 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways11/14/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In this case, the nine plaintiffs seek by their appeal to overturn the trial court's order dismissing their action as to six of the plaintiffs and staying it as to the other three on the ground of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs are all pilots and were previously employed in that capacity by one of the three defendants and respondents, Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CPA), USA Basing, Ltd. (USAB) and Veta, Ltd. (Veta) (collectively Cathay), all of whom are incorporated and based in Hong Kong. The plaintiffs' action is for wrongful termination and defamation. At the urging of CPA, the trial court concluded that Hong Kong was a suitable forum and that California was an inconvenient one. It therefore ordered that the action be dismissed as to six of the plaintiffs who were not residents of California, and stayed it as to the three who did reside in California at the time the complaint was filed.
Because we conclude that the record amply supports the trial court's conclusion and ruling, we will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Until early July 2001, each of the nine plaintiffs was employed as a commercial airline pilot by Cathay. They were all members of a labor organization known as the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers' Association (HKAOA), a registered trade union based in Hong Kong. In approximately 1994, Cathay began imposing new work rules, standards and practices relating to such diverse matters as pilot qualifications, flight scheduling, rostering, pay and benefits. HKAOA objected to many of these changes but, in June of 1999, a three year agreement was reached that temporarily settled any dispute. That agreement was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2002. On July 3, 2001, with one year still to run on such agreement, the pilots commenced a "limited industrial action" that took the form of a "work to rule" campaign. The pilots, including the plaintiffs, issued a safety policy called the Maximum Safety Strategy (MSS). It addressed crew rostering, workloads and potentially dangerous conditions associated with cockpit fatigue. According to the plaintiffs, the MSS was issued by the pilots in response to their perception that Cathay's policies were resulting in a continuing erosion of flight safety. It specified that pilots should strictly comply with the provisions of Cathay's own operations manual.
According to Cathay, however, this "work to rule" campaign effectively disrupted hundreds of its flights and caused a large number to be delayed or cancelled. In press reports, HKAOA was said to have estimated that this caused a loss of revenue to Cathay of $6 million to $10 million per day. In a declaration filed with the trial court in support of Cathay's position, it was conceded that " s a consequence of this [industrial action], [Cathay] undertook an assessment of all of aircrew. This assessment was made by individuals employed and residing in Hong Kong, and resulted in the identification by them of fifty-one (51) pilots for termination because they were not working in the interests of [Cathay]."
The stated reasons for the termination of these pilots, including the plaintiffs, were that they (1) had an attendance problem in that there were frequent absences from work "at short notice or in suspicious circumstances" that had resulted in unofficial warnings, (2) had a warning letter on file with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|