat-**** crazy to a degree, keeping them happy saves them hitting the 10 crazy and having a chat with a divorce attorney. So off on a base they go to bring 'em down to the best case 4 crazy line, (all single guys should watch the universal hot crazy matrix video - might save you a few bucks in the long term!) but the temporal plan for their retirement date often now gets stretched out.
So the hair gel brigade have to wait another year or 5.
Whoopdi-effndoo.
Their turn will come.
Your analogy, albeit brutally honest concerning cabin crew, is clearly correct. The same comparison could also be used for those managers in many office positions, hence the envy/jealousy we know many of them have - I'd wager after a one week 'conversion' many of us could do their job adequately, and would get better at it very quickly. Conversely, letting arbitrary non-pilot managers loose on the a/c we fly, would no doubt mean we would lose a lot of airframes and bodies.
But back to thread, I think it's great the 2 boys have had a win, no doubt to be appealed, and all the possible result scenarios of what CX may do, including the option that CX may just abide by the courts decision, were well thought through. Yes there's an outside chance CX may do something dumb to show they're 'still in control!', we've all see them drop a dollar to pick up a cent, and at times rationality has not been their strong point.
But overall, good on the boys.
As for people you say need to stay longer because they took a base.
Rod, I normally agree with most you write, but NC I'd suggest explains well the why one often stays longer in financial terms. Most didn't govon the base for the money. It was a lifestyle issue.
I know of parents who've gone because their kids had either mental or physical disabilities, and the help in HK was not as good as they could obtain in their home country. Others are looking after ailing parents to save them being 'well looked after' in a nursing home.
Many take the base because they married someone above the line on the hot crazy matrix, and whilst we all know deep down they are all bat-**** crazy to a degree, keeping them happy saves them hitting the 10 crazy and having a chat with a divorce attorney. So off on a base they go to bring 'em down to the best case 4 crazy line, (all single guys should watch the universal hot crazy matrix video - might save you a few bucks in the long term!) but the temporal plan for their retirement date often now gets stretched out.
So the hair gel brigade have to wait another year or 5.
Whoopdi-effndoo.
Their turn will come.
Last edited by LongTimeInCX; 20th Feb 2015 at 22:47. Reason: Auto spell can't spell bat shit