Long time coming
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time coming
House of Lords Ruling
This should be interesting.
This should be interesting.
49er Captain George Crofts Receives Landmark Ruling in UK House of Lords
Crofts v Veta
Captain George Crofts is the 49er plaintiff in the UK legal actions. Since July 2001, the UK legal arguments have centered on jurisdiction: whether a pilot working for Cathay Pacific Airways, or its subsidiaries, is covered by UK employment legislation. In May 2005, the Appeals Court ruled that Veta pilots (those flying Cathay Pacific Airways aircraft but based in the UK) were covered by the UK Employment Rights Act.
Veta appealed to the House of Lords and the case was heard in November 2005, with the judgment being handed down in January 2006. The House of Lords ruled in favour of Captain Crofts.
In summary, Captain Crofts has had jurisdictional rulings in his favour at the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and now, finally, in the House of Lords. Throughout, Veta has been ordered to pay costs. Captain Crofts will now put the facts of his case – for breach of contract and unfair dismissal – before the Employment Tribunal. This will be the first time that the unjust events of July 2001 will be aired publicly in court and we anticipate substantial world-wide coverage. Notwithstanding the circumstances of the dismissal, the ruling has greatly enhanced UK job protection, not only for UK Veta pilots, but also for other “peripatetic employees” – people who are based in one country but whose work constantly takes them to different places. They are now all covered by the UK Employment Rights Act.
Crofts v Veta
Captain George Crofts is the 49er plaintiff in the UK legal actions. Since July 2001, the UK legal arguments have centered on jurisdiction: whether a pilot working for Cathay Pacific Airways, or its subsidiaries, is covered by UK employment legislation. In May 2005, the Appeals Court ruled that Veta pilots (those flying Cathay Pacific Airways aircraft but based in the UK) were covered by the UK Employment Rights Act.
Veta appealed to the House of Lords and the case was heard in November 2005, with the judgment being handed down in January 2006. The House of Lords ruled in favour of Captain Crofts.
In summary, Captain Crofts has had jurisdictional rulings in his favour at the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and now, finally, in the House of Lords. Throughout, Veta has been ordered to pay costs. Captain Crofts will now put the facts of his case – for breach of contract and unfair dismissal – before the Employment Tribunal. This will be the first time that the unjust events of July 2001 will be aired publicly in court and we anticipate substantial world-wide coverage. Notwithstanding the circumstances of the dismissal, the ruling has greatly enhanced UK job protection, not only for UK Veta pilots, but also for other “peripatetic employees” – people who are based in one country but whose work constantly takes them to different places. They are now all covered by the UK Employment Rights Act.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is the Colonel a lawyer? Cathay has already paid into court in HK for the same complaint, people who think they will win don't usually do that. And I reckon the UK courts will be more labour friendly than the HK ones.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About Time
Well done George,
Obvious this will have the CX management and their Cohorts at KA spitting their Congee. This should mean UK and as a result European Employment Legislation applying to those carriers who use flag of convenience companies in the UK to dilute the emloyment conditions of their crews when compared to their Hong Kong( or otherwise) based colleagues.
While the full ruling is yet to be digested, It could open the door for claims of unfair and unequal treatment.
It may well be the end of that management statement " Well whilst we realise you are UK based, Hong Kong Law applies in your employment".
Sorry Headmaster, your cane has just been taken away.............
Obvious this will have the CX management and their Cohorts at KA spitting their Congee. This should mean UK and as a result European Employment Legislation applying to those carriers who use flag of convenience companies in the UK to dilute the emloyment conditions of their crews when compared to their Hong Kong( or otherwise) based colleagues.
While the full ruling is yet to be digested, It could open the door for claims of unfair and unequal treatment.
It may well be the end of that management statement " Well whilst we realise you are UK based, Hong Kong Law applies in your employment".
Sorry Headmaster, your cane has just been taken away.............
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Colonel,
Methinks you have missed the point. Unless this case is settled out of court Cathay will be required to enter a defense on the charge that George and the other 49ers were unlawfully dismissed and had their contracts breached. This is something which they have tried very hard to prevent - at great expense.
Cathay made some pretty interesting statements in the aftermath of 9th July 2001 which I suspect would conflict with the likely defense of being terminated under the terms of the contract.
Defeat for Cathay on the issue of jurisdiction is huge and I for one applaud George his supporters for their perseverance.
Methinks you have missed the point. Unless this case is settled out of court Cathay will be required to enter a defense on the charge that George and the other 49ers were unlawfully dismissed and had their contracts breached. This is something which they have tried very hard to prevent - at great expense.
Cathay made some pretty interesting statements in the aftermath of 9th July 2001 which I suspect would conflict with the likely defense of being terminated under the terms of the contract.
Defeat for Cathay on the issue of jurisdiction is huge and I for one applaud George his supporters for their perseverance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Colonel,
With regard to your second post on this matter, you make the same mistake that Cathay did.
George and the others had their contracts terminated - none were dismissed for any offence. If they had been, there was a process contained within the contract which should have been followed.
It wasn't.
Hence breach of contract and unfair dismissal follow on from Cathay's statements in the aftermath of the 'terminations'.
With regard to your second post on this matter, you make the same mistake that Cathay did.
George and the others had their contracts terminated - none were dismissed for any offence. If they had been, there was a process contained within the contract which should have been followed.
It wasn't.
Hence breach of contract and unfair dismissal follow on from Cathay's statements in the aftermath of the 'terminations'.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I have not missed the point but I appreciate your comments. I do not condone any airline dismissing its employess for improper reason, as I believe was the case here and I applaud the 49ers for sticking with it for so long and making the company pay. Sacking any worker for a lck of confidence is hardly reason to let anyone go, particularly a skilled worker like Flight Crew.
I have not missed the point but I appreciate your comments. I do not condone any airline dismissing its employess for improper reason, as I believe was the case here and I applaud the 49ers for sticking with it for so long and making the company pay. Sacking any worker for a lck of confidence is hardly reason to let anyone go, particularly a skilled worker like Flight Crew.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
Please, please can we get over the use of the words dismissed or fired in this case. The 49ers had their contracts terminated.
It may on the surface seem to be nit picking, but it isn't.
Had the 49ers been fired or dismissed, then Cathay management, under the terms of the contract, would have had to have gone through due process. This would have taken time and would not have served Cathay managements purpose - which, lest we forget, was designed to intimidate the rest of the pilot workforce so that they would not carry out their threat of industrial action.
So, whether Cathay (in your opinion CK) would have had cause to dismiss an individual if they had gone through the discipline and grievance procedure in the contract is irrelevant. The problem for Cathay is that they did not go through that process, but then made general public statements about the performance of the pilots concerned.
I have to say, Colonel, that it is disappointing to me that you feel able to make such insinuations about a named individual from behind a cloak of anonymity. I am surprised that the Moderator of this forum allows it.
Please, please can we get over the use of the words dismissed or fired in this case. The 49ers had their contracts terminated.
It may on the surface seem to be nit picking, but it isn't.
Had the 49ers been fired or dismissed, then Cathay management, under the terms of the contract, would have had to have gone through due process. This would have taken time and would not have served Cathay managements purpose - which, lest we forget, was designed to intimidate the rest of the pilot workforce so that they would not carry out their threat of industrial action.
So, whether Cathay (in your opinion CK) would have had cause to dismiss an individual if they had gone through the discipline and grievance procedure in the contract is irrelevant. The problem for Cathay is that they did not go through that process, but then made general public statements about the performance of the pilots concerned.
I have to say, Colonel, that it is disappointing to me that you feel able to make such insinuations about a named individual from behind a cloak of anonymity. I am surprised that the Moderator of this forum allows it.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everything that Ricky Whizz says. That standard grievance procedures were not followed brings CX management into disrepute and is surely the issue on which the Tribunal will focus.
That said, the wisdom of the AOA has to be questioned in respect of the candidate they have put forward to head up the case. There is a copy of the Sun circulating in which there is a report of one of Crofts' earlier court cases from 1996. The article states that, during an argument in the car park, Crofts' hit his mistress so hard that a front tooth lodged in the roof of her mouth. Sometime after the event he is said to have taken a drug overdose. Had he revealed to CX at the interview that he had a criminal record and had he revealed to CX medics that he had taken a drug overdose, he would not have been employed.
Crofts is not unknown in UK aviation circles, nor is he unknown in Aussie aviation circles where he was an 89er. Previous workmates in Dan Air, Airtours, Astraeus and Ansett will remember him for sure. Some of them will agree with me that Crofts is an unfortunate choice to present before the tribunal.
If there is sufficient interest I will post the newspaper article on this forum, moderator permitting.
That said, the wisdom of the AOA has to be questioned in respect of the candidate they have put forward to head up the case. There is a copy of the Sun circulating in which there is a report of one of Crofts' earlier court cases from 1996. The article states that, during an argument in the car park, Crofts' hit his mistress so hard that a front tooth lodged in the roof of her mouth. Sometime after the event he is said to have taken a drug overdose. Had he revealed to CX at the interview that he had a criminal record and had he revealed to CX medics that he had taken a drug overdose, he would not have been employed.
Crofts is not unknown in UK aviation circles, nor is he unknown in Aussie aviation circles where he was an 89er. Previous workmates in Dan Air, Airtours, Astraeus and Ansett will remember him for sure. Some of them will agree with me that Crofts is an unfortunate choice to present before the tribunal.
If there is sufficient interest I will post the newspaper article on this forum, moderator permitting.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turn and Burn,
Thank you, My sentiments exactly!! He was also at Air Europe, Bangkok Airways and Fokker for a very short time. He also flew a corporate 727 for a while as well. He was not in Ansett, but TAA, later known as Australian Airlines.
Thank you, My sentiments exactly!! He was also at Air Europe, Bangkok Airways and Fokker for a very short time. He also flew a corporate 727 for a while as well. He was not in Ansett, but TAA, later known as Australian Airlines.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turn and burn,
With regard to this case and the AOA's choice, I have a feeling that George Crofts is now the only UK VETA employee left taking action against Cathay Pacific/VETA (no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong).
I also think that it is correct that the AOA is no longer supplying funds to this case. Nor are they funding any other legal action by the 49ers. This is as a result of deal struck between Cathay management and the AOA.
It amazes me that when faced with the enormity of a case such as this, all some pilots want to do is talk about the failings of an individual.
Cathay formed VETA so that they could have aircrew work more cheaply than if they had been hired by Cathay and been based in Hong Kong. Even though these aircrew were based overseas, Cathay had their contracts drawn up under Hong Kong law. Then, in 2001, they terminated the contracts of 50 pilots rather than come to an agreement about rostering - an agreement had been promised in 1999 during the 'sign or be fired' negotiations that went on to introduce three years of pay cuts. A small number of those pilots are now back working for Cathay - which begs the question: What were they terminated/fired/dismissed for that would make them acceptable to be re-employed 4 years later?
We could go on and discuss what Cathay did and how it affected the individuals, how Cathay continued to intimidate the aircrew body after the terminations or even how this case affects the contracts of other workers in the UK on 'overseas' contracts.
Maybe those of you who feel that these issues are not important could leave this posting and start another called 'What I think of George Crofts.' where you could amuse each other with great stories about what he might or might not have done. Maybe you could also post under your real names so that those that know you could add stories about what you might or might not have done - get my drift?
With regard to this case and the AOA's choice, I have a feeling that George Crofts is now the only UK VETA employee left taking action against Cathay Pacific/VETA (no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong).
I also think that it is correct that the AOA is no longer supplying funds to this case. Nor are they funding any other legal action by the 49ers. This is as a result of deal struck between Cathay management and the AOA.
It amazes me that when faced with the enormity of a case such as this, all some pilots want to do is talk about the failings of an individual.
Cathay formed VETA so that they could have aircrew work more cheaply than if they had been hired by Cathay and been based in Hong Kong. Even though these aircrew were based overseas, Cathay had their contracts drawn up under Hong Kong law. Then, in 2001, they terminated the contracts of 50 pilots rather than come to an agreement about rostering - an agreement had been promised in 1999 during the 'sign or be fired' negotiations that went on to introduce three years of pay cuts. A small number of those pilots are now back working for Cathay - which begs the question: What were they terminated/fired/dismissed for that would make them acceptable to be re-employed 4 years later?
We could go on and discuss what Cathay did and how it affected the individuals, how Cathay continued to intimidate the aircrew body after the terminations or even how this case affects the contracts of other workers in the UK on 'overseas' contracts.
Maybe those of you who feel that these issues are not important could leave this posting and start another called 'What I think of George Crofts.' where you could amuse each other with great stories about what he might or might not have done. Maybe you could also post under your real names so that those that know you could add stories about what you might or might not have done - get my drift?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that this case should stand on its legal merits alone. The problem is, legal issues are dealt with by real people who are prone to subjective judgements. If one of the members of the Tribunal is a lady whose daughter has recently been beaten up by a violent boyfriend, would her judgement be affected in this case? The argument is that the 49ers were dismissed without having been given a reason, the implication being that the dismissals were unjustified. If CX produce Crofts file at the Tribunal, as I suspect they shall, the Tribunal may well say that the procedure CX adopted was wrong. But, in the light of Crofts' file, they are unlikely to agree that Crofts' dismissal was unjustified. If Crofts' file is seen as being typical of the files of the other 49ers, then they are all in danger of being tarred with the same brush. Crofts' case has established that UK employment law can be applied to overseas employees. That is a significant victory. If I were Crofts I would quit whilst I was ahead. The Tribunal hearing could be messy.