Westjet cover up: Alleged sexual assaults by pilot

[Shady McSly]

Yeah me too!! 'Cause one of the pilots could try and touch my privates while I board!!

[photofly]

This is Westjet's response to some of the points raised here. According to the airline, the pilot has returned to Maui as part of his schedule.

image.jpeg (112.65 KiB) Viewed 3210 times

[Rockie]

The company ... said it did conclude the pilot “failed to meet the standards of conduct and judgment expected of a pilot” and suspended him. The statement of defence noted WestJet employees are expected to conduct themselves professionally and “excessive drinking, partying and fraternization with flight attendants either individually or in groups fails to adhere to these principles.”

How interesting. I wait to hear from the experts about how Westjet is infringing pilots' Charter rights to party, and that anyone who considers that "fraternization with flight attendants" might be frowned upon must be a proponent of Sharia law.

Is it my imagination, or has Ms. Lewis toned down the scarlet lipstick for a more subdued look in her latest round of publicity photographs? I think she has received advice.

Excessive drinking and partying sure. Every employer large enough to have a HR department will have that kind of policy. For instance if excessive partying in a room results in complaints, that reflects on Westjet and could result in expulsion from the hotel damaging their business. But "fraternization with the flight attendants"? Bulls**t.

Could you please explain Photofly, how a pilot and a flight attendant having coffee, playing tennis, shopping, dining, having a drink, or having sex in the privacy of their room reflects in any way on the airline? Do you seriously not see how any company in Canada would get their balls cut off in a court challenge by trying to impose that kind of standard?

This is not Saudi Arabia. Canada does not have morality police making sure unmarried people behave according to a strict moral code. If Westjet tries to do so within their company it too will blow up in their face eventually.

Westjet is making themselves look stupid by claiming such a virtuous employee conduct policy on the one hand, then on the other accusing this FA of repeatedly violating that policy for years including causing flight cancellations for drinking with no apparent consequence. But finally writing the word "@#$!" in a letter....well that's just not allowed is it?

[photofly]

Could you please explain Photofly, how a pilot and a flight attendant having coffee, playing tennis, shopping, dining, having a drink, or having sex in the privacy of their room reflects in any way on the airline?

I don't believe I ever said that it did. I said that the airline could have a legitimate interest in forbidding two employees to be alone in a hotel room together, but my reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with "how it reflects" on the airline.

Do you seriously not see how any company in Canada would get their balls cut off in a court challenge by trying to impose that kind of standard? This is not Saudi Arabia. Canada does not have morality police making sure unmarried people behave according to a strict moral code. If Westjet tries to do so within their company it too will blow up in their face eventually.

I should probably remind you that the quote is from the company's Statement of Defence, and not from me. Personally I would never infringe on pilot's droit du seigneur rights to undertake excessive shopping with flight attendants.

However it's worth noting that Pilot M apparently accepted the rebuke along with the burden of having to play fewer doubles matches without recourse to a human rights tribunal. So he probably doesn't share your outrage at the weight of the burden of this nearly medieval company yoke.

Westjet is making themselves look stupid by claiming such a virtuous employee conduct policy on the one hand, then on the other accusing this FA of repeatedly violating that policy for years including causing flight cancellations for drinking with no apparent consequence. But finally writing the word "@#$!" in a letter....well that's just not allowed is it?

The point they're making is that there were definitely consequences for her poor behaviour, which was not let pass. Repeated written and verbal warnings. You think they look stupid; I think they look generous and forgiving, right up until the last straw.

I think we have to accept that Westjet have enough money and sense to employ HR professionals who know the law and the legal way to discipline and terminate employees. I will give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.

[Rockie]

Define "fraternization with flight attendants". Rest assured Westjet will have to now.

[photofly]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraternize

By the way, do you feel that Ms. Lewis's Facebook posts, blog entries - and the email she sent to her line manager - were appropriate for an employee?

Does anyone else think that the CBC should lead its evening news tonight with these explosive allegations against a former WestJet flight attendant. After all what's sauce for the goose...?

I guess I won't hold my breath.

[Rockie]

": to be friendly with someone : to spend time with someone in a friendly way especially when it is considered wrong or improper to do so"

So according to WestJet it is against company policy for pilots to be friendly with a flight attendant. That will take some explanation in court don't you think, why WestJet considers spending time with someone in a friendly way is wrong and improper now that they've retroactively made it company policy?

By the way, do you feel that Ms. Lewis's Facebook posts, blog entries - and the email she sent to her line manager - were appropriate for an employee?

Irrelevant, Ms. Lewis's facebook posts are not at issue in this court case. WestJet's response to her allegation is. But now that WestJet's brought it up they'll also have to explain why cancelling flights due to drinking following an allegedly long history of non-compliance with company policy is not justification for dismissal, but a curse word in a letter is....coincidentally when she got loud about her previous six year old complaint.

[Moose47]

"Yeah me too!! 'Cause one of the pilots could try and touch my privates while I board!! "

That would only happen if he was a 'Private' pilot.

Cheers...Chris

[photofly]

Irrelevant, Ms. Lewis's facebook posts are not at issue in this court case.

In fact Ms. Lewis's online postings are very much at issue. Remember this is her claim for unfair dismissal, and Westjet are saying explicitly (in ¶¶ 38 - 43 of their Statement of Defence) that her repeated violations of their communications policy are part of the reason she was sacked. She describes her job, online, as "serving cancer in a can to assholes at 40,000ft". Is that appropriate?

WestJet's response to her allegation is. But now that WestJet's brought it up they'll also have to explain why cancelling flights due to drinking following an allegedly long history of non-compliance with company policy is not justification for dismissal, but a curse word in a letter is....coincidentally when she got loud about her previous six year old complaint.

The email that she sent to her line manager, copied to the Senior Manager, People Relations is as follows:

Where the f*ck is my usb card with my file on it. It has been 90 days since I requested them. Fed ex it asap.

Is it insubordinate to write in that tone to your line manager, and copy it to his/her manager? I would say so. It doesn't seem even a tiny bit unreasonable that it might be the last straw and lead to her dismissal.


Additionally: She didn't get loud about her complaint until after she was sacked. Westjet says that it had no notification from her that her request to see her file had anything to do with her six-year-old complaint. Nor had she, in the intervening six years, indicated to the airline that she was unhappy with the way the complaint was handled:

79. During her employment with WestJet, Lewis repeatedly demonstrated that she was capable of asserting her rights on many issues in the workplace. However, at no time did Lewis ever engage WestJet's Guaranteed Fair Treatment Policy and Process (or Dispute Resolution Policy) to object to or challenge the results of WestJet's investigation specifically or WestJet's handling of the Lewis Complaint in general. In fact, Lewis did not express her dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint until after the termination of her employment for cause, some 6 years after the actions complained of.

(My emphasis.)

She says the reason she asked for a copy of her file to see what action was taken against Pilot M. That makes no sense - why would details of any disciplinary action against M appear in Ms. Lewis's file?


Westjet's story is basically that from the very start of her employment she was a lousy, rude, insubordinate and unreliable employee whom they terminated with cause. After which she started blowing smoke about harassment and asking for money. Which they're not going to give her. And, I think, given that they can produce every letter and communication with her, they are going to be quite persuasive.

[Old fella]

Even more interesting:

http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2016/03/22/Wes ... stigation/

WestJet surreptitiously 'investigating' and getting an American court order (where such online privacy laws are lacking) to track IPs down to Union-drivers? Man that's greasy.

You bet. That is very interesting to say the least as how a Canadian Company would get an American Judicial Warrant to access an IP address from a Canadian Citizen(I assume the person in question is) and what grounds, like he is a pro-union person and had access to a Youtube vid that wasn't all to kind to WJ(aka Hitler and RyanAir a few years back. If this is indeed true, I am personally flabbergasted, gob smacked or whatever. Having said that, this particular commentary(IP access) hasn't been mentioned in Canadian MSM at least I didn't see it.

[photofly]

My turn to make a wild wild prediction: her lawyers (who I'm guessing were acting on a no-win no-fee basis) are going to withdraw representation now that they've read the defence (because they don't think they have a hope of success, and she can't afford to front their fees.) She's going to pay WestJet their legal fees to date, and the case will be dropped.

[CpnCrunch]

You bet. That is very interesting to say the least as how a Canadian Company would get an American Judicial Warrant to access an IP address from a Canadian Citizen(I assume the person in question is) and what grounds, like he is a pro-union person and had access to a Youtube vid that wasn't all to kind to WJ(aka Hitler and RyanAir a few years back. If this is indeed true, I am personally flabbergasted, gob smacked or whatever. Having said that, this particular commentary(IP access) hasn't been mentioned in Canadian MSM at least I didn't see it.

The "union" thing is really a red herring. This is about libel. The court decides whether or not the libel trumps privacy:

https://cippic.ca/en/FAQ/online-anonymi ... ous-rights

Does anyone have a link to the actual video?

Regarding the "cancer to assholes": this is all very disappointing. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt, but it sounds like she doesn't really deserve it. People should get their own house in order and check the facts before starting a lawsuit. Her actions aren't going to help solve any sexual harassment problem if there is one. (Westjet's decision to bring in an independent auditor will likely do more good). All she has done is make herself look like an idiot and make Westjet look good. Sad.

[FICU]

Lewis was removed from a shift over concerns she and two others drank alcohol before shift, which led to the flight being cancelled]

This alone would lead to dismissal at most Airlines. Why would WJ not fire a reported poorly performing employee after this screw up but did for an email sent in anger? Makes you wonder.

[photofly]

Lewis was removed from a shift over concerns she and two others drank alcohol before shift, which led to the flight being cancelled]

This alone would lead to dismissal at most Airlines. Why would WJ not fire a reported poorly performing employee after this screw up but did for an email sent in anger? Makes you wonder.

It's obvious. Because they were saving up her inevitable dismissal for later, to make an example of her for making a fuss about harassment, pour encourager les autres.

[FenceSitter]

This whole mess is embarrassing to so many people. It's all going to come out in the wash, a la 2006. It really seems that by "vigorously defend" they meant 'all out attack'. I think it would best serve all parties involved to bring the authorities in and if she is lying, have her charged... but if the company is complicit in any shady dealings they too should face the repercussions. It happens all to often these days that a David and Goliath fight has to happen. This one is happening in the media as well. Let the cops do their job and those responsible will be dealt with.

[Rockie]

Photofly

Where are you getting copies of the the court filings, and where are you getting detailed information on internal emails and personnel file material?

[Old fella]

Maybe she had it in her mind WJ would settle out of court. Perhaps they just may do that as regardless of the WJ statement and the several pages on this employee, it WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC domain if court action proceeds and her defense will have just as many pages, perhaps more. Don't think either party will come out vindicated. The person involved by the looks certainly wasn't a model employee and there were difficulties, what WJ indicated can't be all wrong and made up. Conversely when Sexual harassment/incidents come up it is very serious and others have come forward and indicated this activity does indeed go on, can they also be all wrong.......... Scrape through the thin veneer of the "WestJetters Culture" and there are certainly some warts and a spot or two of cancer. WJ the company that it is and is a good one will clean up the mess and move on. I will go out on a limb and say an out of court settlement!!

[Rockie]

Photofly

Where are you getting copies of the the court filings, and where are you getting detailed information on internal emails and personnel file material?

Never mind...found it.

[photofly]

Photofly

Where are you getting copies of the the court filings, and where are you getting detailed information on internal emails and personnel file material?

The Statement of Claim was linked to in this thread (page 2, I think). The Statement of Defence is linked to here:
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 06#p961398

I don't have any information about internal emails or personnel file material - detailed, or otherwise.

Are you wondering why I can be confident that M's punishment will not be recorded in Lewis's file?

I know the model policy published by the Canada HRC to which I linked earlier states to the effect that if a complaint of harassment is investigated and cannot be substantiated then no record of it will be kept on the alleged perpetrator's file.

It also says that complainants are not entitled to be told in detail what, if any, punitive action is taken against the person about whom they complained.

Since she is entitled to see her own personnel file, it would be a breach of M's privacy for any details that Lewis isn't entitled to see to be recorded there.

[Rockie]

Well, if half the stuff in Westjet's filing is true Ms. Lewis is the author of her own employment problems. But there are two or three sides to every story and I doubt we'll hear it all. I note that contrary to Westjet's public comments in the press there is nothing in their statement of defence stating fraternization is inappropriate and against company policy.