AAPMBF Inconsistent Application of Rules
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAPMBF Inconsistent Application of Rules
At the recent Annual General Meeting of the AAPMBF I sought to have a ruling on the eligibility of Mr Charlesworth, to stand for election as a Trustee of the AAPMBF. At issue is the fact that at the time he certified that he was eligible to stand, Mr Charlesworth was not a member of the Fund and that at that same time he was not a Trustee. When questioned Mr Charlesworth confirmed that he was not a Trustee at that time but asserted that he was qualified under the provisions of Rule 14 (b) (ii) (f).
Mr Charlesworth’s membership lapsed some unspecified time ago.
Rule 14 (b) (ii) (f) specifically relates to Trustees. Other rules establish a precedent by specifically identifying “members” and “former members”. By logical extension a rule intended to apply to a “Former Trustee” as distinct from a “Trustee”, should stipulate the separate category. To suggest that “Trustee” should be read as “Former Trustee” is unworkable. If that was to be the application, it could be construed that, a former trustee could carry out any of the designated duties of a trustee, which is patently absurd.
In short if a rule seeks to apply to a former Trustee it should so state. In this case the rule does not cover “Former Trustees”. A break in service as Trustee nullifies the application of the second part of the clause viz. “and is further eligible to nominate for a sole additional term of three years”. The rule does not contemplate that a “former trustee” can come back after any time period to resume a Trusteeship. Legal opinion received concurs with this concept.
The chairman stated that the rule as it was presented had been vetted by lawyers and deemed to be correct and proper.
I pointed out that those same lawyers vetted and approved a rule that applied conditions purportedly contained in a non-existent rule, rendering the rule incompetent (Rule 14 (b)(i) and 14 (b)(e). The chairman Mr O’Neil appeared not to understand the concept nor it’s significance.
After apparently taking advice from Mr Charlesworth the chair ruled I was out of order and the meeting continued.
Routinely Trustees reject the claims of pilots who have lost their livelihood by the application of the restriction “as or with Co-pilot” to their Class one medical. This affects any members employed in single pilot operations.
Practically, any pilot with that restriction is unlikely to be able to secure a multi crew position after that restriction is placed. Imposition of such discrimination would be unlawful, however it would be difficult to sustain such a charge. In practice the imposition of “as or with co-pilot” is the death knell to a pilots career., to those employed in single pilot operations.
Despite the stated aims and objects of the Fund “to provide benefits for members of the AFAP who fail to maintain the medical standards necessary to exercise the privileges of their pilot’s license” (introduction to rules page 3) the Trustees insist that as the rules refer to the cancellation or suspension of the Class 1 medical, they are unable to make any payment on the basis that the appending of the restriction “as or with co-pilot” does not constitute a cancellation or a suspension. Ignoring the obvious, the Trustees contend that, cancellation or suspension of a pilots ability to earn a living for medical reasons, but not accompanied by a cancellation of the Class I medical certificate, does not constitute a medical failure. The Trustees contend that the INTENT of the rule, does not override the words as they are actually written.
Contrast this position with that which they have applied in the circumstances of Mr Charlesworth’s election. On the one hand they have taken into account the “ASSUMED INTENT” of a rule to find in favour of one non-member of the Fund, providing him with a hobby for his retirement. On the other hand they have ignored the “STATED INTENT” of the rules to find against several members, putting them in financial jeopardy and depriving them of the ability to even afford a hobby, in their forced retirement from flying.
Members I am deeply concerned at the direction of the Fund. Matters are being dealt with in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner, to the detriment of our membership. In my opinion it would not be difficult to argue that such variance in the application of principle, is a capricious act. I would expect a commercial organisation could adopt such reprehensible behaviour, I would not expect it of a MUTUAL BENEFIT organisation.
If you share my concern at the inequity of treatment, I implore you, state your concern to the AAPMBF. Do not sit back and think that other people will have enough input to cover the situation, I have been fighting this for about three years, I need your assistance. They need to know your concerns. Email to [email protected] and to facilitate monitoring of the response please send a copy to myself [email protected]
Mr Charlesworth’s membership lapsed some unspecified time ago.
Rule 14 (b) (ii) (f) specifically relates to Trustees. Other rules establish a precedent by specifically identifying “members” and “former members”. By logical extension a rule intended to apply to a “Former Trustee” as distinct from a “Trustee”, should stipulate the separate category. To suggest that “Trustee” should be read as “Former Trustee” is unworkable. If that was to be the application, it could be construed that, a former trustee could carry out any of the designated duties of a trustee, which is patently absurd.
In short if a rule seeks to apply to a former Trustee it should so state. In this case the rule does not cover “Former Trustees”. A break in service as Trustee nullifies the application of the second part of the clause viz. “and is further eligible to nominate for a sole additional term of three years”. The rule does not contemplate that a “former trustee” can come back after any time period to resume a Trusteeship. Legal opinion received concurs with this concept.
The chairman stated that the rule as it was presented had been vetted by lawyers and deemed to be correct and proper.
I pointed out that those same lawyers vetted and approved a rule that applied conditions purportedly contained in a non-existent rule, rendering the rule incompetent (Rule 14 (b)(i) and 14 (b)(e). The chairman Mr O’Neil appeared not to understand the concept nor it’s significance.
After apparently taking advice from Mr Charlesworth the chair ruled I was out of order and the meeting continued.
Routinely Trustees reject the claims of pilots who have lost their livelihood by the application of the restriction “as or with Co-pilot” to their Class one medical. This affects any members employed in single pilot operations.
Practically, any pilot with that restriction is unlikely to be able to secure a multi crew position after that restriction is placed. Imposition of such discrimination would be unlawful, however it would be difficult to sustain such a charge. In practice the imposition of “as or with co-pilot” is the death knell to a pilots career., to those employed in single pilot operations.
Despite the stated aims and objects of the Fund “to provide benefits for members of the AFAP who fail to maintain the medical standards necessary to exercise the privileges of their pilot’s license” (introduction to rules page 3) the Trustees insist that as the rules refer to the cancellation or suspension of the Class 1 medical, they are unable to make any payment on the basis that the appending of the restriction “as or with co-pilot” does not constitute a cancellation or a suspension. Ignoring the obvious, the Trustees contend that, cancellation or suspension of a pilots ability to earn a living for medical reasons, but not accompanied by a cancellation of the Class I medical certificate, does not constitute a medical failure. The Trustees contend that the INTENT of the rule, does not override the words as they are actually written.
Contrast this position with that which they have applied in the circumstances of Mr Charlesworth’s election. On the one hand they have taken into account the “ASSUMED INTENT” of a rule to find in favour of one non-member of the Fund, providing him with a hobby for his retirement. On the other hand they have ignored the “STATED INTENT” of the rules to find against several members, putting them in financial jeopardy and depriving them of the ability to even afford a hobby, in their forced retirement from flying.
Members I am deeply concerned at the direction of the Fund. Matters are being dealt with in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner, to the detriment of our membership. In my opinion it would not be difficult to argue that such variance in the application of principle, is a capricious act. I would expect a commercial organisation could adopt such reprehensible behaviour, I would not expect it of a MUTUAL BENEFIT organisation.
If you share my concern at the inequity of treatment, I implore you, state your concern to the AAPMBF. Do not sit back and think that other people will have enough input to cover the situation, I have been fighting this for about three years, I need your assistance. They need to know your concerns. Email to [email protected] and to facilitate monitoring of the response please send a copy to myself [email protected]
When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I am not a Jew. When they came for the Socialists, I did nothing, for I am not a Socialist. When they came for the labor leaders, the homosexuals, the gypsies, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me.” -- Martin Niemoller
Last edited by paul makin; 6th Dec 2009 at 05:10.
Paul,
Whatever credibility you may have had has been destroyed by this disgusting comment:
Whatever credibility you may have had has been destroyed by this disgusting comment:
providing him with a hobby for his retirement.
Capn Bloggs...........
Pot calling kettle black here I think! 
At least Paul's got the courage to post here on PPRuNe in his own name on a subject that's clearly important to HIM! Your 'anonymous' adverse response to Paul seems to indicate that you definitely don't seem to have the same courage that he does!
On the face of it, Paul's comments (as follow) seem balanced to me as a non-member AAPMBF, so why are they 'disgusting'? Someone who's a non-member who's apparently occupying a postion which requires that person to BE a member doesn't seem to be a 'squeaky-clean' arrangement! Ever heard of the 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' Bloggs?
Apparently not!
Look again at what Paul wrote:
Oh dear! Same old sh1t, different day I'm afraid! 
Bloggs............I had similar difficulties with the MBF in the late 80's. The attitude I encountered from the trustees was an intransigent, stick-it-up-your-@rse attitude which displayed no compassion/morality/sense of responsibility/or acceptance of liability whatsoever from the b@stards. What's more, I encountered what was almost an attitude of 'affront' that a member of the fund could actually 'dare' to make a claim on the fund for what was CLEARLY a medical disability!
So Paul's comments seem clearly to me (after what I went through all those years back at the 'behest' of those controlling the 'mutual benefit fund') to be VERY valid indeed, and indicate that there still persists a total lack of understanding by the trustees that they owe a duty of loyalty to the beneficiaries (members) to administer the trust solely in the members' (NOT theirs) best interests, and in doing so, they MUST put aside their own self-interests and act in the interest of the members.
I ended up getting a payout Bloggs, but only after exhausting all avenues (and exhausting myself too I might add Bloggs), and in doing so was eventually forced by the trustees bloody-minded idiocy, arrogance and intransigence to issue legal proceedings against them to MAKE them to meet their responsibilities/duties to me as a member.
I won Bloggs! But Christ it took it's toll on me!
Meet the challenge Bloggs..........post under your actual name in response to Paul here on PPRuNe............or BUTT-OUT!
Keep up the fight Paul!
Whatever credibility you may have had...........
At least Paul's got the courage to post here on PPRuNe in his own name on a subject that's clearly important to HIM! Your 'anonymous' adverse response to Paul seems to indicate that you definitely don't seem to have the same courage that he does!
On the face of it, Paul's comments (as follow) seem balanced to me as a non-member AAPMBF, so why are they 'disgusting'? Someone who's a non-member who's apparently occupying a postion which requires that person to BE a member doesn't seem to be a 'squeaky-clean' arrangement! Ever heard of the 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' Bloggs?
Apparently not!
Look again at what Paul wrote:
On the one hand they have taken into account the “ASSUMED INTENT” of a rule to find in favour of one non-member of the Fund, providing him with a hobby for his retirement. On the other hand they have ignored the “STATED INTENT” of the rules to find against several members, putting them in financial jeopardy and depriving them of the ability to even afford a hobby, in their forced retirement from flying.
Bloggs............I had similar difficulties with the MBF in the late 80's. The attitude I encountered from the trustees was an intransigent, stick-it-up-your-@rse attitude which displayed no compassion/morality/sense of responsibility/or acceptance of liability whatsoever from the b@stards. What's more, I encountered what was almost an attitude of 'affront' that a member of the fund could actually 'dare' to make a claim on the fund for what was CLEARLY a medical disability!
So Paul's comments seem clearly to me (after what I went through all those years back at the 'behest' of those controlling the 'mutual benefit fund') to be VERY valid indeed, and indicate that there still persists a total lack of understanding by the trustees that they owe a duty of loyalty to the beneficiaries (members) to administer the trust solely in the members' (NOT theirs
) best interests, and in doing so, they MUST put aside their own self-interests and act in the interest of the members.I ended up getting a payout Bloggs, but only after exhausting all avenues (and exhausting myself too I might add Bloggs), and in doing so was eventually forced by the trustees bloody-minded idiocy, arrogance and intransigence to issue legal proceedings against them to MAKE them to meet their responsibilities/duties to me as a member.
I won Bloggs! But Christ it took it's toll on me!
Meet the challenge Bloggs..........post under your actual name in response to Paul here on PPRuNe............or BUTT-OUT!
Keep up the fight Paul!
Last edited by SIUYA; 6th Dec 2009 at 09:41.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience is that they have always interpreted the rules to suit themselves and in particular when there is a fine line between payment or non payment or if they can reduce the amount for some obscure reason, which they did to me when they adventually paid. At the time of my payout they had a bag full of money in the fund and it would not had any effect on their reserves, but they did not want to know - take it or leave it was the attitude. The trustees of the day were there for a free ride to meetings around the country which at best might be called a jolly. It was never kosher and it sounds as if it has not changed.
Keep up the fight Paul - they need to sit up and take notice.
Bloggs....
Sounds to me as if it is! The membership need active pilots as trustees not retired non-working pilots no matter what their history is. Maybe the chairman should go for a walk as well if he does not understand such things, or take the trouble to obtain another opinion!
Keep up the fight Paul - they need to sit up and take notice.
Bloggs....
Whatever credibility you may have had has been destroyed by this disgusting comment:
Quote: providing him with a hobby for his retirement.
Quote: providing him with a hobby for his retirement.
SIUYA,
What's your name?
Talk about calling the kettle black.
I was making no judgement on the arguments that Officer Makin was putting forward. I merely commented that his shot at MC was in my opinion disgusting. It was uncalled-for. Play the argument and not the man.
What's your name?
Talk about calling the kettle black.I was making no judgement on the arguments that Officer Makin was putting forward. I merely commented that his shot at MC was in my opinion disgusting. It was uncalled-for. Play the argument and not the man.
Capn Bloggs.............
Bit hypocritical, don't you think? Particularly considering your rapid-fire response to AFAP Pilot on PIREP on Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:13 pm:
Play the argument and not the man.
Better see a doc. You've got Conspiracy 101 real bad.
