Seven easyJet pilots sue the Company
 

Take a look at this one!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/b...les/timid68628

Ah, the old "join us now and you'll be entitled to shares" scam!! Unless the plaintiff's have the verbal statements on tape, which is highly unlikely, it will all come down to who's word does the judge believe, the 7 pilots or the Chief Pilot who made the unfortunate remarks.

In the Chief Pilot's defence, employee share allocation schemes often have "must have been with the company since [date]" or "must have [number] full years service" to be entitled conditions. Unless he had been involved with a company floatation before he may not have been aware of these curveballs.

Personally, I am holding a shares certificates for my employer which are worth the square root of naff all at the moment as we haven't floated yet. With the current state of the industry 'd be surprised if the floatation ever hapens.

Pay me in real dollars not worthless share certificates!!!

Whooaahh!!!

It would seem that the pilots in question were told at interview that they would be able to join the share option scheme. Given that the interviews were probably several months prior to flotation, the detail of the scheme was probably not known. The company was floated in November, at least one of the pilots joined in September. The details of the scheme were that anybody with 6 months or more service would benefit. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that joining in September, you would not be eligible.
There have been 2 further issues of options since the initial flotation issue. I'm sure that all seven of the pilots concerned have been given options in those, so in reality, have joined the scheme. O.K, the initial issue was worth (on paper at least) quite a lot, and the latter 2 probably worth quite a bit less. So perhaps somebody is being a little bit greedy? Let the judge decide.

My mate in easy tells me that the chairman of the BALPA PC is one of those sueing. Is this true, if so, it must surely be a co-incidence?!
I dont believe all those awful accusations of hidden agendas, even if I was a member!

Noax,

Your mate in easyJet is sadly out of date. The FORMER Chairman of the CC is one of those suing, but the gentleman concerned is no longer on the Company Council in any respect, he resigned several weeks ago.

Regards,

The Colonel.

Hey Colonel.

that was a really good bit of mis-information and you only let it run for 5 mins !!!!!!!!

You are just no fun!

Hmm, seems similar to a few going overseas to work, told at interview that xxxx terms were offered, only to find later that the written contract stated otherwise.

Generally, if it ain't in writing, properly signed by an officer of the company, suspect they are out of luck.

If the company turned vindictive, the next PC could be interesting.:ooh:

My god, he's an expert in English law AS WELL!

Gin, I think you'll find he's an expert in management style as well.....

I've had several postings with my company, all of them enjoyable. But each posting was preceded by verbal assurances from various line managers that were never backed up when it came to the written contract.

Unless these guys have it in writing, or on tape, I fear they're going to lose.

The healthy dollops of cynicism here displayed clearly indicates the presence of people who have been in the business a long time.
I agree, since I too have such cynicism. I`m sorry for the guys who have missed out, but as the old adage goes " if you cant take a joke ...etc!".
If it aint in your pocket, you aint got it!!
Cheers

Verbal or written - this debate could rage for years.

However, a point of law, used every day in courts around the world:

Was it witnessed by anyone - other than the accused or the accuser - who will testify to it?

If that's good enough in a murder trial.....................................

Noax, I have to take issue with your comments. In this day and age, if you are promised soemthing especially at the interview phase, it is no longer good enough to fob off situations by comments like"If it ain't in your pocket.................!! As though it's just bad luck, so who cares!!!!
These gentlemen were promised those shares at a time when easyJet was finding it difficult to get pilots and they all left jobs to join, based on those very promises.
The forthcoming court case will vindicate what I have said.

Now, if YOU were promised shares...........!

Sorry Colonel but if somebodies main reason for joining a company was the promise of entry into a share scheme then one would have to question their reasons for joining. What if they had gained entry to the scheme and then found the share price fell through the floor? Would they also sue for that also?

Big Tudor, These seven pilots are all well qualified and a few are TRE's. I never said, or even implied that their main reason was joining easyJet for the shares,we all know they can go down in value as well as up. But, if they were promised the shares as part of their overall package which was the case, then they should get them.
A year or two later, some pilots already qualified on type were promised a golden hello of about £30k (you may recall the adverts from Flight Int'l), can you imagine the uproar if those pilots joined only to find that this was renegged upon by the management! They would probably take easyJet to court, as this lot ARE doing!!!

Get my point?

Which part of that statement doesn't sound like the shares were a major part of their decisions then Colonel.

Get MY point???

Big Tudor

The subtle difference between 'A' major and 'THE' major.

I dont really understand why chief pilots/fleet managers feel the need to bull**** in interviews about likely perks, command prospects, basings etc. Most pilots are happy just to get the job they are being interviewed for, and these spur of the moment promises wont alter that.

But I suppose the TRSS guys at easyJet need every silver lining they can find on their contracts. But Id take the job if it was offered to me.

In UK law for Civil Cases, as this is, the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

Appart from contracts for real property (Land and Buildings and Section 1 Consumer Credit Act Agreements) nothing has to be written.

The problem with contract law is whether what was said is deemd to be wither a "Term" of the contract or an Inducment to Contract. If it ain't a term the employees do not have a pot to pi:mad: s in!

As there is no jury, if the judge there is a strong possibility that the Judge may fall on the side of well respected profs. Such as Airline Pilots. Then again he may not.

I have not checked for case law on this so it may have been decided in a previous case. (Most Likley)

I find it interesting that pilots are willing to go to court on this one. In my experience lots of 'promises' are made at interview which usually turn out to be only possibilities and not actual promises. A lot depends on how 'promises' were phrased at the interview.

I notice that many companies tread a fine line in their advertising with a lot of spin involved (where have I heard that word before?). Easy's adverts in Flight are clearly examples of such spin. I would not be surprised if they used such techniques at the interview as well.

English Law does place a fair amount of credence on verbal assurances. My father used to run a company and was eventually sued (and lost the case) by one of the executives who was promised occasional assurances of 'I'll have you join me on the Board one day'. Pa Notso had to pay the gentleman compensation although there was never anything in writing and it boiled down to one man's word against another. If I was a betting man, I'd put money on them winning- I think they have a good case as they are solid, reliable witnesses. They were promised it and this is under English law- good luck to them!