Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

Cathay sued in USA for illegal termination

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

Cathay sued in USA for illegal termination

Old 20th Mar 2015, 04:25
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Here and There
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not trying to take sides here, but to be fair, there are also other Americans at CX with military obligations and arrangements. I doubt though, that they give 1 single day notice to CX, when they are called for duty. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

As with everything in life, there is a way and there is (another) way. The way these things are handled matters a great deal. It is not entirely unimaginable that undesired trips on the roster could be opportunistically "adjusted" citing the protections afforded under USERRA. That of course would be wrong. Again - I'm just trying to be objective. The fact, that JO has used the CX ID and uniform in Hawaii, long after leaving CX, does not increase his credibility as a person.

On the other hand, if someone makes it all the way to become an F/A-18 pilot with documented missions in Iraq, they have proven themselves many times over as an aviator and clearly know how to fly a jet. Certainly more than good enough to "fly rubber dog.... out of Hong Kong".

The failed line check does look rather suspicious. Clearly, there might be two sides to the story, but discrediting one's professional achievements as a disciplinary measure - by "failing" a line check, etc. has been a vile habit CX has used in the past. So wrong on many levels.

If it turns out, that this was the case with JO, then it may prove to be very expensive for CX indeed. In this business, it is one thing to have made mistakes as an employee and a whole another to have made mistakes as a pilot.


If someone is a bad employee, the company has every right to let them go, but then let them unmistakably know, that that is the reason for them being let go. This gives them a chance to learn from mistakes and begin afresh elsewhere.

However, discrediting them professionally would be dirty, unfair, unethical and unnecessary.

Not sure much will come out of this law suit in the end.
Avius is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 05:16
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quoting a line check result 2 years prior to the dismissal, as the reason for dismissal, with be a bit hard to slip past a judge.
Frogman1484 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 07:06
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the CO to DL

" ......I do not know what nation or service you served for but under US Law, all military members have rights and you are stepping very close to violating his rights.....
....Below I have attached some "USERRA for Dummies"

Yeah B!tch!!!!

Hooyah
betpump5 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 07:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
'After the fact termination justification typical of the discriminator.'
Cathay Staff (ie Corporal Lomax) out of their depth once again when faced with a quite obvious obligation that they blatantly didn't understand. The letter from the Squadron Boss enclosing the book 'USERRA FOR DUMMIES' just about says it all.
I would suggest that the Managers responsible directly for what will be a huge penalty should be called to account. They won't be - they never are for some unknown reason ( probably as basic as losing face).
How could our Managers act in such a crass and amateurish way? When will they learn? This is bloody embarrassing!
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 08:16
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Corporal ?

Private First Class at best.

First class Douche
betpump5 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 08:16
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: far west
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
4 driver

Originally Posted by 4 driver
Why would CX hire Americans in the future with potential military commitments? Forget about direct entry FO's in JFK....
I don't think many American pilots would apply to CX at the current stage.
Its reputation isn't the most pristine in that part of the world.
Regarding line checks, "Just do it" is right. CX has used this "trick" to terminate the unwanted far too many times.
Those phantomatic line checks are just a set up to abbreviate a dismissal and give it a plausible reason. Then the infamous letters comes.
You can manage an FMC, a descent, an MCP well. That doesn't mean you are good at managing peoples......
positionalpor is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 10:02
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a point of order:-

if someone makes it all the way to become an F/A-18 pilot with documented missions in Iraq, they have proven themselves many times over as an aviator and clearly know how to fly a jet. Certainly more than good enough to "fly rubber dog.... out of Hong Kong"
Don't agree - shows that one certainly has the potential ability do the Airline Job, but doesn't mean you can walk in with Zero effort or prep and pass a course or line check. Ask any Ex-Mil guy who's not a bull****ter and they'll concur.
White None is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 10:54
  #28 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
The whole thing sounds a bit odd. Takes on a second job, fair enough, gets injured on that job, why is the second employer not paying for his downtime ?

I actually see a lot of holes in his case, paras 34, 25, and 30 come to mind. Failing to inform CAD (not CX) of a medical issue (look at the timeline) is reason for the CAD to cancel a licence. The AVMED doctors assessing fitness to return to flying are delegates of the CAD. Did the also inform the FAA that they were medically unfit ? They pull certificates pretty quickly as well for not following their rules.

There is also the slight matter of CAD and flying aircraft above 1600 kg. Did they obtain the appropriate approvals ? and keep the appropriate records ?

While they are pushing for unfair dismissal based upon USERRA, did his actions breech the HK ANOs prior to termination ? He has passed a HK Air law exam, and has his own personal obligations under the ANOs when unfit.

Interesting reading an FAQ on this ( Military Leave Requirements Under USERRA ). CX apparently only had to give him unpaid leave, para 23 of his complaint said CX were supposed to give him paid leave. And he had to pay CX medical coverage while he was on leave, did he ?

6. Do we have to pay employees on military leave?

No. USERRA only requires unpaid time off. The military generally pays its activated members. Employers often provide pay for at least a limited period of time, in recognition of the duty the employees are fulfilling and because military pay is often much less than the employee’s normal wages. Many employers also allow employees to use any accrued vacation during military leave, although you may not require employees to use vacation. Note, however, that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires that exempt employees who take military leave and work for the employer in the same week must be paid for the entire week in order to maintain the exempt status.

7. How are health care benefits covered during military leave?

USERRA requires employers to allow any employee on a military leave to elect and pay for continuation of coverage for himself and dependents under any health care plan provided in connection with employment. This coverage ends after 18 months or, if earlier, on the date the veteran fails to return or apply for return to employment as required. (See Return to work requirements.) The person electing this coverage may be required to pay up to 102% of the full premium associated with coverage for other employees. If the period of service is less than 31 days, the employer must continue health insurance as if the person is actively employed, and the person may be required to pay only the regular employee share of the premium.

If the coverage is terminated while the employee is on a military leave (either because the employee elects not to continue the coverage, because the period of service exceeds 18 months, or for any other reason), the employee and his dependents may not be subject to waiting periods or preexisting condition exclusions upon reinstatement.

The other small issue is returning to work. I see no mention of the certificate showing satisfactory completion of military service, I see he asked to return to work, but did he supply the certificate ? That certificate is required before an employer would be obliged to return him to work. Was it obtained, was it provided to the employer ?

From what is written in the complaint, he was not disabled when he asked to return to work, he was still recovering from an illness or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by the period of service. It would seem then he was actually still in military service.

It would seem that the whole time he was in the reserves, and recovering from injury, he should have been on unpaid leave, according to the FAQ above. Why should he be on CX sick leave for an injury from a second employer ?

I am not condoning either sides actions, para 56 sums it up nicely, "No one is perfect and Mr. X is no exception to that rule."
swh is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 12:07
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If this goes badly for CX I would suggest that when the dust settles they may simply cancel all US bases and return pilots to HK base.
I doubt the US pilots would be happy with that.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 15:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think some of us on this forum might be carrying in some anti-American military sentiment with this issue. Regardless of your politics, it appears that CX managers have again disregarded laws that may be applicable. They did so not because they felt they were just, but because they were CX and that is how it has always been done.
BillytheKid is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 21:00
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It does not matter that the pilot was a dick...the law is the law!

DL is seriously out of his depths when it comes to labour law. He is also the guy that triggered the 64 years of long service leave in Australia when he choose not to consider the Australian labour law!
Frogman1484 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 22:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to previous news a few months ago, Osmanski "pleaded guilty Friday in federal court to unlawfully entering the secure area of an airport".

The report went on to say "Osmanski faces a maximum of 10 years in prison when he's sentenced in February. He also faces a maximum fine of $250,000."
So as Feb has been and gone, what did he get at sentencing? Or did he give them one days notice and cut that line too?

It would be fitting if he happened to be currently serving time at the Honolulu Federal Detention Centre, which if you get the luxury suite, ironically looks out over the airport.

Most unbecoming actions and behaviour for an ex Naval Officer, the USN hierarchy must shake their collective heads at such douchebaggery.
LongTimeInCX is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 23:25
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@BillytheKid

I think some of us on this forum might be carrying in some anti-American military sentiment
Speak for YOURSELF Mate!!!
White None is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2015, 23:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: HK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did he lie about his commitment being voluntary though?

If one is a Reservist prior to joining CX, you are obliged to disclose it and give details about when and where military duties are to take place. If subsequently called up to save goats from ISIS, CX still has to release said officer to those duties.

If he lied about it...or subsequently joined the reserves after joining CX, then thats down to him, and CX will resort to all kinds of goat****ery to impede his military duties.

Sounds like he has not helped his case though...
A3301FD is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2015, 02:27
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think some people are missing the point. This has little to do with what armchair quarterbacks think about right and wrong. Regardless of what one might think of the individual's character or motivations, or events that happened subsequent to his termination (which would normally be excluded from the evidence in the trial anyway; bringing them up in the complaint complicates this) it is the reaction of the company which is problematic. If the complaint is accurate, rather than research their duties and rights under the act, they apparently chose to disregard and violate it. In addition, they made numerous statements along the way (statements that did not have to be made at all) which apparently showed a strong willingness to violate the law--and formed the basis for a wrongful termination claim . Whether this was due to ignorance, arrogance, a combination of the two, or something else entirely no one knows. What it did result in was a paper trail of fairly strong evidence which is now being used to drag the company into a lawsuit it must spend money to defend, and if the complaint is accurate stands an excellent chance of losing. This isn't the first time something like this has happened and it would be nice if they would learn from their errors.
Shep69 is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2015, 03:54
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I suggest if one looks at history (Amsterdam and Paris Bases), it will be something to do with "ignorance and arrogance".
Wasn't it Einstein who defined stupidity as 'repeatedly carrying out the same actions in similar situations and expecting a different result' (something like that but you get my meaning).
As I said before, CX Managers and that Basings Office need to do a bit of pre- test study. Read the Vol 8 Corporal! It's the same PC every time FFS!!!!!
Arfur Dent is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2015, 06:14
  #37 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
which would normally be excluded from the evidence in the trial anyway
Its already been included in the complaint.

If the complaint is accurate, rather than research their duties and rights under the act, they apparently chose to disregard and violate it.
That is the question, it is a big if, keep in mind this has already been investigated by the US Department of Labor with no adverse result. They are not only taking on the ex-employer, they have asked for congress to look into the Dept of Labor.

Something does not add up here.

formed the basis for a wrongful termination claim
If they for example breached the ANOs with the long term sick status, it can hardly be "wrongful". The "ignorance, arrogance, a combination of the two, or something else entirely no one knows" could be on either side.

I disagree that CX should be paying for his sick leave for an injury he incurred whilst employed under second job. In their complaint it would appear he has failed to provide CX with documents which would "activate" rights.

I saw nothing in the complaint they supplied CX with the correct documentation to "activate" his rights for reemployment, reading between the lines he was still recovering on the US Navy dime from his injury, and therefore still active military service.

This DOL guide says nothing about the employer having to reemploy someone on sick leave http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/uguide.pdf

I agree the complaint sounds damming, that the role of the lawyer, does not mean it will stick or it is accurate. The smell test of the US Department of Labor washing their hands of it says a lot in my view.
swh is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2015, 07:30
  #38 (permalink)  
PBY
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think some of us on this forum might be carrying in some anti-American military sentiment with this issue.

I think it is true. There might be a reason for this sentiment. The us forces force themselves on the whole world. The US banks force themselves on the whole world. The US lawyers force themselves on the whole world. I know I might not be popular with some on the forum with his comment and on top of that English is not my first language. But what I am trying to say is, that who suffers because of all of this is the american people. The banks around the world do not want regular people with american passports as their clients, because it is not worth the huge amount of paperwork and the increased risk of making a mistake and the huge fine associated with it. Now the american pilots will become second class citizens outside the us, as I cannot imagine I would be willing to have my employee go and fly jets when I need him to work. On top of that I am not even stressing the moral issue of supporting so many wars all over the
world. And before you start fighting my coments, please realise, that your fight does not help in removing the anti-american sentiment. It might only help you in the us, if you have a good lawyer. But the anti-american sentiment is unfortunately a fact in most parts of the world. But do not confuse it as a sentiment against the american people. I like the american people, but I despise the imperial american moods in small part of the population, which is unfortunately represented in the ruling class and some agressive military thinking, where the means justify the cause.
PBY is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2015, 08:19
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All I know dude, is that if it wasn't for the Americans and the British Commonwealth I would be speaking either German or Japanese.
Just Do It is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2015, 08:59
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey, objectively if it weren't for the Russians we'd be speaking German all over Europe... doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that Putin does (I sure as hell don't!)

Similarly, we owe the US a great deal in keeping us from all speaking Russian in Europe! And relatively safe from ISIL in the present. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy with the arrogant imperialist attitudes their administrations are often guilty of (Iraqi invasion to name but a recent example).

To get back on topic, would a US company allow a foreigner with a green card to return to his country every time he was called up for reservist duty? (not a rhetorical question, I really don't know)

How would a US corporation react if a foreign tax service demanded that the names of all their citizens in the employ of that corporation be turned over to said foreign tax authority, and that from now on a portion of their paycheck be witheld for tax?

freightdoggiedog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.