Westjet cover up: Alleged sexual assaults by pilot

[photofly]

This from PPRuNe

Good Evening All:
To be very clear sexual harassment does not belong in the work place FULL STOP!
This presents a very interesting problem for their management if the there was a record of alleged harassment dating back to 2008. Does this mean it was overlooked, covered up or what were they thinking?
Needless to say someone is being invited to the CEO of WestJet for "milk and cookies".

Pure BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, aided by a hysterical journalist.

In 2008, as in this case, Westjet will have carried out the investigation that they are required to, in law, as laid down in their written policy which they are required to have, by law. Company policy will dictate whether the investigation is carried out in house by a senior manager or executive (typically legal counsel) or an outside law firm engaged by Westjet.

The test to be met for disciplinary action to be appropriate and allowed, is "on the balance of probabilities". If, on the balance of probabilities, the investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated then the matter ends (ended) there. This is a matter of law, not of "cover up" or "what were they thinking".

If it comes down to purely he-said vs she-said then the airline has done all it is required to do. To sanction the pilot in any way absent a "balance of probabilities" finding against him from the investigation would be unlawful.

In neither case is it required in law to reveal the results of the investigation to the complainant, nor to tell her what if any disciplinary action was taken against the pilot. Although the written company policy may say that the results and details of any disciplinary action will be revealed to the complainant in which case the company policy would have been followed.

[altiplano]

Circle the wagons.

It's okay to support your company, but making excuses when something like this has been so severely mishandled is a mistake and reflects poorly on the profession as a whole.

Info now on the net is saying dozens of cases have occurred primarily involving pilots.

[springlocked]

I realize that WJ isn't an Ontario employer, but here's what the OHRC says that employers' duties are

Federally regulated provincial laws mean squat. Having said that I'm sure the protocol is there but likely a lot "looser" than any provincial laws. Look at the bull crap at the RCMP

[crazyaviator]

In neither case is it required in law to reveal the results of the investigation to the complainant, nor to tell her what if any disciplinary action was taken against the pilot

Sounds like something one would find in a Syrian kangaroo court

[photofly]

It's not a court, and it's not supposed to be. It's a company investigation to meet Westjet's obligations - to its employees (all of them, including the pilot accused) under the Human Rights Act. If you want a criminal investigation and a court trial, go to the police.

[crazyaviator]

I didn't say it was a court! I basically said the actions are like a 1-sided court like Guantanamo Bay where "detainees" are held indefinitely without due process and disclosure and fairness is a pipe dream

[Big Bird Anonymous]

Pure BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, aided by a hysterical journalist.

...and more BS from the inner sanctum...Westjet: The "scientology" airline.

[Strobes]

Whatever happened with "Innocent until proven guilty"????

Y'all are talking as if Pilot M has been convicted in a court of law!!! Has he? Howcome the pilot can't go to Hawaii, which is a US state, but no mention of him being kept away from all US flights altogether... One would think that he is wanted for questioning, there would a country-wide warrant. Plus extradition proceedings the US yada yada yada. If we really think that Sweden can have Julian Assange extradited from the UK because he is wanted for questioning, you can bet your ass that the US can do the same with this guy.

We live in a rape culture. Except, if you really examine it, it's a "guilty until proven innocent of rape" culture. This dude is being hung up to dry and (most likely) hasn't been tried by a jury of his peers - just a trial by media. Damn right the company told her not to say anything in respect for his privacy, this guy would be ruined even if exonerated. And right now there is a long list of high-profile people who have had allegations of sexual misconduct against them dismissed in a court of law recently. So yeah, I reserve the right to change my opinion after a court case, but until then, these accusations are just that, accusations.

Is there a restraining order placed by any party? What exactly was said on that phone call that was disconnected? Why is this a supreme court case? Was it dismissed by lower courts? What is not being said in the G&M article - lots of chronological dead spaces in the timeline being portrayed. What was the other alleged victim's situation and why has she not come forward, and why is her not story being told in cohort with the F/A coming forward?

Too many questions, not enough to make judgement.

Keep it in yer pants. It's the best protection.

[Troubleshot]

I think most are more disappointed with WJ's handling of the case. "Pilot M" indeed deserves his day in court, however so does the alleged victim and WestJet tried its hardest to not let that happen based on the information so far.

I agree, sometimes we resort to the guilty until proven innocent but when organizations set up road blocks to try and "make it go away" it is easy for the public to side with Ms. Lewis.

If "Pilot M" did force himself onto Ms. Lewis he needs to answer for that crime. Conversely, if Ms. Lewis is making this up for some sort of financial gain she needs to answer for that crime as well.

I predict a settlement out of court...but we'll see

[photofly]

I think most are more disappointed with WJ's handling of the case. "Pilot M" indeed deserves his day in court, however so does the alleged victim and WestJet tried its hardest to not let that happen based on the information so far.

I agree, sometimes we resort to the guilty until proven innocent but when organizations set up road blocks to try and "make it go away"

Based on what "information so far", exactly? The statement of claim? It says nothing of the sort. You have absolutely no basis to say that WJ has acted other than entirely properly so far. In what fantasy world are you living where they set up road blocks? What do you know about how WJ handled this? Nothing!

[Rockie]

The issue here is not if the accused is guilty or not, only a proper investigation and if necessary a trial can determine that. The issue is that there was no apparent investigation.

In the recent past you may remember Air Canada went through a much less serious issue of sexual harassment due to racy pictures hidden in the flight deck. A complaint was filed by a female pilot and I'm not kidding when I say the company went on the war path to correct the situation. Anybody who laughed it off as a trivial thing back then knows precisely where the company stands on the issue today.

Attempting to paper over an accusation as serious as this has blown up in Westjet's face in a big way. Bad press is the least of their worries at this point, their real problem is losing the trust of every one of their employees and that includes the pilots. This guy - guilty or innocent - will be thought of as guilty by everyone he works with regardless. Westjet employees, the alleged victim(s), and especially the accused deserve a proper investigation to determine the truth.

[43S/172E]

Rockie you really hit the nail on the head with your post and thank you for your thoughts on that.

I think some writers are upset that their work persona is being effected by how management has mishandled this and perception being reality they are all tarred by the same brush.

I have copied another interesting take taken from PPRuNe which in turn was taken from the Airline Employee Forum written by a writer known as Dagger. I found he writes in a forthright manner and must have significant knowledge as it pertains to the airline environment.

“In today's employment law, and considering the FA was not unionized in Canada Labour Code sense (which would be the case at AC, AT, etc.), there is nevertheless be an onus on an employer to 1. thoroughly investigate the incident, as impartially as possible, and 2) provide professional assistance to the parties to deal with the impact of the action. A company today must have a robust policy of sexual and other harassment.

Actually, this is one rare occasion where WS would have been far better off it the flight attendants were unionized. I have a generally poor regard for CUPE but it would have conducted a vigorous review of her complaint before even filing a grievance with the company, and this would have been settled for better or worse in-house. In the absence of a union and proper grievance procedures, this has been allowed to fester, the company may have mishandled aspects of it, and the FA is well within her Code and employment law rights to sue. Whether she is a feminist or not, a pain in the ass or not, these issues have little relevance to the lawsuit. In fact, I'd say Pilot M is almost an afterthought in this case, based on what is out there in the public domain - in fact, he might be re-tired by now, or close enough to be packaged off, made to disappear so to speak. From here on in, it's the company and its handling of the case that are the central part of the story.

There are many questions that will have to be dealt with in this legal case:

1. Did the incident as described by plaintiff happen as described, or in some lesser or greater form that would constitute sexual assault?

2. Did she file her complaint (not the lawsuit, her internal complaint) in a timely manner?

3. How did the company handle the flight attendants' complaint? If it was anything less than fair and scrupulous to the flight attendant concerned, this will look bad on WestJet even if the actual complaint is exaggerated or groundless?

4. If it wasn't sexual assault, did the incident rise to the level of sexual harassment?

5. Did this pilot have a "prior" on his company record, i.e. was the first alleged assault known to the company?

6. If the pilot did behave improperly, on one or more than one occasions, what discipline or corrective action was undertaken by the company?

7. Seeing it had a problem with one pilot, did the company take remedial action of any kind to help insure that there wouldn't be more such incidents, i.e. did it tighten its policy, assure staff of confidentiality to encourage them to come forward, etc.

8. Did the company protect the pilot more than the FA in pursuing its investigation? i.e. did he have friends in high places. The Old Boys network?

9. Was she fired with reasonable cause?

I can think of many more questions, but don't want to bore you all. An incident like this, unless proven to be entirely an exaggeration - i.e. a gentleman who sought sex but when rebuffed, was entirely gentlemanly - is going to hurt WS more than a certain spying case against a rival airline many years ago. It will hurt in hiring staff, it will hurt in the marketplace, it will make relations between the two employee groups a little more intense - are there still these morale-building mixers on the road? It tars all WS pilots, which is unfair and unfortunate. Every employee group at every company has a couple of people who cannot control their impulses. What the company does when they fail to control their impulses now becomes the public's business.”

[Lateralus]

Pure BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, aided by a hysterical journalist.

...and more BS from the inner sanctum...Westjet: The "scientology" airline.

Wow threads like these bring out the morons around here.

[altiplano]

Based on what "information so far", exactly? The statement of claim? It says nothing of the sort. You have absolutely no basis to say that WJ has acted other than entirely properly so far. In what fantasy world are you living where they set up road blocks? What do you know about how WJ handled this? Nothing!

Acted proper? Doesn't look good going by what was written in the filing.

1 - Westjet waited 3 weeks after the assault being reported to meet on the issue

2 - a month later it took prompting by the plaintiff to have action taken by Westjet

3 - Westjet tried to silence her on the issue

4 - Westjet contravened their own policy by not providing her employment file within 30 days

5 - Westjet already had information of similar past conduct by this guy and instead marginalised the employment of this woman

6 - Westjet dismissed her for pretty shoddy cause for pushing to get her employment file

Who is in the fantasy world? You can keep drinking your Koolaid and denying photofly... But I think to most this handling doesn't look good.

[Blueontop]

"Westjet cares"

[Boreas]

Why hasn't the RCMP done
anything about this?

The article mentions that Ms. Lewis
filed a complaint with them. Is it
just jurisdiction issue?

And as was mentioned above, what
about the other states that the
accused flies to?

Something doesn't seem right
about the lack of police involvement
in this issue.

[CID]

No means no ... unless it's only a bit of fondling CID?

Atta boy ahramin! Bring non-nonsensical hysteria into it and sprinkle a few choice risque terms like "fondling". So I'll be sure not to look at you lest I be charged with some sort of molestation charge. And of course I will faithfully believe every story from a person (man or woman) that accuses another of "fondling" regardless of proof.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/eoa ... -1.3243015

[CID]

Why hasn't the RCMP done
anything about this?

The article mentions that Ms. Lewis
filed a complaint with them. Is it
just jurisdiction issue?

And as was mentioned above, what
about the other states that the
accused flies to?

Something doesn't seem right
about the lack of police involvement
in this issue.

It didn't happen in Canada. I believe the RCMP's jurisdiction for cases like this are limited to the borders of Canada. Not a hard concept to understand.

[Boreas]

Why hasn't the RCMP done
anything about this?

The article mentions that Ms. Lewis
filed a complaint with them. Is it
just jurisdiction issue?

And as was mentioned above, what
about the other states that the
accused flies to?

Something doesn't seem right
about the lack of police involvement
in this issue.

It didn't happen in Canada. I believe the RCMP's jurisdiction for cases like this are limited to the borders of Canada. Not a hard concept to understand.

Even though they're both Canadian and
working for a Canadian airline? Alright,
fair enough.

So what about the other states? He
absolutely has to go back to Hawaii?
Has a warrant been issued for his
arrest there? Why not?

And yes, what I'm implying here is that
there seems to be a lack of substance
in this accusation.

[photofly]

1 - Westjet waited 3 weeks after the assault being reported to meet on the issue

2 - a month later it took prompting by the plaintiff to have action taken by Westjet

This is not a police investigation. What does their policy say the timescale for an investigation is? Do you have any evidence they didn't meet any deadlines? Without going into detail I can tell you that a lot of organisations wait for six months or a year before getting their act together. Three weeks is actually pretty impressive.

3 - Westjet tried to silence her on the issue

Without knowing what they actually told her it's not possible to say if this is proper or improper. As the Ghomeshi trial shows, it always negatively affects an investigation when the people involved speak outside the terms of the investigation. If she had legal counsel they would have advised the same thing.

4 - Westjet contravened their own policy by not providing her employment file within 30 days

If they did contravene their own policy then that's a black mark against them. How do you know what their policy is and whether they followed it? They are under no obligation to reveal to her the outcome of the investigation.

5 - Westjet already had information of similar past conduct by this guy and instead marginalised the employment of this woman

Westjet's has the option to hold a wider investigation into the pilot's conduct, based on previous reports. We have no idea whether they did that or didn't do that. If they held an appropriate investigation and decided, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegations couldn't be substantiated then they could take no action against the pilot. They could have allowed the flight attendant at her own option to schedule herself not to fly with this pilot, but I'm not sure how that becomes "marginalizing" her employment.

6 - Westjet dismissed her for pretty shoddy cause for pushing to get her employment file

No, actually, they sacked her for insubordination in the form of cursing at a manager. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable cause for termination to me.


The bigger problem for WestJet is this bit: "Team spirit is promoted by the company, the court document says, and “as part of that team spirit, socializing on layovers is common and encouraged by WestJet and this often involves alcohol.”"

Employers have an obligation to maintain a workplace where relationships between staff are professional and appropriate. It's very hard to see how a company that encourages - or even knowingly tolerates - socializing in hotel rooms on layovers meets that obligation.

[SRV]

Pure BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, aided by a hysterical journalist.

...and more BS from the inner sanctum...Westjet: The "scientology" airline.

Wow threads like these bring out the morons around here.

The only morons here are the ones defending the "pilots" honor and that of a sleazy airline!

[altiplano]

I don't know what Westjet's policy regarding investigation timelines and punitive action is. I would think it should be handled quickly in a case such as this though.

I guess if it goes to court the judge will determine if the weeks/months/years it took were reasonable, and if the actions Westjet took to prevent something like this from happening again were reasonable.

The statement of claim states the company policy as 30 days to produce employee records.

I assume that to be correct. I presume you work there, is it not?

[photofly]

I'm surprised (I guess I'm not surprised, really) that this thread is full of people who fly according to a set of procedures, or who fix aircraft according to a set of procedures, to a measureable, traceable standard - and who put great store in *not* improvising their own way of doing things - think that in this case it's perfectly acceptable just to invent processes and outcomes to suit their own mood.

... if the actions Westjet took to prevent something like this from happening again were reasonable.

What is the "something" you are alleging happened here? WJ had a duty to investigate, and decide, on the balance of probabilities, if "something" happened. If the results of the investigation were that, on the balance of probabilities, they allegations could not be substantiated then the "something" was in fact "nothing" and they needed to take no action because "nothing" happened.

I assume that to be correct. I presume you work there, is it not?

No, I definitely don't work for WestJet, or any other airline. I flew WJ to Antigua once for a week's holiday. Can't say I enjoyed the experience very much.

[altiplano]

I guess that's it.

You feel a process was followed. End of story.

From what I read in the claim and in my opinion, it seems contrary to what I would expect to be reasonable process and outcome in this sort of case.

So maybe the process needs to be looked at. Westjet needs to be all over this, they shouldn't have let it get this far.

[5x5]

I don't quite understand - isn't the whole issue so far based on the FA's allegations? By definition, allegations are not fact, simply one person's claim relating their view of what happened. As Merriam-Webster puts it - "a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove." There has been no proof yet from what I've read.

In this age of hyper-sensitivity there is a tendency to over-react, especially when special interest groups get involved to further a cause by working to get the public to respond (see on-line petition nonsense) to the allegations as though they were fact. And this leads to people making judgements about Westjet not responding properly and letting things get out of hand, etc. etc. There is no way they should be responding to allegations through the press - that would be totally irresponsible.

Let's wait and see what transpires as this works its way through the courts rather than the "trial-by-press" which in my opinion is becoming much too common.