Hong Kong 49ers obtain justice, at last!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point being here guys is that none of them were given a chance as is their right under the contract to defend the allegations. Maybe some of them would have still been sacked for whatever reason but that is irrelevant.
This result upholds our rights under our contract and our right to participate in union activities under the employment ordinance here in HKG. Whether some of them are muppets (in your opinion) or not, does not matter!
Well done to them all!
This result upholds our rights under our contract and our right to participate in union activities under the employment ordinance here in HKG. Whether some of them are muppets (in your opinion) or not, does not matter!
Well done to them all!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well he refused to follow company SOP's, his method of getting people to do things was to shout at them, no-one wanted to fly with him, etc.
That enough?
That enough?
Your opinions of the individual(s) concerned are irrelevant. What was on trial here was whether Cathay had dealt with them fairly - and most people do not reckon that to be the case.
Any company will have it's bad apples, and personality clashes; the way to deal with that is not to summarily fire them without justification. What a pain we can't just sack the people we don't like, but it protects us all from a bullying management.
Then I'm sure you followed your company procedures, and reported the individual, or perhaps you even had the balls to speak to him one to one?
Anyway, apologies for the thread distraction.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: earth
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost coughed up my corn flakes!
Sat down with a bowl of cereal this AM for a little light reading: Judge AJ Reyes Judgement paper.
Some very clear wording from the Judge. Some senior CX types also choking on thier breakfast I suspect, not for the same reasons however.
A few pertinent excerpts from Judge Reyes words:
"There is more to Hong Kong than just Cathay" (pg54, para146)
What??! Didn't he get the Swire-issued memo on this subject?
"I am unable to hold that Cathay acted responsibly" (pg57, para161)
That's it, his entire paragraph. Rather clear, isn't it?
"Cathay fails on justification" (pg63, para190)
Part of the Judges' reasoning on whether the dismissals were, in fact, justified.
If anyone else wants to read the whole 70pages:
http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/pro...CXJudgment.pdf
Well you'd think this would wrap up the whole nasty saga, but will it?
Many think CX will appeal, however the judgement is pretty clear. They'll have to provide a strong reason for appeal. Doesn't mean they won't try though, just to drag out the payment...
However, they haven't appealed against the US DOJ's $400million (HKD) fine yet have they? Funny thing, I guess they don't fancy messing around with someone (DOJ) who may actually have more power and money than them? (At least in the US). Not quite the same when it's a small bunch of 'unprofessional pilots' (their words!) in their own backyard.
Some very clear wording from the Judge. Some senior CX types also choking on thier breakfast I suspect, not for the same reasons however.
A few pertinent excerpts from Judge Reyes words:
"There is more to Hong Kong than just Cathay" (pg54, para146)
What??! Didn't he get the Swire-issued memo on this subject?
"I am unable to hold that Cathay acted responsibly" (pg57, para161)
That's it, his entire paragraph. Rather clear, isn't it?
"Cathay fails on justification" (pg63, para190)
Part of the Judges' reasoning on whether the dismissals were, in fact, justified.
If anyone else wants to read the whole 70pages:
http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/pro...CXJudgment.pdf
Well you'd think this would wrap up the whole nasty saga, but will it?
Many think CX will appeal, however the judgement is pretty clear. They'll have to provide a strong reason for appeal. Doesn't mean they won't try though, just to drag out the payment...
However, they haven't appealed against the US DOJ's $400million (HKD) fine yet have they? Funny thing, I guess they don't fancy messing around with someone (DOJ) who may actually have more power and money than them? (At least in the US). Not quite the same when it's a small bunch of 'unprofessional pilots' (their words!) in their own backyard.
Last edited by blue_side_up; 13th Nov 2009 at 02:03. Reason: spelllllling
The poster below ("The Management") has been baiting and tormenting CX pilots for years. It will be interesting to see how right/wrong he is on this. (from the Fragrant Harbour forum).
We will appeal and we will win. You think you have won the war but it is just a battle. We will win in the end.
This episode will end in our favor. We will appeal and when it goes to the High Court, we will prevail. You are only mere pilots or bus drivers, if we don’t need you, we would not have you. You are a necessary evil and we will do what we want.
This is not over and the DFO has every confidence that he will prevail. He will have the support of the Swire Group [and he will not be held accountable}. He is immune to Hong Kong Law. He works for Swire and they will protect him.
This money will be deducted from your SLS, so we don’t really have to pay anything. You actually paid for this payment.
To My Bonus.
The Management
This episode will end in our favor. We will appeal and when it goes to the High Court, we will prevail. You are only mere pilots or bus drivers, if we don’t need you, we would not have you. You are a necessary evil and we will do what we want.
This is not over and the DFO has every confidence that he will prevail. He will have the support of the Swire Group [and he will not be held accountable}. He is immune to Hong Kong Law. He works for Swire and they will protect him.
This money will be deducted from your SLS, so we don’t really have to pay anything. You actually paid for this payment.
To My Bonus.
The Management
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teal,
"The Management's" posts form a satirical and succinct commentary of the companies actions / future deliberations.
It still amazes that readers don't get it.
Is the general pilot body really that thick ?
Duh !
"The Management's" posts form a satirical and succinct commentary of the companies actions / future deliberations.
It still amazes that readers don't get it.
Is the general pilot body really that thick ?
Duh !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will win in the end.
Fact.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse "I dislike unions per se but recognise they are a necessary evil and have been a career long member of BALPA. . . "
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will appeal and we will win.
No you won't.Actually if there's decency within the Swire organisation they will accept the ruling gracefully, pay up and publicly apologise to the 49ers for the disgraceful performance of their management at Cathay Pacific Airways. Cathay's actions have brought embarrassment upon Hong Kong.
Controversial, moi?
Just casual doubletalk, or hypocritical?
On the other hand they are necessary for the reasons illustrated by the 49ers. For a current example where a union is claiming to represent its members but has been doing them a disservice for years and is leading them by the nose into an unwinnable fight have a look at BA cabin crew union BASSA and its current dispute. That is why I generally dislike unions and the people who lead them.
BALPA and other airline unions do have the distinct advantage of generally having intelligent people at the helm who do not blindly follow socialist doctrine with no acknowledgement of commercial reality.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck to the 49ers - they deserve compensation after such a long fight. As for airline unions being composed of "intelligent people at the helm, who do not blindly follow socialist doctrine" - that smacks of arrogance and naivety. Have the balls and resign - or else change to management like so many BALPA reps have done so, in the past
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.............expect CX to drag this out on appeal until the 49'ers are old and gray.
What evidence do you consider CX have for an appeal?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the 49'r that was referred to at AAI.
Funny old world is it not? CX and others put these guys through the hoops with with 3+ interviews and some still get through with every personality defect known to man.
Funny old world is it not? CX and others put these guys through the hoops with with 3+ interviews and some still get through with every personality defect known to man.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK FIR
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA and other airline unions do have the distinct advantage of generally having intelligent people at the helm who do not blindly follow socialist doctrine with no acknowledgement of commercial reality.
Unions have managed to create the working environment that we now take for granted such as the 40 hour week, safety protection for the workforce, injury compensation, abolishing child labour. In fact just about everything you take for granted in the world of work has been fought, and in some cases died, for by trade unionists, but you keep thinking that all unions are communists.
Then again, in the UK train drivers now have, in some cases better T&Cs than pilots, so obviously union representation is a bad thing.
Controversial, moi?
I do not wish to divert this thread and it is plain you have absolutely no understanding of what I wrote nor did I say or imply that unions do not have a purpose. Start another thread if you feel that trade unions are the saviour from all our ills.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to 18 wheelers argument I also flew with one of these guys and his ego and arrogance were beyond belief! For some one earning what he was I was knocked flat by his attitude! I do believe he may be one of the 18 as well! I also second te opinion that often union's are lead by people that have their own agenda's and more oftenthan not good union people end up in management. I have only ever come across a few real good eggs in positions of power within a pilots union. I think the current leaders of the BA cabin crew union are prime examples of why unions are a bad thing, not forgeting the ultimate union bafoon Auther Scargill! Worked wonders for the miners didn't he, I'm sure he didn't suffer financially for their cause as much as they did. Priced them out ofthe market! Don't get me wrong there is a place for unions but I much prefer to negotiate my own financial package based on what I'm prepared to do and how much I'm prepared to do it for!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: earth
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personality defects...
Regards the 'personality' (or perhaps lack of) amongst the 49er's...
I also came across a few of them, 5 (at least) were with my former employer at one time. In my own opinion, 3 of them were socially awkward and/or argumentative, and downright pricks. Right or wrong, I can see why they were in the companys sights. The other 2 were (are) outstanding aviators whom I'd be happy to fly with anytime - I have no idea why the might have been targeted, but the whole sorry affair wasn't logical was it?
Of the 5, as far as I'm aware, 1 of the pricks has returned to CX, along with the both of the outstanding ones.
Anyway, regardless of individual's defects - and as another pointed out, it's astonishing they passed the CX barage of interviews in the first place (news flash: maybe it's exactly what they were looking for at the time - arrogant pricks!), what counts is that they were fired without proper procedure. I'm happy to see they got some of the justice they deserve after so many years. It's a pity the 'good guys' who settled, and returned to CX, won't see the same justice ($$$) themselves.
I also came across a few of them, 5 (at least) were with my former employer at one time. In my own opinion, 3 of them were socially awkward and/or argumentative, and downright pricks. Right or wrong, I can see why they were in the companys sights. The other 2 were (are) outstanding aviators whom I'd be happy to fly with anytime - I have no idea why the might have been targeted, but the whole sorry affair wasn't logical was it?
Of the 5, as far as I'm aware, 1 of the pricks has returned to CX, along with the both of the outstanding ones.
Anyway, regardless of individual's defects - and as another pointed out, it's astonishing they passed the CX barage of interviews in the first place (news flash: maybe it's exactly what they were looking for at the time - arrogant pricks!), what counts is that they were fired without proper procedure. I'm happy to see they got some of the justice they deserve after so many years. It's a pity the 'good guys' who settled, and returned to CX, won't see the same justice ($$$) themselves.
Last edited by blue_side_up; 16th Nov 2009 at 00:42. Reason: grammar bad and shpelling