Westjet cover up: Alleged sexual assaults by pilot

[Old fella]

The other shoe drops...

CTV News has also learned of six other women alleging they've been sexually assaulted, and who have requested the contact information for Lewis's lawyer.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/westjet-emp ... -1.2803271

If such is the case(allegations at this point), it is certainly troubling for WJ no doubt about that in lieu of the fact others have come forward in the public forum indicating this type of behavior isn't getting redress as it should. I would say cover-up isn't to strong a word. Maybe this is the straw that brings about union certification, not that certification will stop this type of male thinking, mind you. It will offer employees protection and at the same time a proper internal investigation to the benefit of employee and employer IMHO. I would say the FA in question is probably looking for an out of court settlement with WJ(they would probably be smart to do that). Sexual assault against the female workforce can be destructive, look at the RCMP/Military and to a lesser extent CBC.

[photofly]

Considering this was, allegedly, at least Pilot M's second accusation against, it appears he perhaps didn't feel dissuaded enough by the Westjet's policies and actions on harassment. If so how can they let this guys actions stand? Is simply "No more Hawaii for you" an adequate response?

Again, you're leaping to the conclusion that this guy had some "actions" that the airline let "stand". Any time you find yourself saying "it seems" or "allegedly", that's a warning note that you're heading off into pure-speculation-land. The airline's investigation is the process by which it decides whether a response is required. We don't know the details of that investigation. Nor do we know whether "No more Hawaii" is an accurate characterization of the airline's response and if so, to what it was responding.

[photofly]

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.

What leads you to believe there was no investigation?

[altiplano]

If there was no action, as you suggest photofly, why the "No more Hawaii"?

Clearly something happened. The fact there was a penalty imposed indicates as much.

[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.

What leads you to believe there was no investigation?

This isn't somebody peeved at being insulted or anything so mundane...someone has been accused of sexual assault. The seriousness of this allegation demands that it either be verified or exposed as false. Either case demands strong action by the company against one party or the other which did not occur.

Keeping the pilot out of Hawaii and/or firing the FA for "insubordination" smells just like the steaming pile that it is. If WestJet had carried out a proper investigation they would either have supported the FA in filing a complaint with the police, or they would have fired the FA for falsely accusing another employee after first documenting their response to the allegation in minute detail. Neither happened.

[photofly]

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.

What leads you to believe there was no investigation?

This isn't somebody peeved at being insulted or anything so mundane...someone has been accused of sexual assault. The seriousness of this allegation demands that it either be verified or exposed as false. Either case demands strong action by the company against one party or the other which did not occur.

No, there's no basis in fact or in law for your statement there. The company's obligation is to investigate the truth of the allegation and to come to a decision based on the balance of probabilities. This is not a criminal investigation and the seriousness of the allegation doesn't change the burden of proof either way. Nor does it give WestJet magic powers to determine what really happened more easily than if it was something trivial. Bluntly - you can jump up and down and pound the table about how bad this is, but if the evidence to decide one way or the other is absent then your table-pounding doesn't create it.

The company is under no obligation to punish either party if it cannot determine the truth of the allegation; it would be extremely unusual and there would have to be significant evidence of malice for the complainant herself to be sanctioned for making a complaint.

I ask again - what leads you to believe that an investigation wasn't undertaken, or that if it was, it was inadequate?

[photofly]

If there was no action, as you suggest photofly, why the "No more Hawaii"?

Clearly something happened. The fact there was a penalty imposed indicates as much.

I don't know what "No more Hawaii" means, and I have no reliable evidence that it means anything at all - and nor do you. The Statement of Claim is written by a lawyer after listening only to the complainant, who isn't privy to whatever action WJ took after the investigation so at this point I'm not going to put any weight behind what she says the company did or didn't make the pilot do. She's simply not in a position to know. She admits as much, as part of claim is that they refused to tell her.

If and when WJ file their statement of defence we'll know more.

[Old fella]

Well whatever, WJ is in the news(CTV,CBC, Globe etc) and not in a positive light to say the least.

[Jet Jockey]

Where there is smoke, there is likely fire!

"CTV News has also learned of six other women alleging they've been sexually assaulted, and who have requested the contact information for Lewis's lawyer".

[Bede]

My Buddy is a recovering alcoholic, he was called out for not being westjetty enough because he is now a "slamclicker".

I doubt it. Not by management anyways.

No matter how you look at this, it's terrible from every angle.

[boeingboy]

No, there's no basis in fact or in law for your statement there. The company's obligation is to investigate the truth of the allegation and to come to a decision based on the balance of probabilities. This is not a criminal investigation and the seriousness of the allegation doesn't change the burden of proof either way. Nor does it give WestJet magic powers to determine what really happened more easily than if it was something trivial.

You are so wrong it's not even funny. You can jump up and down wishing everyone would ignore this but it just wont happen.

Sexual assault is a criminal offence and as such must be investigated by proper law enforcement personnel. WestJet doesn't need magical powers to figure out anything - the company must fully co-operate with law enforcement, but they are avoiding it buy simply sweeping it under the rug.
If your buddy is so innocent then there should be no problem with letting the authorities investigate it and clear the matter up......in fact - if I were the company or your friend - I would welcome an investigation - assuming of course I did nothing wrong.

[Bede]

Why is it that critical thinking skills on this forum seem to be limited to Photofly and Rockie.

A good . of you (I'm looking at you altiplano) are drawing inferences and forming conclusions based on 1) A statement of claim and 2) a news report.

I have no idea what happened. That is why I shut up until the legal process is complete.

[photofly]

No, there's no basis in fact or in law for your statement there. The company's obligation is to investigate the truth of the allegation and to come to a decision based on the balance of probabilities. This is not a criminal investigation and the seriousness of the allegation doesn't change the burden of proof either way. Nor does it give WestJet magic powers to determine what really happened more easily than if it was something trivial.

You are so wrong it's not even funny. You can jump up and down wishing everyone would ignore this but it just wont happen.

Sexual assault is a criminal offence and as such must be investigated by proper law enforcement personnel. WestJet doesn't need magical powers to figure out anything - the company must fully co-operate with law enforcement, but they are avoiding it buy simply sweeping it under the rug.
If your buddy is so innocent then there should be no problem with letting the authorities investigate it and clear the matter up......in fact - if I were the company or your friend - I would welcome an investigation - assuming of course I did nothing wrong.

There's no evidence that Westjet have failed fully to cooperate with any request from any criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in the matter. so I'm not really sure what your point is. I don know where the rug-sweeping theme comes from but it's not founded in any evidence.

I don't wish everyone would ignore this. It should have been investigated. Everyone seems to assume, in the basis of hot air, that it hasn't been.

[True North]

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

Actually, I think I'd put you at the head of that class.

[Rockie]

No, there's no basis in fact or in law for your statement there. The company's obligation is to investigate the truth of the allegation and to come to a decision based on the balance of probabilities. This is not a criminal investigation and the seriousness of the allegation doesn't change the burden of proof either way.

This guy wasn't accused of calling a Flight Attendant fat, he was accused of sexually assaulting her. It doesn't seem like WestJet was capable of investigating this accusation sufficiently to resolve its employment responsibilities (or we wouldn't be hearing about it in this way) but regardless they should have at least encouraged the FA to file a police complaint and have them investigate it given the criminal nature of the charge.

WestJet doesn't appear to have taken this seriously at all, and sexual assault is a serious criminal offence. Were they hoping it would all just go away on its own? Doesn't seem like a very good HR strategy...

[altiplano]

Why is it that critical thinking skills on this forum seem to be limited to Photofly and Rockie.

A good . of you (I'm looking at you altiplano) are drawing inferences and forming conclusions based on 1) A statement of claim and 2) a news report.

I have no idea what happened. That is why I shut up until the legal process is complete.

I don't know Bede, it doesn't look handled well though.

If you think everything here is okey-dokey I don't know what to say.

[altiplano]

Saretsky speaks out:
http://blog.westjet.com/ceo-response-to ... legations/

You may have read or seen stories in the media about a lawsuit filed against WestJet by a former employee, suggesting WestJet failed to take proper action after she alleged a pilot sexually assaulted her. We will file a statement of defense.

My commitment to our guests and to our people is to be transparent and forthcoming. I am writing directly to you, our guests, to provide you with as much information as I can. I am the accountable executive responsible for the safety and well-being of our more than 11,000 employees, which is a responsibility I do not take lightly.

Sexual assault is a serious matter. Every company has a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of all its employees, and this is a responsibility we take most seriously at WestJet. As a husband, father of a daughter and brother to a sister I understand how important it is to get this right, no matter the role or gender of the complainant.

Investigations did take place on these matters and they were subsequently closed. We are reviewing the investigations to ensure they were diligently carried out, and no new information has come to light since the investigations were undertaken six years ago. While this is underway, we are accommodating (out of active flying duty) those mentioned or otherwise affected by the alleged claims out of concern for their well-being and the continued safe operation of the airline.

Allegations are a serious concern whether true or untrue. We are acting in accordance with our code of conduct and ethics, and if new information comes out we will thoroughly investigate the matter.

Ours is a reporting culture, as it should be. Every day, thousands of our employees and tens of thousands of our guests expect a safe experience with WestJet and we are committed to providing one. We have an active whistleblower hotline and safety reporting system, which are evidence of our strong culture of reporting concerns to management. Regardless of its nature, each complaint made through our whistleblower hotline, including the outcomes of the investigations, is reported to the Safety, Health and Environment Committee of our Board of Directors. We have always treated any complaint with the seriousness it deserves and will continue to do so.

It was reported in the media today that there might be additional people who have come forward. The company has received no further information at this time. As has always been the case, we encourage our employees to report any concern that goes against our code of conduct or where they feel safety is at risk, and we urge them to bring any new information to our attention.

Other allegations have been made in the media that we have terminated employees for attempts to organize a union drive, a statement that is patently false. We have responded to a recent claim of such conduct with the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) and it is a publicly available document.

I am proud of the company we’ve built together and firmly believe that the more than 11,000 WestJetters who work hard every day to deliver our brand of friendly, caring service will continue to do so as we work through these as yet unfounded allegations.

I will continue to provide information as warranted and I thank you for your continued support.

[Bede]

Why is it that critical thinking skills on this forum seem to be limited to Photofly and Rockie.

A good . of you (I'm looking at you altiplano) are drawing inferences and forming conclusions based on 1) A statement of claim and 2) a news report.

I have no idea what happened. That is why I shut up until the legal process is complete.

I don't know Bede, it doesn't look handled well though.

If you think everything here is okey-dokey I don't know what to say.

I never said everything is OK. I said I don't know and neither do you. That's why I'm not making any grandiose proclamations. Inferences require facts. We don't have any facts other than someone filed a law suit. Therefore drawing inferences is mere conjecture and grossly speculative.

[boeingboy]

There's no evidence that Westjet have failed fully to cooperate with any request from any criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in the matter. so I'm not really sure what your point is. I don know where the rug-sweeping theme comes from but it's not founded in any evidence.

You really believe that? I guess I could also say there is no evidence to say they did - but..........

She also lodged a complaint with the RCMP, who contacted the police in Maui. But the pilot could not be arrested unless he returned to Hawaii.

Police in Hawaii have told Global News the case remains open.

Cases do not remain open if it has been fully investigated. At the very least - there are still lingering concerns or questions with the police investigators, and the person involved should be on some sort of leave or sent to a desk job.

[photofly]

I suppose your point is that WJ should kidnap the pilot and ship him to Hawaii? Perhaps break his legs too, if he struggles? If not, then how would you like them to cooperate more fully? Has 5-0 asked WJ for any assistance that you know they refused to provide? Why would putting a pilot on leave help the police investigate anything?

It's just random words coming out of you; there really is no evidence of thought behind anything you write.

[photofly]

it doesn't seem like WestJet was capable of investigating this accusation sufficiently to resolve its employment responsibilities (or we wouldn't be hearing about it in this way) but regardless they should have at least encouraged the FA to file a police complaint and have them investigate it given the criminal nature of the charge.

Another illogical conclusion. WJ could easily have commissioned an external enquiry (it would have been wise to have done so) - and we don't know that they didn't.

Whether or not they encouraged the complainant to report to the police (they should have) it appears she did so anyway, so your point, in so far as you have one, is moot.

The only conclusion you can draw from us "hearing about it in this way" is that the complainant is feeling badly treated. But the purpose of an enquiry is to determine if disciplinary action should be taken, not to make the complainant feel good regardless of the evidence.

WestJet doesn't appear to have taken this seriously at all, and sexual assault is a serious criminal offence. Were they hoping it would all just go away on its own? Doesn't seem like a very good HR strategy...

You have no basis to judge how seriously WJ has taken this, other than they have show sufficient respect to all parties not to get involved in the media circus to which you in your own small way are contributing.

[altiplano]

I suppose your point is that WJ should kidnap the pilot and ship him to Hawaii? Perhaps break his legs too, if he struggles? If not, then how would you like them to cooperate more fully? Has 5-0 asked WJ for any assistance that you know they refused to provide? Why would putting a pilot on leave help the police investigate anything?

It's just random words coming out of you; there really is no evidence of thought behind anything you write.

Random Words of Hysterical Fantasy Land Nonsense

LOL.

[Rockie]

You're a staunch defender of Westjet Photofly, I'll give you that. This is caustic stuff here and I think you'll agree that Westjet should have gone to whatever lengths were necessary to resolve it. I think you also have to agree that clearly they didn't or this thing wouldn't be sounding like the Bill Cosbie situation.

It's entirely logical to conclude that Westjet screwed this one badly. If you can't see that then your rose coloured glasses must be 100 feet thick.

[radubc]

Maybe someone with legal background can shed some light here. It looks like the case is now with the Supreme Court of BC. That means that there are at least one court, of a superior rank, that ruled in favor of the pilot, or against the FA. Am I right?

[photofly]

You're a staunch defender of Westjet Photofly, I'll give you that. This is caustic stuff here and I think you'll agree that Westjet should have gone to whatever lengths were necessary to resolve it. I think you also have to agree that clearly they didn't or this thing wouldn't be sounding like the Bill Cosbie situation.

I don't agree in the slightest. Under no circumstances should WJ "have gone to whatever lengths" the FA demanded to resolve this. Their obligation to her and to the pilot was/is to investigate without favour or prejudice and act as the available evidence dictated. They should have followed the appropriate procedures, to their conclusions. There's no evidence on the table the they didn't do exactly that. They're absolutely not under any obligation to make everyone, or even anyone, happy.

It's entirely logical to conclude that Westjet screwed this one badly.

There is no logic whatsoever in such a conclusion at this stage. You can make as many broad claims that WJ have made errors as you like but no facts available support such a claim.

If you can't see that then your rose coloured glasses must be 100 feet thick.

I'm not even going to dignify that piece of idiocy with a further response.