Ex pilot sues Westjet

[Fanblade]

You're wasting your time. Fanblade saw the stories on the 6 o'clock news. He has all the "facts" he needs and is not going to waste his time reading the actual facts in the statement of defence (for either case). That would require effort and might confuse him.

Since you brought it up. Take a look at the pilots statement of claim and see when WJ cut him off from disibility. April 2015. Then look at the statement of defence by WJ and look at how many April 2015 financial issues are listed as cause against him.

Really? WJ cuts the guy off disibility and then uses the financial fallout against him?

Clearly much of what WJ has done in both cases is to attack the claimant rather than defend their position.

This behaviour won't wash in court. In court the arguments will centre only around the facts of just cause for termination. The swear word. Not showing at a meeting.

The rest? It's simply for public consumption. Brand protection or demonstrating to employees what happens if you get out of line. Probably both.

In no way am I suggesting I know who is right or wrong in any of these cases. I'm saying WJ's statements of claim, on there own, provide an eye opening window into WJ and its culture.

[brooks]

The joys of a non-unionized environment, you actually get held accountable for your actions.

[Fanblade]

The joys of a non-unionized environment, you actually get held accountable for your actions.

You seem to have forgotten that accountability is a two way street.

Firing an alleged sexual assault victim because she was frustrated over how her complaint was handled.

That's holding her accountable?

Firing an employee suffering from a serious enough mental illness that he was recently put in hospital.

That's holding him accountable?

Remember, not one of these individuals went public before they were terminated. Only in response to it.

[Fanblade]

So Brooks,

Do you think it is fair ball to terminate someone's disibility income and then use the financial fallout to smear their reputation in a statement of defence?

[Old fella]

Perhaps this pilot, like the FA before him is hoping for an out of court monetary settlement from WJ. Surely after all that came out in the public domain from both parties, this man wouldn't want to work at WJ again and WJ wouldn't want him back. Also, what are his chances of getting another airline flying job here in Canada.

The FA, Mrs. Lewis, has at no time... ever... indicated that this has anything to do with money. To the contrary, she has always stated that this is about justice and making positive change in the work environment so that no other person has to go through this without knowledge of firm and supportive procedures in place to deal with perpetrators of crimes in the workplace.
To make such a statement, Old Fella, is highly questionable to say the least. Everything is an allegation until proven in court and then it becomes a fact or a fallacy. Just because it's an allegation doesn't make it false, which seems to be the common tone when many posters address the allegations made regarding WJ or agents acting on it's behalf.
I'm not saying that anyone give the benefit of any doubt to anyone else, but at the very least, in fairness, give the same weight to both sides of the story. Consider the potential fallout for each party and see who has the most to gain or lose. In the age of instant, mass, and global media it is a serious decision to attach one's own name and face to a false allegation. When Mr. Mitchell attached his name to the report of fatigued pilots at WJ, he did so knowing that there was only fact behind his statements. These facts are outlined on WJ's own documentation. When Mrs. Lewis attached her name to multiple acts of litigation she took ownership of what she was saying/claiming as well. When Mr. Kippen went public with his allegation, he owns that as well. WestJet is a highly litigious company and will not let a false claim go unaddressed. This is not an insult but rather an opinion but given their litigious past, present and likely future it is highly unlikely that they will let any of these actions be settled. They will litigate this with strategy and as much control of the timing as possible. They also seem to be litigating on a personal level. As I said above, attacking the people who are claiming to be victims. This strategy is almost a scorched earth strategy which is almost to back these people into a corner where settlement, withdrawal, or concession is the easiest outcome.
These are some serious (some are criminal) allegations. These two people, nevermind the union organizers who are still to have their days in court, have a lot less to lose as well as gain by maintaining their position. Going to court with WJ should never be done without anticipation of personal attacks being leveled against you (for reference have a look at what Tim Morgan went through shortly after starting Enerjet, or read the responses to any claim filed against the company). The people who have the backbone to stand up for what they think is right are not criminals, they are not gold-diggers or fortune-seekers. They are people, little people. These little people are going up against a financial giant who will grind and wear them down with no regard for their personal consequences. It's a part of the strategy that many companies employ, not just WJ.
If WJ is vigorously defending itself just as it did in the corporate espionage scandal from 2003-2006 (the one during which WJ execs stood in front of their employees and repeatedly and clearly denied any of the allegations to which they ultimately admitted guilt in a court of law), they will have to eat some humble pie and move on eventually. They are trying to avoid eating the pie... vigorously. This isn't about money for either side. For WJ, it's about image and brand and for the applicants it's about justice and fairness. The only people saying it's about money are those who are not involved or those whose blind corporate faith is simply going to earn them a piece of pie later on.

Yikkers fencesitter, Don’t know what to say outside of a previous life in Aviation I was a rep for a number of represented employees. One thing I can say (with experience) there are truths, exaggerations, misrepresentations from both sides sitting across the table dealing with all types of issues. Yes, litigation is a very serious last resort course of action, very expensive regardless of the outcome. It is done by a plaintiff I would hope, with full eyes open and yes it would be correct to say doing that one has the courage of their convictions to go there. It is also correct to suggest that the vast majority of such litigation is settled out of court. However correct to say, this may not be the case against WJ.
Good luck to the Plaintiffs

[Fanblade]

In Canada it is exceedingly difficult to terminate someone's employment. Every I has to be dotted. Every T crossed. The employees history is important to show a trend. But it means nothing without a solid trigger event for termination that places all blame on the employee. Any partial blame on the employer and the courts will almost always side with the employee.

In the first case Ms Lewis's trigger point was a swear word. If WJ is found to have any responsibility in creating the frustration that led to the word? The courts will very likely side with her.

In the second case the trigger is a missed meeting and a resulting claim of abandonment. Again if WJ is found to have been unreasonable in their demand for a meeting considering the employees health? The courts will very likely side with him.

The two cases look similar in that both appear, from reading, to be HR gaffs. If these employees really deserved to be terminated, HR looks to have picked questionable trigger events to justify termination. Hence the litigation.

I also note the timeline for the two cases is prior to WJ announcing an overhaul to its HR department.

I very much doubt either of these will see the inside of a court. They will get settled quietly with non disclosure statements. We will never know the truth or how it was settled.

[43S/172E]

Fanblade +1

It will be very interesting if the person who has been diagnosed with mental illness had this condition before his alleged financial issues.

I would hazard a guess friend brooks is not known for critical thinking by his previous pedestrian vapid postings

[brooks]

Keep leaving out that corporate fraud note there Fanblade. Do you think it's cool to take over $12,000 for a move to a new base then never move? Or how about the 3 employees he took money from? How about falsely representing the company for his own personal gain?

[sportingrifle]

brooks wrote:
The joys of a non-unionized environment, you actually get held accountable for your actions.

Actually brooks, the current brand damage to WJ is in part due to their lack of a union coupled with their apparently clueless HR department. I work in a very unionized environment with an HR department staffed with really smart lawyers. While it has not always been the case, the union and company work very cooperatively and effectively together to prevent these sort of [personal issues from blowing up.
My guess is that had Ms. Lewis's case occurred at my place of employment, she would not have been stonewalled to the point where she felt the need to send an overly strong but quite justified email to get information that she was legally entitled to. Our HR department has very fair steps in place for dealing with these kinds of issues and the union would ensure that they were followed.
And I would also hazard a guess that had Mr. Kippen been employed by my employer, the union run, company funded, Employee Assistance Program would have pulled him off the line and got him the help he needed before this also blew up. These cases are really making me appreciate where I am now. I also wouldn't be surprised if at the arbitration's, the management conduct of WJ gets compared to what would have been expected at other airlines.

[brooks]

Sure unions can be beneficial to some degree, but I don't think a union would have made a lick of difference in any of these cases.

Again, keep leaving out the Mr Kippen defrauding WestJetters out of their hard earned money.

[Fanblade]

Keep leaving out that corporate fraud note there Fanblade. Do you think it's cool to take over $12,000 for a move to a new base then never move? Or how about the 3 employees he took money from? How about falsely representing the company for his own personal gain?

Brooks,

I'm sure you meant allegation of fraud. Right? I say that because I know just how balanced your perspective usually is.

Even WJ's definition of fraud, within the statement of defence, states that fraud is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Many would define it as lying to get something you would otherwise not get. In this case you need to determine if the plaintif deliberately attempted to deceive. Did he? Or did circumstances simply over come him that prevented the move or repayment of money?

I doubt this would be considered fraud by just about anyone. You would need to prove he never intended to move right from the beginning. Doubtful.

[Old fella]

Sure unions can be beneficial to some degree, but I don't think a union would have made a lick of difference in any of these cases.

Again, keep leaving out the Mr Kippen defrauding WestJetters out of their hard earned money.

Ok.... fair enough. Guess we will hear Mr. Kippen's side of the story (defrauding Westjetters) in a court of law - there is always another side. Also those Westjetters who were involved in the Kippen's fraud allegations will be subject to subpoena no doubt to give their account of what transpired and will be subject to cross-examination as well. Uncomfortable scenario needless to say, however that(court) is where guilt and innocence is decided. Then again as I and others postulated, it may never get that far………

[brooks]

Oh ya, there's always another side of the story. Especially when said WestJetters have their own civil suit against Mr Kippen.

[Arctic84]

Oh ya, there's always another side of the story. Especially when said WestJetters have their own civil suit against Mr Kippen.

How about a link to the documentation Brooks. I wasn't aware of any civil suits against him. Where's it filed.

[Old fella]

Oh ya, there's always another side of the story. Especially when said WestJetters have their own civil suit against Mr Kippen.

Yes, there always is two sides of the story - Plaintiff and Defendant. I mean we are talking about a court of law, are we not.

By your leave..........

[tailgunner]

Brooks,
Seems to me that each of the "Westjetters" who lost money need to carry a huge degree of responsibility. They each GAVE this person money on the hope /expectation of a reasonable, and I would guess profitable, return. Who does this without investigating the background story or business plan?
I think they may have been swayed by the promise of profitable returns...., " a fool and his money are easily parted"
Cheers.

[True North]

In Canada it is exceedingly difficult to terminate someone's employment. Every I has to be dotted. Every T crossed. The employees history is important to show a trend. But it means nothing without a solid trigger event for termination that places all blame on the employee. Any partial blame on the employer and the courts will almost always side with the employee.

In the first case Ms Lewis's trigger point was a swear word. If WJ is found to have any responsibility in creating the frustration that led to the word? The courts will very likely side with her.

In the second case the trigger is a missed meeting and a resulting claim of abandonment. Again if WJ is found to have been unreasonable in their demand for a meeting considering the employees health? The courts will very likely side with him.

The two cases look similar in that both appear, from reading, to be HR gaffs. If these employees really deserved to be terminated, HR looks to have picked questionable trigger events to justify termination. Hence the litigation.

I also note the timeline for the two cases is prior to WJ announcing an overhaul to its HR department.

I very much doubt either of these will see the inside of a court. They will get settled quietly with non disclosure statements. We will never know the truth or how it was settled.

Fanblade +1

It will be very interesting if the person who has been diagnosed with mental illness had this condition before his alleged financial issues.

I would hazard a guess friend brooks is not known for critical thinking by his previous pedestrian vapid postings

Simpletons. You should read the WHOLE statement of defence. Since you seem incapable I'll help you out. There wasn't "a missed meeting" there were multiple missed meetings and at no time has Mr Kippen produced documentation supporting his medical claim, despite repeated requests. It is simple enough to get a letter from your doctor stating why you are unfit to fly, but Mr Kippen has been unwilling, or unable to do so. Why do you suppose that is?

Then there is the issue of defrauding the company of moving expenses...

[Biff]

Brooks,
Seems to me that each of the "Westjetters" who lost money need to carry a huge degree of responsibility. They each GAVE this person money on the hope /expectation of a reasonable, and I would guess profitable, return. Who does this without investigating the background story or business plan?
I think they may have been swayed by the promise of profitable returns...., " a fool and his money are easily parted"
Cheers.

And the lady who was subletting his apartment? Another "fool and his(her) money are easily parted"?

Really? From what I've read he sounds like a shyster. Unfortunately, as is often the case, some people are too trusting of those who will take advantage of that trust. Hopefully after this is all over this gentleman will not be able to swindle any more trusting "fools".

[Old fella]

Brooks,
Seems to me that each of the "Westjetters" who lost money need to carry a huge degree of responsibility. They each GAVE this person money on the hope /expectation of a reasonable, and I would guess profitable, return. Who does this without investigating the background story or business plan?
I think they may have been swayed by the promise of profitable returns...., " a fool and his money are easily parted"
Cheers.

And the lady who was subletting his apartment? Another "fool and his(her) money are easily parted"?

Really? From what I've read he sounds like a shyster. Unfortunately, as is often the case, some people are too trusting of those who will take advantage of that trust. Hopefully after this is all over this gentleman will not be able to swindle any more trusting "fools".

Both plaintiffs(FA and this pilot) must be getting piss poor legal advice and representation by heading to court over their issues then

[Biff]

Both plaintiffs(FA and this pilot) must be getting piss poor legal advice and representation by heading to court over their issues then

Perhaps it's a case of the lawyers not knowing the entire story or not doing the necessary due diligence before signing on to represent the plaintiffs. Perhaps in the pilots case the lawyer was as mesmerized by the plaintiff's story as the pilots who lent him money were mesmerized by his promises.