AVCANADA

It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:24 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:47 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:26 pm
Posts: 129
check their web site for Canada


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:23 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:41 am
Posts: 260
Location: Toronto
And I'm looking for...?


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:27 am
Posts: 510
You're looking for what was deleted from this section earlier today


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:47 pm
Posts: 86
Wonder what her settlement will be? No way they want this in the news.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:51 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:48 pm
Posts: 203
Confliction wrote:
Wonder what her settlement will be? No way they want this in the news.


Its already in the news.



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:33 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:23 pm
Posts: 77
Location: No longer in the crew bunk at 180E
So, I posted a link to a Globe and Mail article to start this link. So what's the problem with that? It is a NEWS STORY.

Why the removal of this intro to allow for discussion of a serious topic?



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:08 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm
Posts: 536
Location: CYPK
Likely because there is already a discussion under the General Comments section of the forum. Seems the mods do not like duplicate threads.

_________________
Honour is a man's gift to himself ~Duke Elegant
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:02 am 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 5164
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
land3 wrote:
So, I posted a link to a Globe and Mail article to start this link. So what's the problem with that? It is a NEWS STORY.

Why the removal of this intro to allow for discussion of a serious topic?


Your post is here: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=107903 Fourth one down...


_________________
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:28 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Posts: 1972
Location: Canada
7ECA wrote:
Likely because there is already a discussion under the General Comments section of the forum. Seems the mods do not like duplicate threads.



Actually the mods (bandaid) and the site owner do not like any threads not approved by WestJet management.



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:35 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
Posts: 1659
The topic was locked and commentary taken down over in the General Section......... just saying!!


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:14 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:57 am
Posts: 75
Attachment:
File comment: Just ignore the elephant in the room.
LewisClaim.pdf [756.06 KiB]
Downloaded 240 times



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:47 pm 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 5164
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
ok, kwitcher bitchen ... its back out. :goodman:

_________________
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:57 am
Posts: 75
Return serve:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2774473-Westjet-Response-to-Civil-Claim.html



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:27 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Posts: 882
If true not exactly a stellar employee. Begs the question though. If she was that bad, why was she still employed?

I think the gross insubordination section raises a red flag about possible spin within the submission. It took a total of four months (two months after the promised/agreed to) time line to get her employment record. In fact the file wasn't produced until after termination. I think that is grounds for getting frustrated. Yet WJ states her hostility came from nowhere. As if she was some hothead. Really? Blame her for getting upset that WJ wasn't producing what they promised they would?

I think that was a mistake. WJ should have taken responsibility for its failure in the process. Problem is WJ doesn't want to state they pooched the employee file request. In doing so they would be admitting she had grounds to be upset. That the hostility did not come out of nowhere. Hence the swear word, although inappropriate, somewhat understandable considering the subject manor of harassment.

Do you really want to be firing someone within such an emotionally charged issue? I think most would empathize with her.

The ultimate question is. Would she still be employed had WJ provided the employee file in a reasonable amount of time?

I think the answer is quite probably yes.

I think if WJ decided that she needed to be terminated they picked the wrong incident to justify it. The subject matter in question required endless compassion and understanding. On this point alone I can see why WJ hired E&Y. It begs the question. What were you thinking?

So to me the rest has the appearance of mud thrown on the wall to discredit and distract. Add to that, she was part of the union drive and the perception is worse. Even if not true it doesn't matter. Perception is more important than reality.

I'm surprised WJ is willing to walk down this path and not simply make it go away. On the positive side if there are issues? This will get them solved.



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:04 pm 
Online
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1720
Location: of my pants is unknown.
"If true"? That statement was written by a team of lawyers on behalf of a major corporation. You can safely assume that every single statement was vetted to the nth degree and checked for accuracy and verifiability.

On the one hand you ask if she was so bad, why was she still employed? But then you contradict yourself by saying that you think she would still be employed if she had just received her employee file quicker. Well, which is it?

Frankly I'm surprised by the extreme lenience show by WestJet for a long time. Any one of those things: being late or not showing up for work (in any job but the airline industry?!) multiple times, slagging your employer on social media multiple times, and my personal favourite, being removed from a flight due to drinking, would be grounds for dismissal and in most places I've worked you're just - gone. No fooling around. But you feel if she had just gotten her employee records sooner she would still be working there?

Come on.

WestJet didn't pick the "wrong incident to justify" terminating her. She handed them multiple solid-gold reasons on a platter!

I find the actual reasons behind removing Pilot M from the international routes very interesting - especially how the media initially went into hysteria claiming it was WestJet trying to hide something when the truth was very different altogether. Turns out the Maui police had no intent of arresting Pilot M and were completely satisfied with WestJet's handling of the situation. But of course, there will be no retraction or clarification of the original reporting.

Credibility is crucial. Just ask Lucy DeCoutere and her pals. Thanks to the lying and omissions, a judge had no choice but to find Ghomeshi not guilty. I agree that perception IS reality, for most people. This document paints a consistent, damning picture, and it, along with Ms. Lewis' own portrayal of herself through social media will not exactly help the public perceive her as a sympathetic victim.

So no, I am NOT surprised Westjet is standing up and not settling out of court. If anything I wouldn't be surprised at all if "Lewis" gets slapped with WestJet's costs.


_________________
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Posts: 882
complexintentions wrote:
"If true"? That statement was written by a team of lawyers on behalf of a major corporation. You can safely assume that every single statement was vetted to the nth degree and checked for accuracy and verifiability.


It still leaves room for opinion on how a specific event unfolded. The employment file, and its delay, are one such opinion. WJ's "opinion" is that the delay had no bearing on how the gross insubordination event unfolded.

Really? Exactly how was this verified for accuracy? It's an opinion. The troubling part of the opinion is that it is designed to shift all the "blame" on to the opposing party. Attempting to evade any responsibility for the employment file delay, and its part in the actual termination trigger event.

complexintentions wrote:
On the one hand you ask if she was so bad, why was she still employed? But then you contradict yourself by saying that you think she would still be employed if she had just received her employee file quicker. Well, which is it?


Which is it? Here is the crux of the problem. If the file had been provided on time in November, the termination trigger event, an email with a swear word in January, would not have occurred.

complexintentions wrote:
Frankly I'm surprised by the extreme lenience show by WestJet for a long time. Any one of those things: being late or not showing up for work (in any job but the airline industry?!) multiple times, slagging your employer on social media multiple times, and my personal favourite, being removed from a flight due to drinking, would be grounds for dismissal and in most places I've worked you're just - gone. No fooling around. But you feel if she had just gotten her employee records sooner she would still be working there?

Come on.


Be careful. The drinking event was an allegation that resulted in a letter of "expectation". IOW nothing was ever proven. Suspected maybe. Proven no. The judge will likely ignore it. Yet WJ's submission describes it as a disciplinary event. Even you quickly jumped on the bandwagon.

That's not cool. Really not cool. Using an unproven allegation in the statement of facts. What's the purpose other than mud slinging?

complexintentions wrote:

WestJet didn't pick the "wrong incident to justify" terminating her. She handed them multiple solid-gold reasons on a platter!


If WJ believed Ms Lewis's employment needed to be terminated, WJ should have ensured that they terminated her based on a trigger event that WJ was not partly to blame in creating. Failing to do so has left them exposed.

complexintentions wrote:
Credibility is crucial.


Yup. But credibility may not come into play if the trigger event that led to termination shows WJ at least partly to blame. If this were just a termination case it would not be news worthy. The side show is what makes it news worthy. The risk is that if WJ is found partly to blame in the termination case, that they will be found guilty of fostering a culture of work place harassment in the court of public perception.

I can't imagine WJ not settling.



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:05 am 
Online
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1720
Location: of my pants is unknown.
I reiterate, no half-decent law firm would release a statement that they couldn't back up with other documentation. For example, statements as to policies would be checked against the precise wording of the actual policies. Statements about what took place in disciplinary cases would be cross-checked against the records of such cases. Etc. Written dated reports of past meetings are not "opinion". I don't think even Ms. Lewis is trying to deny that she was habitually late, or disciplined multiple times.

The drinking itself was unproven, yes. The removal from the flight, most definitely was not unproven, and was most certainly a disciplinary event. What do you think a letter on your file is? (If the drinking HAD actually been proven, she would have been terminated immediately). The fact that a captain saw fit to remove her from a flight due to his suspicions is a big deal, in any occupation, but especially for a member of a flight crew. How is the mention of this, along with the lengthy list of other disciplinary issues, not relevant to the complainant's credibility? Mudslinging? More like an illustration of a pretty obvious pattern.

Quote:
If WJ believed Ms Lewis's employment needed to be terminated, WJ should have ensured that they terminated her based on a trigger event that WJ was not partly to blame in creating.


What nonsense. WestJet was slow to give Ms. Lewis her employee file, so she had no choice but to swear at her manager, so WestJet is "partly to blame", is that it? Sorry, but "frustration" isn't a legitimate defence for insubordination. Some people need to grow up. An employer/employee relationship is a professional one. You can't be flippant and swear at your bosses. Add it to the laundry list of other well-documented problems in her employment past, and you can't seriously think Westjet should offer her money.


_________________
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:09 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Posts: 882
complexintentions wrote:
I reiterate, no half-decent law firm would release a statement that they couldn't back up with other documentation. For example, statements as to policies would be checked against the precise wording of the actual policies. Statements about what took place in disciplinary cases would be cross-checked against the records of such cases. Etc. Written dated reports of past meetings are not "opinion". I don't think even Ms. Lewis is trying to deny that she was habitually late, or disciplined multiple times.


The facts are correct. Ms Lewis was issued a letter of expectation over an alleged/unproven drinking event.

Quote:
The drinking itself was unproven, yes.


Exactly.

Quote:
The removal from the flight, most definitely was not unproven, and was most certainly a disciplinary event.


You know this how? Perhaps WJ cancelled the flight in a precautionary manor. Later figured out the situation wasn't that straight forward.

Quote:
What do you think a letter on your file is?


It was a letter of expectation. It was not a disciplinary letter. They are used to clarify company policy in situations where misconduct might/might not have happened.

Let's say a fellow employee accused you of theft. You deney any wrong doing. The company investigated and could not prove wrong doing. What they did instead was issue you a letter of expectation to clarify company policy on theft. You thought that was it. Then four years later they terminate you and publically state, as if it were a fact, that you were disciplined for theft 4 years earlier.

That would be inappropriate behaviour. Any unproven allegation in public is inappropriate behaviour. It's how reputations get destroyed.

Quote:
Quote:
If WJ believed Ms Lewis's employment needed to be terminated, WJ should have ensured that they terminated her based on a trigger event that WJ was not partly to blame in creating.


What nonsense. WestJet was slow to give Ms. Lewis her employee file, so she had no choice but to swear at her manager, so WestJet is "partly to blame", is that it? Sorry, but "frustration" isn't a legitimate defence for insubordination. Some people need to grow up. An employer/employee relationship is a professional one. You can't be flippant and swear at your bosses. Add it to the laundry list of other well-documented problems in her employment past, and you can't seriously think Westjet should offer her money.


- I think you should re think what is in bold text above. If her allegations are proven true, she had every reason to be angry. Very angry in fact. You just told an alleged sexual harassment victim to grow up.

-I'm not suggesting she is completely innocent. I'm saying the blame doesn't look to fall on just one set of shoulders.

-I'm stating that WJ's inclusion of an unproven and unrelated allegation looks like a cheap shot. Worse done against a potential sexual harassment victim.

- I'm stating the above behaviour is image and credibility damaging to both parties.

-I'm stating that she will be given emence latitude for her behaviour considering the emotional subject matter.

-I think WJ will pay her voluntarily to make this go away.

This thread, and its willingness to attack an alleged victim based on unproven statements from one side makes me very uncomfortable. Particularly when some of the statements look to be made for no other purpose than to cast doubt over the victims credibility.



Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Posts: 882
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/04/we ... harassment


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PPRuNe
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:13 am 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 5164
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
In the interest of keeping multiple threads from proliferating, please continue the discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=107903&start=375

Thanks!


_________________
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZ382, spikedlife, vrefplus5 and 43 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.