PR Holders Verses Work Permits
 

There has been some pretty unfair treatment recently in the way HKA have laid off some of our pilots and the point being raised is Permanent Residents verses Work Permits.

The Hong Kong Government strongly advocates that employers must give first preference to the local work force for filling job vacancies.

The aviation sector in Hong Kong has largely been left alone in this area because there has been a shortage of locally qualified pilots since the inception of aviation in Hong Kong. Other industries have long been extremely protective and advocate locals first for many different positions.

The work force is shrinking and everyone is trying to hang on to what ever they can get, but if you are a PR Holder or HK Passport Holder now is the time to rejoice.

I have had numerous calls and e-mails with the labour department and immigration department this week and their stance is definitive when it comes to protecting the local work force and our rights.

Many of us have moved our families here, put children into new schools and made huge lifestyle adjustments, it is your right to be protected after you have done your 7 years, paid your taxes and decided to call Hong Kong home.

The labour department take the stance that a PR holder cannot not be made redundant when the company is still exercising work permits for other employees of the same qualification.

Get on the phone to the labour tribunal / immigration department if your company starts furloughing PR pilots while still employing others under the work permit scheme.

Hope this helps Good Luck

You'd be in for a long legal fight for that PR to be worth anything....

This will be very relevant if they close bases for those that aren’t PR.

There are essentially 3 key points that the departments pointed out to me that you can file a violation against your employer if you have been treated unfairly.

1.) Section A of the importation of labour : local workers must be given priority in filling job vacancies available in the job market

2.) Details of plan to train up local workers to fill the post(s) under application and to increase productivity (This includes retraining if necessary to fill a similar position)

3.) Number of imported workers, if any, engaged in the job titles or in the job categories

"If an employer breaches any statutory provision (including the Employment Ordinance, the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and the Immigration Ordinance), any provision of the standard employment contract or any condition of the SLS, the employer concerned may be subjected to administrative sanction resulting in withdrawal of approval for labour importation. Subsequent SLS applications for importation of workers will be barred for two years counting from the relevant date."

A two year ban on imported workers might make things a bit dit difficult when the industry ramps up again. :ok:

Permanent Resident Card holders are classed as part of the local workforce.
Discrimination or harassment on the grounds of sex, pregnancy, marital status, disability, family status and race are prohibited.

You can lodge a claim with the labour department it costs about $25. You can not be terminated until the tribunal mediation is completed and the employer is liable back payment of salaries owing up until completion of the mediation. Time to mediation Seven to Nine months.

Best of Luck

If there were to be redundancies etc etc those who would lose their jobs would have been in Cathay and Hong Kong less than 7 years. The time that it takes to get PR! Further any Hong Kong citizen or PR holder who was made redundant due to LIFO principal and contractural agreement would be most likely a Second Officer or Junior First Officer! The company and the government in my opinion would easily be able to issue work permits to more senior pilots especially those of the rank of Captain and SFOs & RQs who would be forced off the bases if such a thing were to happen as SOs and JFOs do not have the qualifications nor experience to perform these roles (at least that's how the legal argument would be made)

Now if they tried to lay off a PR Captain in Hong Kong and replace him/her with a non PR pilot on a work permit then in my opinion your argument would have merit, I just don't think that as it stands it does.

.....and then you are given 3 months pay in lieu.....

Challenging times for everyone :confused:

The based guys returning is a valid point and I'm not so familiar with the complexity of the CX employment contracts.

HKA have let go of Permanent Resident pilots of equal rank & qualification to those who have been kept under work permit sponsorship scheme. The pilots let go were given spurious reasons as to their dismissal, financial times, downsizing ect.

The Permanent Residence / National card has always been played in most nations so it will be interesting to see how well the HKG government protect their own.

Best of Luck.

That would only work with sackings. Redundancy is a completely different thing.

Be hard to explain in a court why a senior guy was 'sacked' and a guy 500 numbers junior wasn't. COS is very clear.

Fellas, stop tying yourselves up in knots. It is quite simple how they are planning this. They will be closing most if not all bases. Then they will offer all of the displaced pilots a return to Hk. Problem is they will be returning on the "new" HK terms, which will hardly be acceptable to many. Many will probably resign and take the meager "redundancy package" that will be offered. Once that is resolved, they will then lay off several hundred crew. Not before firing as many as they can for the slightest disciplinary reason (and I might add...they are already doing that weekly). Overall, this time next year we will be down probably 500+ pilots. As I have said previously, the company can and should pull back from this action. Sadly, either this or some variant thereof is the likely outcome. Good luck to all.

Do you think they'd ever try the angle that seniority / LIFO only works for the scope of a particular COS? A is separate to B is separate to C is separate to Z...

No. There is one seniority list, and that is clear both contractually and legally.

Each seperate COS has a Redundancy Clasue that specifically mentions the CPA Common Redundancy List and specifically points to Last In First Out in event of Redundancies.

get out there. No one force you to go and live in there.

Not to mention that the Oz EBA was only just signed and they are the cheapest Cx Pilots in the World.......might as well leave them there and use them when they can. Due to the exchange rate a Capt on the Oz base doesn’t earn much more than a senior FO in HK and without ANY expat benefits at all. Granted a screwing for the HK guys seems to be coming and the difference will be less in future.....

Gents, don't fall in the same bias trap over and over...

HK pilots think it will be based guys
747 pilots think it will be pax guys
seniors think it will be juniors
locals think it will be expats etc etc

Nobody knows, could be none, could be anyone

yep

(my reply is apparently too short)

so, to reiterate

yep

Wow, you got out of your usual spilt milk crying rut and put a thinking cap on. Good post and congratulations on the positive progress.

Thanks.

PS Speaking about progress. A further quick use of my thinking cap says me that your vote against the offered payrise cost you a minimum of 30 000 USD so far (and counting).

Ha, not progress after all. Just an anomalous spike. Broken clocks...

Exactly! Two steps forward, one step back. Nothing a few thousand in therapy can’t sort out. Otherwise, it’s back to crying to mum on the telephone. I’m sure she would love to hear from her baby boy.

Does it now...?

Precisely.

How can you have anything but complete respect for leaders who stress midweek not to believe the media or rumors but to rely on official company correspondence whilst simultaneously secretly amending the contract we’ll probably be presented with while telling us nothing about the change, it’s necessity or how it may affect us.

I for one have complete faith the jellyfish will stand up for his pilots with the same fortitude he always has.

So, the first domino falls. I agree that the surreptitious way this was accomplished is in line with the normal cretinous way this company does things (that would be you Tom). Regardless, the likely events this week will probably include the following:

1) closure of bases
2) new COS20 for everyone. You can sign or resign. They did this in 99. I find it hard to believe they won't go down that road again.
3) new COS does not have a redundancy clause. Therefore be very careful about signing. It is likely they will cherry pick the pilots they want (eg: 747 pilots are bullet proof...but will be on the lower pay and benefits of the new COS).
4) likely will offer a meager redundancy package for the senior people. Once they have established numbers, they will then lay off based on point 3 above.

Do I have any specific knowledge...small bits and pieces. Do I have the big picture...no (and I hope I am wrong on every point). I can certainly tell you though that there are big changes coming this week or next. I think this first move by the company clearly shows they are going to handle it in their usual draconian and thoughtless fashion. Tom, I might remind you of the term "unintended consequence". You'll be learning that no doubt over the next while (but don't worry everyone, he'll be protect as a Swire prince...he'll be fine).

No doubt big changes are coming the world sadly has changed...

The bases; colleagues and I have been talking this over and non of us (we are all Hong Kong based) can see why the company would close the bases, there is argument over if they save the company money or not but the basings review carried out last year was adamant that bases saved the company money and were good for the operation! Forget the money aspect they afford tremendous operational flexibility and perhaps less of an issue now with the economy but offer a marvellous pilot recruitment and retention tool.

Not to mention the immediate cost of closing the bases would be huge at a time that all expenditure is being heavily scrutinised! So in all seriousness why would they close the bases? This is further supported by the fact we have pilots right now on conversion courses to go onto bases surely those would have been stopped if they were closing the bases (I take that back knowing this mob they probably forgot)

Yes they closed the cabin crew bases in USA and Canada but that is completely different.

I am not trying to be a management apologist (although i'll undoubtedly be accused of being one). In fact, I have spent 20+ years fighting the management in more ways than you can imagine. Moving on: I can tell you categorically that the bases no longer save the company money. If you continue with that premise, you will completely miscalculate your response and strategy towards the managements attacks that are surely coming. I won't bother to explain why the bases are no longer viable, please just accept that the cost benefit no longer outweighs the liabilities. Fact. (if they manage to transition most if not all pilots to COS20, they will not longer have a housing issue pertaining to base cost savings).

The company has decided that they are presented with a once in a lifetime opportunity to completely restructure the airline. If you feel otherwise, please explain. Further, please explain why they wouldn't take advantage of this opportunity. Do you think they would not miss the chance to eradicate ARAPA ? If not, then explain. Do you think they will miss the chance to rid themselves of foreign bases that have much more limiting legal strictures? If not, then please explain. Do you think they will miss the opportunity to force everyone onto a new COS. If not, please explain. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that CX will not get complete support from the CAD and the Government. They will).

If this weekends change to COS18 (disgusting btw) is not a warning shot across the bow, I don't know what is. The entire industry has been devastated. CX management, based on their past 25 year history is obviously inclined to take maximum advantage of the opportunities this presents. If they didn't do so now, how could they ever again in the future claim circumstances sufficient to enable wholesale cuts to our contracts?

I am simply laying out the likely future. I am not saying I like it. I do not. It's better to face life based on reality than fantasy and wishful thinking.

How about you put up some data to support your premise that bases don't save money? A based pilot's salary is lower than a HKG pilot's salary. There is no housing on a base. Even if the company massively cuts HKG housing, any amount will be greater than the zero housing on a base. Then there is the education allowance.

I do agree that the managers will be wetting themselves with this opportunity to shaft us, but HKG costs crew costs will always be higher than based crew costs.

No doubt that they will make changes, I can see them keeping the bases for the next few years make the changes in Hong Kong (based pilots salary's are cheap already and they have the immediate cost reduction from all the based pilots for the short to medium term In the form of the concessions that they have given the company) then no longer put people onto bases, and let them fade out, for FOs if you want to upgrade you come back to Hong Kong and join all of us on the new COs.

I believe that they even said that you return to Hong Kong on your previous contract if it is still available, well if everyone in HKG is on COS 18/20 then you can't return on previous contract as it's not available!

Reckon that the next few weeks and months will all be about Hong Kong based pilots, any decisions about closing bases will come later after the ground work is done back here in the main base.

Controlled. I understand my comments are disturbing. It's not my job to provide the evidence. That is the company's job. All I can tell you is that I have seen the numbers. There are many metrics that are included in the overall costings on this. The day of bases being a cost effective entity are over. I don't like that fact any more than you obviously do. I might add; once the company bullies everyone onto much lower contracts, the bases will be even more cost ineffective. Simply a consequence of the times we are living in. More to the point, once CX began lowering the overall pay and benefits of the HK pilots (COS18 as an example), it was only a matter of time before the day was reached that the bases were no longer cost effective. Needless to say, this event has brought that reality quickly to the fore. We'll see what this week brings. Perhaps our management will reign in their baser instincts and look to the long term. We'll see... (btw, the suggestion that the previous post lays out is highly likely. Bases may be tackled after HK has been dealt with. Ultimately, bases will be tackled).

Mngmt Mole

Your conclusion in regards of closing the bases is flawed. If management would offer a new contract to the Hong Kong based pilots to reduce cost, nothing would prevent CX to negotiate new terms with the bases as well. Don’t forget the bases were the first to agree on a temporary reduction in pay last month. The base closure clause is enforceable in all base jurisdictions and would cost CX a chunk of money. Some jurisdictions have mandatory severance pay in their labor laws which would add to the contractual liabilities CX has. At least for those who chose not to return to Hong Kong.

In terms of base vs HKG cost you might want to talk to the GMA as he has the latest base cost analysis numbers which in some jurisdictions contradict what you are saying.

For pilot redundancies to happen I would expect management announce a reduction in airplanes first. From the latest communications it sounds to me that there is a great deal of uncertainty within CX how our recovery could look like. Hence the delay in talking to the HKAOA. Maybe management is cautiously optimistic and instead of achieving immediate cost savings via redundancies is trying to achieve the same with reducing pilot renumeration across the board to be more flexible. On the other hand CX rejected the government aid package and as such is free to lay-off employees. The latest change to COS18 indicates to me that possible redundancies will be not be made in seniority within that group (747 pilots might stay). Anyways, as far as I know COS18 pilots would have never been included on the official redundancy list.

But hey, who knows? One thing is for sure, no-one here on this board has any inside information.

Decisions like this will be ultimately made by the CEO and Board of Directors. Hopefully they will make their decision soon.

You're all largely missing the point of any possible base closures. In fact, it is a roundabout way to force resignations.

If I was a 60 plus year old Captain in London, do you think I would come back to HKG on the new COS20? Or even COS08 with no ARAPA. Not Likely. I would call it a day.

That's how CX would save money. Surreptitiously forcing the resignations of older pilots and perhaps financially secure younger pilots with no intention of dragging their family to the cesspit.

Yes that’s true. But at the cost of 6 months redundancy pay and depending on jurisdiction and YOS a bunch of severance pay.

I didn't expect my question to be so prescient... which means either they read the post, though it was a beaut idea, and somehow got signoff from finance, hr, legal (+ outside counsel? and the board?) in less than 12-24 hours; or they've had it in the works for a while...

if it's the former then I would expect the due diligence to be pretty rushed! How solid can it be when the weather is this good and the kids are at home? A Pui O cowpat is probably just as valuable. If it's the latter, then I'd be looking at what they were saying or not saying at least a month ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if the goal is to get everyone on to individually negotiated contracts that get people to rely on statutory protections. There's no need for common COS if there's no ties to bind people together.

Not if the officer voluntarily resigns, to prevent a forced move to HKG against his will.

I really hope the company doesn't think this way. In many of these countries there's a pretty strong legal system (some even where a plaintiff bears no cost unless the case is won) and I'm fairly certain such a thing would trigger all kinds of grievances and legal maneuvers. You can't cancel a CA simply to willingly evade the layoff in order of seniority provisions within it. Or in an attempt to stiff those with pay protection. And if this was the plan there would be a likely paper (electronic) record of it somewhere and devious plans get found out. Regardless this would be very expensive for the company.

Not to mention I'll bet such an individual would be older and older people sometimes aren't too speedy. And their parts break. So you have the potential to bring on some seriously unhappy dead weight (at least if they wanted to be dead weight) which sucks your resources down in the short term. Yes, in the long run you might get your plan but I'd bet it'd be a lot more costly than simply leaving things alone. It's sure as heck going to cost more than a year or two of pay per person any way you slice it.

Oh, you bet your bottom dollar this is how they think. This is exactly how they think and operate.

And, of course, it does usually end up with them treading on their dicks, and in front of a court. But that's never stopped them before, and they don't learn.

Slasher. There is not a single chance the company is going "to leave things alone". There is zero chance they aren't going to maximise their advantage. Unfortunately fate has handed them the opportunity of a lifetime. They will not fail to maximise the outcome in their favour. Difficult days are approaching.

Based pilots are employed by a CX legal entity for that base. If CX closes the base, they also have to close that entity. You can not voluntary resign from a company that does not exist anymore. Base contracts have a clause that you have the right to return to Hong Kong and some even specify the contract you have to be employed on as well. Basically, you have been offered employment with a different company in a different jurisdiction (country). If you chose not to return to Hong Kong, redundancy and severance pay is required in some jurisdictions as the only thing that matters is that the company you were employed with does not exist anymore and your employment in that jurisdiction was terminated due to this.

In summary, a based pilot who does not want to return to Hong Kong does not voluntary resign when the base is closed, but only reject the employment offer for a Hong Kong pilot position. 2 different things. Labor law does not care about employment offers in other jurisdictions.

Seniority is company policy, but the basic core of Hong Kong Law states that employment preference shall be given to the local work force.

PR holders & Passports should not be made redundant when there is locally available talent to fill the positions.

If you have been let go with the recent purge at HKA I strongly urge you to take action and notify the immigration department and labour tribunal.

Dream on... so he rejects the employment offer as designated in his contract to do exactly what for the based corporate entity that no longer exists... 🙄

In at least one of the jurisdictions offshore fiscal responsibility will eventually be tied to the parent corporation so there's no 'shell corporation' shield. The only option to evade this would be for the parent to go bankrupt and place the asset distribution to creditors (which would include obligations toward unpaid pilots) before a bankruptcy court. I have no idea how this would work or if it even could work for an entity like CX.

So any involuntary furlough out of seniority would be a huge expensive quagmire. Doesn't mean they wouldn't try it with some scheme but in the long run IMHO they'll likely lose the case. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

The easiest way to avoid the mess is simply to furlough by seniority -- which is exactly what the contract says -- and/or have an attractive voluntary package of temp leave/retirement. Which is what US carriers (who have similar seniority based contract provisions) did. There's really not any way around seniority based furlough (if it comes to needing to furlough) that won't result in legal action (which given the specifics of the contract they're likely to lose anyway) and be costly for the company in any case. But I guess it'll give something for the newly furloughed guys to do. Guess we'll see one way or another.