|
5 weeks in court
5 weeks in high court defending the goal against 18 strikers, when you know your defence is weak!!!
Somebody is going to come back as an old, tired man. All that bonus money and to sick to enjoy it. |
Strikers?
They were co-workers that should not have been fired. I read your post 5 times and do not understand it, you need to write in much simpler language, for me to understand. |
Football expression
I think you'll find it is a football expression. "Defending the goal" gives it away. Strikers are the players that try to score the goals.
Maybe not the best metaphor for the situation? |
At least broadband get it. Don't they have the same players in ice hockey, goal keeper and defenders for the oppisition, strikers for the team with the ball / puck??
I paid 5% towards those strikers, and I hope everyone of them score a goal. |
Does This Mean Anything Red Hot Poker???
10:00 am
法庭聆訊 Open Court 雜項案件 HCMP 4400/2001, HCA 2822/2002, HCA 299/2006, HCA 1405/2006, HCA 807/2007 [2/30]# Bennett Richard David, Blakeney-Williams Campbell Richard, Bulteel Steven James, Carver Kenneth Gordon, Chung Kai Wan, Doherty Patrick James, England Gregory Stephen, Fitz-Costa Michael John, Harris Bradford Dean, Heron Quentin James Lee, Palmer Michael Gordon, Schoettler Bruce Michael, Searle Andrew David, Shaw Michael Steven, Urquhart Steven Aubury, Van Poelgeest Craig Dirk, Warham John Simpson, Wilson Brett Alexander, Boyle Ron, Middlemass Duncan Raymond, Munro Keith Ian, Rogers Mathew David, St Hill Philip Fraser, Damon Neich-Buckley, Hendrik Van Keulen, Brian David Keene, Pierre Joseph Roger Morissette, Craig Michael Young, John Wallace Dickie, Douglas Gage, Christopher Leo Sweeney and George Crofts And Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Veta Limited, USA Basing Limited Breach of employment contract 趙司徒鄭律師事務所 Chiu, Szeto & Cheng 孖士打律師行 |
RHP,
to sick = too sick At least broadband get it. = At least broadband got it. oppisition = opposition I'm here to help = example of irony Oh yes, and some 'strikers'' names are surname first and some surname last. I'm not surprised that you have difficulty understanding :) |
Oh Basil, your location explains it all. You see not all of us speak only English. As a matter of fact it's my 3rd language. I have a 6 on my English language proficiency (I was evaluated by a British Trainer)
Get with the global village. You must get a heart attack if you see how your kids text on their mobile phone's. Don't sweat the small stuff. Learn another language and broaden your horizon. Yet another threat hijacked by trivia. Guten Tag Goede Dag G'day Mate :ok: |
I am humbled :O
Still get stunde, uhr, zeit mixed up. However, just supplying a little support for ol' RHP. Kid's mobs?!: im 404 bout that stuff - bin code18 since the L1011 (and, yes, I looked that up) p.s. First language wouldn't, perchance, be Australian?:) |
Nein mein Herr, I don't care for flap or flapS, therefore could not be from downunder.
Back to topic, Mr.R is going to know all about fatigue after the next 5 weeks, any news on yesterday?? |
18 sacked pilots sue Cathay for payouts Compensation sought for job loss, distress Yvonne Tsui Oct 06, 2009 Eighteen of 49 pilots sacked en masse by Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) during the airline's industrial dispute in 2001 are seeking compensation for the loss of their jobs and for distress they say was caused by criticism by top airline executives aired in the press. The 18 pilots claim their jobs were wrongfully terminated and that they believe they were fired because of their union activities. They cite in their claim public statements made by Philip Chen Nam-lok, the airline's then director and chief operating officer, and Anthony Tyler, then director of corporate development, in July 2001 following the sacking. They allege Chen said they had shown a lack of "total professionalism", disrupted airline operations and besmirched the reputation of Hong Kong while Tyler had accused them of holding Hong Kong to ransom and failing to act in the interests of the company. The pilots said such remarks were defamatory, had damaged their professional reputations and created obstacles to their future employment. Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes in the Court of First Instance heard that the pilots had taken a series of industrial actions and that the 18 were sacked after a "maximum safety strategy [MSS]" began on July 3, 2001. First claimant John Warham, a pilot who retired after Cathay Pacific sacked him in July 2001, testified that MSS was a "limited industrial action" to pressure company management to continue talks about various issues with the union, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association. According to Warham, the union and the airline had had various disputes, including one about the powers of the senior officer on an airliner - whether the captain had discretionary powers in exceptional circumstances. Warham, a union president in 1997, said that MSS could disrupt airline operations, acknowledging that it aimed to cause flight delays and inconvenience to passengers. Barrister Adrian Huggins SC, for the airline, said the pilots' aim was to threaten the airline by delaying each flight by about 15 minutes. Warham said under cross examination, however, that a typhoon on the second day of the MSS scheme had caused chaos. Huggins claimed pilots had followed a "contract compliance campaign" before the maximum safety strategy. He said pilots had stuck strictly to the terms of their contracts and had not been able to be contacted during off-duty hours. However, Warham said: "I was contactable all the time even when I was off duty." A second claimant, Mathew Rogers, told the court that he never carried a mobile phone. Rogers said he was never told "to be difficult to be contacted". Another claimant, Michael Shaw, testified that the contract compliance campaign was intended to affect daily airline operations and underscore the fact that the airline relied on people working on their days off. Huggins said the union had also introduced a "sick-out policy". He said records showed that 89 pilots called in sick on the same day. The hearing continues today. From the SCMP . |
As much as I would love to see justice prevail, I can't help but feel that HK will remain firmly tethered to "the bad old days" of doing business.
In fact, it seems that the latest missive from the AOA (regarding the FTLWG) has perhaps hinted that transactions in HK may not be as transparent as the Government would like us to believe. :( |
Those horrible pilots!
He said pilots had stuck strictly to the terms of their contracts |
this could get interesting.....what if they subpoena retired "gentleman" like ken barley, paddy cavanagh, ron davies? these lads have no reason to tow the company "line" anymore, and may spill the beans. If they don't come clean they could be personally liable or held in contempt.
I seem to recall the CX representatives on trial in London starting to sweat as they got caught changing their story on the stand..... |
subpoena retired "gentleman" |
Word in Wan Chai tonight is that Tony Tyler and Philip Chen will be appearing in court to explain their actions. Is that bar talk or for real?
|
Hmmm.. highly probable. :suspect:
|
Public Gallery
Is there a public gallery? Which court is it in?
It would be interesting to go and watch for a morning and show support. I mean afternoon, not keen on mornings. |
Coming soon to a venue near you...
I think you will find that the 'gentlemen' will soon have their time in the sun... :cool:
|
FLY747 - should you wish to view, you could do worse than rock up at Court No. 19 (9/F), High Court, Admiralty.
Proceedings start at 10:00am. |
Here's what's been going on Transcripts from week 1
|
Interesting....
The Judge's comments at close of play on Friday are interesting.
If I am hearing him right, he seems to be stating to Cathay that there is no evidence being offered as to why the 49ers were fired. It seems Tyler and Chen filed Witness Statements on Monday and those Witness Statements are bland and he may disallow them to state why the guys were fired. Effectively, Cathay will offer no defense to the unfair dismal and defamation claims. It seems both sides are lining up Nick Rhodes as the hero or zero in this case. Tyler and Chen may give evidence next week as space allows (Reserve call-out if you will). Nick Rhodes, however, will command his own day (or longer) on the stand. |
Liam
Spot on. His Lordship appears less than impressed with 'I'm just doing my job' Muggins for the defense and his line of questions that tend to play the man and not the ball. His line with Crofty all but sealed the case me thinks. The inclusion of defense submissions covering generalised criticisms of certain individuals is a fortuitous stroke of luck that did not go unnoticed in the closing remarks. Muggins must be sinking quite a few down at Joe Bananas and trying to forget how he let that happen and hoping upon high that the Star Chamber List doesn't fall off the back of a truck! |
Court Case
The 49ers' case will continue at 10am on Monday 12th October 2009 in Court 19 on the 9th Floor of the High Court Building, Queensway, Hong Kong. The transcripts of the proceedings so far may be found at:
49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings Plaintiffs appearing next week are: Brian Keene Pierre Morrisette Damon Neich-Buckley Chris Sweeney Henry Van Keulen Craig Young Witness Statements for the Defendants have been received from: Philip Chen Ronald Davies Richard Hall Denley Hau Christopher Hoyland Zdenek Kroutil Sherman Lam Dennis Leung Andrew Maddox Bob Nipperess Nicholas Rhodes Antony Tyler Christina Wong The case has been progressing more rapidly than expected. Defence witnesses are likely to be called next week to give evidence. Best wishes The CPU Admin The Cathay Pilots Union Home Page |
Court Proceedings
There must many of us living outside the Fragrant Harbour who are very interested in this case. Would some kind soul please post a 'brief' summary of the daily proceedings?
Thanks in advance. http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smil...e/Antique1.gif |
all in the transcripts of the link at post 21. Provided you like reading legal exchanges that is and have a few hours to spare.
|
Why is the Pilots' barrister not doing any talking? Why is the Defendant Barrister asking about " Why didn't you apply for this job or that job" .......What has it got to do with being unfairly dismissed???
|
Transcripts
Glass Half Empty
Thanks for that. 111 pages! Strewth, my cup runneth over! http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/peek-a-boo.gif |
crwjerk
Normally when defence lawyers have no case they try and intimidate plantiff witnesses. That's why he's wasting time asking about other employers and why no other applications were made. Unfortunately for CX's lawyers, his Lordship has seen straight through them.:D
|
Yes, there doesn't appear to be a lot of material from the defendant's camp. This week will be interesting!
|
crwjerk
This is but one man's anonymous view on a public internet forum. I have no special information on the case.
I sense what is going on the Court Room is a skirmish; the real battle is being fought behind closed doors. Most of the evidence is by way of documents (volumes and volumes), which the Judge has read. It seems to be me that the it has almost been agreed by both sides and the Judge that the 49ers have won the unfair dismissal, but not yet the defamation. Right from last Monday the Judge has been talking about "quantum"and pressing both sides to agree or at least set a framework for the scale of damages. The Defence Barrister is doing most of the talking as he is wishing to discredit each individual 49ers to limit the damage. He is pressing hard on the job applications as he trying to say the 49ers did not aggressively seek work and that is the true reason they struggled to gain further employment; not the negative statements various CX figureheads made in the press, back in 2001. I sense Mr Grossman (for the 49ers) is only making comment to bring the 49ers back to the documents should they stray (or be lead astray). I further sense Mr Grossman is keeping his powder dry for when Tyler, Chen and Rhodes appear. It is on those days you will see if both Barristers are worth their not inconsiderable fees. Which leads to the real battle. The costs of these proceedings are potentially dwarfing the damages and I am certain CX is using that as leverage over the 49ers. Again, I have no information on this, but I would wager CX have made a settlement offer to each of the 49ers and should they fail to get a greater amount of damages from his Lordship; they will seek their costs. It's high stakes poker! Ominously, the Judge is already talking of Appeal: he knows CX very well!! Again, take the above for what it's worth: anonymous speculative BS on a public internet forum. That said, wouldn't it be nice if his Lordship struck back for the HK Judiciary and slapped some hefty damages on CX as punishment for bully-boy tactics in the HK Courts. |
Good post Liam G.
Let's hope there is justice |
Interesting reading, and I am only a 3rd of the way through!
I was talking to one of my F/O's recently my about career role models, and started to think about the CX Captains who have helped to make me the Captain I am today. During my :oh:career, if I had been able to list the very worst dozen (or so!) skippers, then my 1999 hit list would have matched the list of 40-50 guys who eventually took redundancy and left. This was much to the pleasure of those who were left behind. When it came to many of the 49ers in 2001, it was a completely different event. With one or two exceptions many of my very best skippers/role models were culled.. DouG/JonD/DMc/KM etc. The trips I flew with those guys were the times when I really learned how to be a good Captain. Close attention is being payed to the court action. All the best.... |
QC/black hat (for the baddies) "I am going to try and finish you by lunch".
Witness/white hat (our chap) "Are you really? Be gentle. I bruise easily!" Priceless..:D |
any transcripts for day 6 onwards anywhere?
|
I'll Do My Best
After reading all the transcripts, it seems CX did not like to hear the words,
"I'll do my best"when talking to Crew Control. I do not remember this advice given in the newsletters, but I will use this phrase from now on, as as very small token to remind myself and management of this dark period in history. I'll Do My Best |
Tyler And Chen In Court
Weather: Hong Kong http://www.scmp.com/images/weather/mini/51_mini.gif 24°C | Partly Cloudy </SPAN>'; a = a + ''; a = a + 'http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/activit...cmph922;ord=1?'; a = a + ''; document.write(a);}else if (location.href == 'http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.b17ba3523c5f6a3034ebbc0a53a0a0a0/?s=idx_Sport'){ var a = ''; a = a + ''; a = a + ''; a = a + 'http://ad.hk.doubleclick.net/activit...port833;ord=1?'; a = a + ''; document.write(a);}//--> http://www.scmp.com/images/text_search.jpg Last 7 days Archives Since 1993 http://www.scmp.com/images/bar_searchresults.gifhttp://www.scmp.com/images/bar_searchresults_close.gifhttp://www.scmp.com/images/bar_tshadow.jpg
Ex-Cathay executive ties firings to union Sacking of 49 pilots linked to 'disruptive activities' Yvonne Tsui Oct 15, 2009 http://www.scmp.com/images/icon_rss.gifhttp://www.scmp.com/images/icon_s_email.gif| http://www.scmp.com/images/icon_s_print.gif A former top executive of Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) admitted yesterday that the sacking of 49 pilots during an industrial dispute in 2001 was partly due to union activities that disrupted the company's operations. Philip Chen Nan-lok, who was the airline's director and chief operating officer at the time, was testifying in the Court of First Instance, where Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes was hearing the claims launched by 18 of the pilots who alleged that their sacking - due to their union activities - was unlawful. The pilots are seeking compensation for the loss of their jobs and the distress they say was caused by the defamatory criticism by top airline executives in the media. Chen told the court the pilots were sacked in July 2001 for the disruption caused by their "individual attitudes and activities", after a thorough review of their records. He said their behaviour caused a number of flight delays and cancellations. He admitted they were sacked "partly" because of their labour actions, which brought about the disruption. Earlier, the court had heard that the union, the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, had encouraged the airline's pilots to take part in a "contract compliance campaign" that asked them to apply strictly the terms of their contracts. Pilots were asked to make sure they could not be contacted on their days off, so that the company could not rely on off-duty staff, the court heard. The campaign, which caused the delay of flights by about 15 minutes, was aimed at pressing airline management to continue negotiations with the union on various issues. The 18 pilots were sacked after the start of an industrial action called the "maximum safety strategy" on July 3, 2001, the court heard. Chen told the court the decision to sack the pilots was based on whether the company could rely on its employees to act in its best interests, in a way "not entirely to do with contract compliance". Clive Grossman SC, the pilots' barrister, then asked Chen: "So you have confidence in the other 1,500-odd pilots, notwithstanding the fact that they also participated [in the industrial action]?" Chen said: "We had confidence in our staff, except disruptive activities." Chen had also publicly attacked the pilots' industrial action as a lack of professionalism, the court heard. Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional". Tony Tyler, the airline's chief executive, also testified. Tyler, then the director of corporate development, had criticised the pilots' behaviour as holding Hong Kong to ransom, the court had heard. He said he was not involved in the decision to sack the pilots, but was confident it was the result of the pilots' performance and not connected to their union activities. He said that although he was not involved in identifying the pilots to be sacked, he felt that those picked "could not be relied on to perform their job". He also said he stood by his claim that the 49ers, as the pilots became known, were holding Hong Kong to ransom because travel in and out of the city had been disrupted. But when Grossman cited comments attributed to Tyler in a CNN report that suggested a link between the labour actions and the firings, Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today. |
Chen said he could not recall whether he had said those words, but he acknowledged the sacked pilots were all "technically professional". Tyler said he could not recall making those comments. The hearing continues today. Would anyone perhaps know whether The Chen and Tyler-the-Liar are being held individually responsible for the defamation claims? Hope their bank balances are strong,cause they're GONNA PAY UP!!!!!:E |
Day 7
|
If what you've been waiting for is the day Tyler, Chen & Rhodes had to face the music for what they did in 2001, then fill your boots with the excellent cross-examination by Grossman S.C (for the 18 '49ers') on day 7 of the hearing.
It's 148 pages long and it's painful for them but bliss to read! A taste, from an exchange between his Lordship and Rhodes: HIS LORDSHIP: I understand your point, Mr Rhodes. Again, the concern, I think, of Mr Grossman [for the 49ers] is this. You have a crew controller saying, "This is a difficult person, I remember such and such an incident, specific incident". Normally fairness would at least require that you listen to the other side, if you are going to look at it objectively, and give the pilot concerned a chance to explain, if there is explanation, about the specific incidents referred to by the crew controller, just to give the pilot some opportunity to explain his side. That wasn't done. Mr Grossman is saying, on that basis, can you really say that it was a fair process, it was a rigorous review procedure? I think that's what Mr Grossman is questioning. RHODES: Yes, sir. HIS LORDSHIP: What do you say to that, Mr Rhodes? RHODES: As I've said before, we could have chosen to level a disciplinary charge against the individuals -- HIS LORDSHIP: I understand that point, Mr Rhodes, but that sounds possibly even worse, Mr Grossman would say, because what you're saying is, "Well, we can't prove it, we don't really have any rigorous or even any real proof about this, so we'll just get around the difficulty of the disciplinary and grievance procedure by giving three months' notice". RHODES: Well, that, as I've tried to explain, is the entire reason why the union and why many pilots felt that having the sick-out and having contract compliance was the perfect weapon to put pressure on the company, because the company can't prove anything in a disciplinary hearing. HIS LORDSHIP: This was your response to that perfect weapon? RHODES: Well, the only response we have is to monitor their behaviour and hope we would get a deal around the table, and then the behaviour would all disappear overnight -- HIS LORDSHIP: But this dismissal of the 49 was your response to the difficulties of proof raised by the perfect weapon indulged in, engaged in, by the union? To be continued.... |
Fantastical most interesting reading ! I'm luvin it !
A must read for all CX pilots....... here is the link again.... 49ers Hong Kong Court Case - Transcripts of Daily Proceedings :ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.