DEFCON Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 But like Trump says; 'if you settle with one, you're inviting others to follow suit', no pun intended. Why hasn't the State of Hawaii released the name of pilot 'M' if he's a wanted man? On what date did Hawaii actually issue the criminal Summons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 So far, no official comment from the State and the only "proof" we have regarding a summons is a statement from the plaintive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 WJ terminated the employment of the complainant for apparent 'just cause', but that action followed the alleged assault by nearly six years, which begs a couple more questions. Are the two events really related, or is the aggrieved Party trying to divert attention from the just cause dismissal by tying the past to the present? How does a matter that would normally fall within the scope & purview of the Labour Board and its administrative processes become the subject of a civil suit; i.e., wrongful dismissal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I still don't understand how someone keeps their RAIC and associated clearance with an unresolved US arrest warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Super 80 said: I still don't understand how someone keeps their RAIC and associated clearance with an unresolved US arrest warrant. I think we are still waiting proof that such a warrant exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Someone would have to actually search for the existing warrant specifically. That is only done every 5 years or so for a standard RAIC holder. Annualy for Canada RAICs with a FULL search every 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 4 hours ago, DEFCON said: WJ terminated the employment of the complainant for apparent 'just cause', but that action followed the alleged assault by nearly six years, which begs a couple more questions. Are the two events really related, or is the aggrieved Party trying to divert attention from the just cause dismissal by tying the past to the present? How does a matter that would normally fall within the scope & purview of the Labour Board and its administrative processes become the subject of a civil suit; i.e., wrongful dismissal? Of course it's all related. Had she not run into the second accuser from 2008, this would most likely still be a secret. However, after learning that there was a previous incident with pilot M, she started digging and got fired for getting so frustrated with their attempts at blocking her from gaining access to her files that she swore in an email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 24 minutes ago, moeman said: Of course it's all related. Had she not run into the second accuser from 2008, this would most likely still be a secret. However, after learning that there was a previous incident with pilot M, she started digging and got fired for getting so frustrated with their attempts at blocking her from gaining access to her files that she swore in an email. Does WS have some kind policy about four letter words and grounds for dismissal? I believe if she doesn't win her harassment case (lack of evidence might be an issue), their reason for firing of this employee may also get her at least a few months rent. I figure a big settlement for the event in Maui will be a fixer-upper in West Van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 If they had given her the files in a timely manner and not blocked for what, 6 months? , things never would have escalated to the point where she snapped. Not excusing her behaviour, and I'd expect to be fired if I swore at my boss in an email, but it never should have gotten to that point. Again, it's telling to me that they tried to hide the data for as long as they did. Why block her access if there's nothing to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, blues deville said: Does WS have some kind policy about four letter words and grounds for dismissal? I believe if she doesn't win her harassment case (lack of evidence might be an issue), their reason for firing of this employee may also get her at least a few months rent. I figure a big settlement for the event in Maui will be a fixer-upper in West Van. In one of the interviews (I think it was a CTV one) they pan over to a stack of letters. Having the benefit of watching it on a big screen tv, you can make out that one of the letters is a termination letter sent on behalf of WestJet from a law firm. There is a paragraph which lists all the forms of discipline she had been subject to leading up to her termination. The lengthy list [going from memory so may not be 100%] included a letter of expectation, verbal warning, written warning and suspension leading up to the termination. The expectations typically listed in the documentation of those steps of progressive discipline [regardless of what the performance issue is] are typically very long and all encompassing and usually includes a catchall to the effect of "display the WestJet values to the highest degree possible." It doesn't appear to be a situation where there was no discipline on file and the isolated use of one foul word was used as a reason for termination. This appears to have been [from the company's perspective] the next step in the progressive discipline process. Whether her and her lawyers feel the previously existing progressive discipline was justified is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, Newman said: In one of the interviews (I think it was a CTV one) they pan over to a stack of letters. Having the benefit of watching it on a big screen tv, you can make out that one of the letters is a termination letter sent on behalf of WestJet from a law firm. There is a paragraph which lists all the forms of discipline she had been subject to leading up to her termination. The lengthy list [going from memory so may not be 100%] included a letter of expectation, verbal warning, written warning and suspension leading up to the termination. The expectations typically listed in the documentation of those steps of progressive discipline [regardless of what the performance issue is] are typically very long and all encompassing and usually includes a catchall to the effect of "display the WestJet values to the highest degree possible." It doesn't appear to be a situation where there was no discipline on file and the isolated use of one foul word was used as a reason for termination. This appears to have been [from the company's perspective] the next step in the progressive discipline process. Whether her and her lawyers feel the previously existing progressive discipline was justified is something else. All very interesting and I'm sure both legal teams will be prepared with opposing letters, testimony and other stories. Perhaps 8 years of an additional "on the job" stress created a problem for this FA and her work performance suffered because of it. I have a feeling there are lots of memos about new policy and procedures floating around the Westjet HR department. Sorry, I guess they refer to it as "people dept." A good lawyer could have a field day with that 21st century department title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 3 hours ago, moeman said: However, after learning that there was a previous incident with pilot M, she started digging and got fired for getting so frustrated with their attempts at blocking her from gaining access to her files that she swore in an email. Can anyone say with certainty that WJ didn't do a stellar job handling this file? Nonetheless, like most here, I wouldn't know how WJ handled the file, but it sounds like the complainant was not going to be happy until she had a pound of flesh in hand that satisfied her regardless? Perhaps she felt she had an in-house Right to the pilot's file as well as her own and being told she didn't just did not sit well with her and led to behavioural issues, progressive discipline and finally, termination? Why didn't she get a lawyer way back if she felt WJ wasn't complying with her wish to see the files in question? Why didn't she hire a lawyer way back if in her mind WJ wasn't conducting a proper investigation with respect to her complaint? Who knows, but I've got to believe that had the State of Hawaii laid a criminal charge that remained unanswered to date, the Statement of Claim would have indicated same, but strangely, it did not? If the Hawaiian authorities investigated the complaint and determined there was not enough evidence to meet even the minimum threshold necessary to the laying of a criminal charge, did that reality push her over the edge, lead to a medical leave and some kind of ongoing misguided and dogged determination to see her idea of justice delivered upon Pilot M? The ball is in WJ's court and its next move will fill in a lot of the blanks I think, but from the record available publically, I'm ready to bet WJ's legal team will soon move to have this file punted from the Court Docket and transferred over to the Labour Board where it would seem it properly belongs ... so far at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I wish I could say I am suprised that many comments here are all about her motivation and the speculating on why she is doing what she is doing. I am waiting for commentary on how many boyfriends she has had and what she was wearing that night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 From looking at her Twitter and Facebook profiles and her various rantings online, I think she's a piece of work. However, I don't think that has anything to do with one pilot being accused at least twice with sexual harassment and nothing happening except, from what I gather, his being banned from flying to Hawaii and the women in question being protected from flying with him. That's where I think the courts might have something to say about the matter, one way or the other. Whether she was rightfully or wrongfully dismissed is another issue completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Hi Moeman I would tend to agree that the information in hand suggests the Corporation has, or at least had, a bit of a problem with the pilot in question and he with personal discipline and a lack of comportment. When long layovers in romantic locales are combined with alcohol, sexual interaction between crew members is almost a certainty and if we're honest, it's a practice this industry has been known for since its inception. On occasion, alcohol has been known to interfere with common sense, which has resulted in all sorts of really good and in some cases, legendary tales. Unfortunately, darker consequences of this behaviour surface from time to time and people can be hurt. I think that stories such as the one in question serve to remind everyone of the need to behave and or be mindful of the situation you're placing yourself in regardless of your sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 On 2016-03-10 at 9:59 AM, Malcolm said: I think we are still waiting proof that such a warrant exists. That is what gives me pause, along with the fact the RCMP in YVR have always gone above the call of duty to cause grief to RAIC holders who are identified in investigations even if they're aren't accused of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 . WestJet not the only ones with their hands full. Brock University tells student to keep quiet about sexual harassment finding Professor no longer ‘assigned to a class,’ university says following CBC News investigation Fri Mar 11, 2016 - CBC News By Timothy Sawa, Lori Ward Brock University in southern Ontario says a professor who was found to have sexually harassed one of his students late one night in his office is no longer "assigned to a class and is not on campus." The statement follows a CBC News investigation that revealed this morning that Brock had warned a former student to keep quiet about an internal investigation that determined her professor gave her alcohol and tried to force himself on her sexually. "The university sincerely regrets the emotional trauma this incident has caused to the complainant," the university said in the statement this morning. "Brock staff were supportive and responsive as soon as they learned of the complaint. University president Jack Lightstone has spoken directly with the complainant." The original warning from the university for the student to keep quiet followed a three-month investigation initiated by the university after the female student came forward to complain about her history professor, David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, also the acting associate dean of research and graduate studies in Brock's faculty of humanities. The investigation was conducted by a lawyer hired by the university in St. Catharines, and the report was obtained by CBC News. Its conclusions accepted the student's version of events, that she "immediately started to object" to the advances of her professor. The investigation found that the incident "involved an unwelcome sexual advance, inappropriate and unwelcome physical touching, comments of a sexual nature, [and] a provocative comment attempting to arrange ongoing intimacy." Following the investigation, however, Brock University warned the student repeatedly in emails that the results are "confidential" and, according to the school's policies, "confidentiality is of the utmost importance and must be maintained at all times." One of the reasons provided for the confidentiality was "to respect all parties' interests in keeping such complaints from being improperly publicized." "This to me looked like they were protecting their faculty and protecting their reputation," the former student told CBC News. We are withholding the identity of this person at her request. 'Too drunk to remember' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 5 hours ago, DEFCON said: Hi Moeman I would tend to agree that the information in hand suggests the Corporation has, or at least had, a bit of a problem with the pilot in question and he with personal discipline and a lack of comportment. When long layovers in romantic locales are combined with alcohol, sexual interaction between crew members is almost a certainty and if we're honest, it's a practice this industry has been known for since its inception. On occasion, alcohol has been known to interfere with common sense, which has resulted in all sorts of really good and in some cases, legendary tales. Unfortunately, darker consequences of this behaviour surface from time to time and people can be hurt. I think that stories such as the one in question serve to remind everyone of the need to behave and or be mindful of the situation you're placing yourself in regardless of your sex. Forgive me but does Thunder Bay (or Sudbury?) qualify as a "romantic locale"? And why do you insist that there is a jurisdictional issue with the CIRB having exclusive jurisdiction? I wasn't aware that the Westjet FA's had a collective bargaining agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 23 hours ago, Newman said: In one of the interviews (I think it was a CTV one) they pan over to a stack of letters. Having the benefit of watching it on a big screen tv, you can make out that one of the letters is a termination letter sent on behalf of WestJet from a law firm. There is a paragraph which lists all the forms of discipline she had been subject to leading up to her termination. The lengthy list [going from memory so may not be 100%] included a letter of expectation, verbal warning, written warning and suspension leading up to the termination. The expectations typically listed in the documentation of those steps of progressive discipline [regardless of what the performance issue is] are typically very long and all encompassing and usually includes a catchall to the effect of "display the WestJet values to the highest degree possible." It doesn't appear to be a situation where there was no discipline on file and the isolated use of one foul word was used as a reason for termination. This appears to have been [from the company's perspective] the next step in the progressive discipline process. Whether her and her lawyers feel the previously existing progressive discipline was justified is something else. That's one heck of a big tv you must have. Really, REALLY big!! And the image must have been on that big tv for a longgggg time or you're a VERY fast reader with a good memory. Praise when praise is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 On 2016-03-10 at 8:59 AM, Malcolm said: I think we are still waiting proof that such a warrant exists. http://video.theloop.ca/search/watch/maui-prosecutors-searching-for-westjet-pilot/4792529868001?term=westjet&sort=date&page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 nd Once again no proof other than the claimants statement and the CTV newshead saying so. I have yet to see any report in which a rep. of the Hawaiian legal system is verifying that the warrant exists and that is strange. I have access to PressReader which allows one to read and or search news stories from around the world and with the exception of some Canadian Papers the world press (even in Hawaii) is silent on this story. Those knowing the pilots name (and I guess this would include CTV) could do a simple "Warrant" search to see if such a warrant was issued or outstanding. http://www.usrecords.net/arrest-warrants Maui also offers the service but at a cost. http://www.hawaiiarrests.org/arrest/maui-county.html We have no proof for or against either party yet there has been a rush to judge both parties based strictly on 2nd / 3rd hand information. We urge others to step back when jumping to conclusions when there has been an aviation accident, yet in this case no such restraint. Human nature I guess but, ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 3 hours ago, UpperDeck said: "Forgive me but does Thunder Bay (or Sudbury?) qualify as a "romantic locale"?" That's funny. I guess romance is in the air wherever aircrew may be and alcohol is available. Quote And why do you insist that there is a jurisdictional issue with the CIRB having exclusive jurisdiction? I wasn't aware that the Westjet FA's had a collective bargaining agreement. I was not insisting, I offered an opinion. Do you have an answer? It's my understanding that the WJ FA's do have some form of CA, am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, DEFCON said: That's funny. I guess romance is in the air wherever aircrew may be and alcohol is available. Rankin Inlet, winter 1983, -40c. No romance in that air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, blues deville said: Rankin Inlet, winter 1983, -40c. No romance in that air. I guess romance would be replaced by snuggling to keep warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Unfortunately the Bell telephone guys weren't into that sort of thing. Poker and beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.