IAC Pacific
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Likes: 16
From: australasia
Old Driver
In respect to IAC Pacific.
Pardon me for being a bit wary of your post, but having been on the recieving end of a bullsmit defamation action by these turds, and given that this is your first post, I am a little suspicious.
If you do a search on this site you will find plenty of material to allow you to assess the credentials of these lowlifes. Enough material has risen from the bottom of the pond to priovide you with a rich harvest.
Personally, I would never be inclined to work for them. Once bitten twice shy, you could say.
Interestingly a large number of their former employees at Korean have changed contractors at renewal time. (Not without some significant obstruction, I might add)
caveat emptor
Maui
In respect to IAC Pacific.
Pardon me for being a bit wary of your post, but having been on the recieving end of a bullsmit defamation action by these turds, and given that this is your first post, I am a little suspicious.
If you do a search on this site you will find plenty of material to allow you to assess the credentials of these lowlifes. Enough material has risen from the bottom of the pond to priovide you with a rich harvest.
Personally, I would never be inclined to work for them. Once bitten twice shy, you could say.
Interestingly a large number of their former employees at Korean have changed contractors at renewal time. (Not without some significant obstruction, I might add)
caveat emptor
Maui
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: Suitcase....
Originally Posted by Old Driver
Does anybody have an experience with IAC? Any other info?
Going to deal with them, but there are different opinions..
Going to deal with them, but there are different opinions..
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Likes: 16
From: australasia
Old Driver
Upon reflection and with the benefit of a little rest, I feel I should perhaps have been a little more helpful.
IAC Pacific contracts cite Vanuatu Law (exclusive of French Law)as being the applicable statutes, for the administration thereof. Vanuatu Law is based on and recognises British Law.
One could reasonably assume then that IAC Pacific, if operating as an employment agency, would comply with the relevant sections of the Vanuatu Labour Act (CAP160). That section requires that an employment agency must be licensed and that any contracts for off shore employment must be approved by the Commissioner For Labour. Enquiries to the Comm of Lab. have elicited the response that IAC Pacific has no such license has never applied for one and has never submitted its contracts for approval.
IAC Pacific is registered in the Republic of Vanuatu, as an International Company in accordance with the International Companies Act. One of the provisions of that Act is that an “International Company”, may not conduct business in The Rep. of Vanuatu. Ergo, IAC claim that any of their dealings are in furtherance of their “offshore business”. IAC Pacific therefore contends that Vanuatu Labour Laws do not apply to their contracts. (Seems at variance with their contractually stated recognition of Vanuatu Law).
Some time ago, on an unrelated matter, a number of pilots previously contracted to Korean Air, sued for separation entitlements, thought to be owed under Korean Industrial statutes. Associates of IAC Pacific made submission to that hearing, to the effect that : “KAL were not the employers of the said pilots”. The Korean court agreed and denied the claim.
We need now to look at the relevant precedents in British case law, of which there are several. In essence they state, among other things, that if you don’t share the risk (financial, positive or negative), have no control over the times and allocation of work, don’t provide the equipment to do the work, and are under the control and direction of a master, then; you are an employee. The same precedents also state that it doesn’t matter a rats arse, how you or any other party characterise your labour in your signed contract, your status is a matter of law, (someone else touched on this matter recently, I think in the Brookfield thread). By whom you are employed is less clear, is it the agency or the company of assignment. IAC Pacific have clearly stated through their associates that it is not the latter.
IAC Pacific contracts of the past, clearly stated that “for the duration of the contract the pilot remains the employee of IAC Pacific”. They obviously got a bit windy of that and subsequently changed their wording to characterise the employee as an “independent contractor”. Empty words that would not stand the test of British case law.
So we are faced with a company that claims that the industrial laws of the country of it’s incorporation, do not apply. And further claim that the industrial laws of the country of service do not apply.
The obvious question has been put to IAC Pacific on several occasions. What industrial statutes apply to pilots employed under IAC Pacific contracts. Their consistent response is: “ “
No I didn’t leave anything out. They simply will not respond to the enquiry. They wouldn’t respond when I was employed by them, and they certainly do not respond to it now that I am no longer so. Why not you might ask? Why not indeed!
For reasons best known to the various authorities it is difficult to get much in the way of official attention. I have taken the matter up with the Vanuatu authorities, but they are more interested in fostering shady dealers rather than prosecuting them. I have brought it to the attention of the Attorney General /Minister for Labour of New South Wales, (the place of incorporation of some IAC Pacific associates) only to be told that while I raise interesting points of law, it is really none of their concern what Vanuatu companies do.
In view of the location of various of IAC Pacific’s associates, I have taken preliminary steps to have the matter heard by the Australian labour authorities, and this will be proceeded at an appropriate time. An international tribunal is another alternative that has a lot of attraction, as these parasites must, and will, be reined in.
These spineless morons, hide behind a plethora of international laws, to obfuscate, and to circumvent, at the very least, industrial laws. To whose benefit and to whose detriment?
Caveat emptor
Upon reflection and with the benefit of a little rest, I feel I should perhaps have been a little more helpful.
IAC Pacific contracts cite Vanuatu Law (exclusive of French Law)as being the applicable statutes, for the administration thereof. Vanuatu Law is based on and recognises British Law.
One could reasonably assume then that IAC Pacific, if operating as an employment agency, would comply with the relevant sections of the Vanuatu Labour Act (CAP160). That section requires that an employment agency must be licensed and that any contracts for off shore employment must be approved by the Commissioner For Labour. Enquiries to the Comm of Lab. have elicited the response that IAC Pacific has no such license has never applied for one and has never submitted its contracts for approval.
IAC Pacific is registered in the Republic of Vanuatu, as an International Company in accordance with the International Companies Act. One of the provisions of that Act is that an “International Company”, may not conduct business in The Rep. of Vanuatu. Ergo, IAC claim that any of their dealings are in furtherance of their “offshore business”. IAC Pacific therefore contends that Vanuatu Labour Laws do not apply to their contracts. (Seems at variance with their contractually stated recognition of Vanuatu Law).
Some time ago, on an unrelated matter, a number of pilots previously contracted to Korean Air, sued for separation entitlements, thought to be owed under Korean Industrial statutes. Associates of IAC Pacific made submission to that hearing, to the effect that : “KAL were not the employers of the said pilots”. The Korean court agreed and denied the claim.
We need now to look at the relevant precedents in British case law, of which there are several. In essence they state, among other things, that if you don’t share the risk (financial, positive or negative), have no control over the times and allocation of work, don’t provide the equipment to do the work, and are under the control and direction of a master, then; you are an employee. The same precedents also state that it doesn’t matter a rats arse, how you or any other party characterise your labour in your signed contract, your status is a matter of law, (someone else touched on this matter recently, I think in the Brookfield thread). By whom you are employed is less clear, is it the agency or the company of assignment. IAC Pacific have clearly stated through their associates that it is not the latter.
IAC Pacific contracts of the past, clearly stated that “for the duration of the contract the pilot remains the employee of IAC Pacific”. They obviously got a bit windy of that and subsequently changed their wording to characterise the employee as an “independent contractor”. Empty words that would not stand the test of British case law.
So we are faced with a company that claims that the industrial laws of the country of it’s incorporation, do not apply. And further claim that the industrial laws of the country of service do not apply.
The obvious question has been put to IAC Pacific on several occasions. What industrial statutes apply to pilots employed under IAC Pacific contracts. Their consistent response is: “ “
No I didn’t leave anything out. They simply will not respond to the enquiry. They wouldn’t respond when I was employed by them, and they certainly do not respond to it now that I am no longer so. Why not you might ask? Why not indeed!
For reasons best known to the various authorities it is difficult to get much in the way of official attention. I have taken the matter up with the Vanuatu authorities, but they are more interested in fostering shady dealers rather than prosecuting them. I have brought it to the attention of the Attorney General /Minister for Labour of New South Wales, (the place of incorporation of some IAC Pacific associates) only to be told that while I raise interesting points of law, it is really none of their concern what Vanuatu companies do.
In view of the location of various of IAC Pacific’s associates, I have taken preliminary steps to have the matter heard by the Australian labour authorities, and this will be proceeded at an appropriate time. An international tribunal is another alternative that has a lot of attraction, as these parasites must, and will, be reined in.
These spineless morons, hide behind a plethora of international laws, to obfuscate, and to circumvent, at the very least, industrial laws. To whose benefit and to whose detriment?
Caveat emptor
Last edited by maui; 28th March 2006 at 01:33.
maui
