Westjet cover up: Alleged sexual assaults by pilot

[Rockie]

Of course you can, if the company is paying for the hotel room.

Here are our fundamental Freedoms protected by the Canadian Constitution since 1982. Please show me where it says "unless your company is paying for your hotel room".

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of conscience and religion;
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
freedom of peaceful assembly; and
freedom of association

[Rockie]

It means having strict policies against harassment, educating employees on what those harassment policies mean, properly investigating reported incidences of it and if necessary punishing those responsible.

You're a good politician. Easy words, great soundbites, but no content.

Nonsense. It works for every company I'm aware of including Air Canada and probably the one you work for too. If you're not convinced test the system and document the steps your company takes to put you out on the street.

[CpnCrunch]

Of course you can, if the company is paying for the hotel room.

Here are our fundamental Freedoms protected by the Canadian Constitution since 1982. Please show me where it says "unless your company is paying for your hotel room".

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of conscience and religion;
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
freedom of peaceful assembly; and
freedom of association

So, if photofly and I want to party in your house, Rockie, the Constitution guarantees that you can't stop us?

[Rockie]

If I didn't want you there you would be trespassing and breaking the law, and if you were breaking the law or disturbing the peace a hotel could kick you out too. Surely that doesn't need to be explained to you. Now, the company could refuse as a matter of policy to pay the room charges if they suspect two people might be breaking their medieval moral code, but they can't stop you from legal association. Nobody can...it's a fundamental freedom. Do you guys get what that means? If not you really do take these things for granted.

It would be truly comical to see a company policy refusing to pay for crew rest accommodations if two employees go behind the same door.

[photofly]

So, if photofly and I want to party in your house, Rockie, the Constitution guarantees that you can't stop us?

I'd like to bring a couple of strippers and "associate" with them in the cockpit, too. I didn't realize the Constitution guaranteed me the freedom to do that, I shall have to look at it more carefully!

Now, the company could refuse as a matter of policy to pay the room charges if they suspect two people might be breaking their medieval moral code

It's not a moral code. Two employees in a room together playing scrabble would also be cause for termination. It protects the company having to hold enquiries into things it shouldn't have to be deciding.

I'm still waiting to hear detail on the education that pilots need. Which ones still have to be told that grabbing someone's crotch and trying to kiss them isn't correct behaviour? Apparently education is all that's needed to end harassment once and for all.

The reason I suggested it is because, according to accounts, WestJet encouranges a "party atmosphere, with alcohol" among staff. If that is so then they may have to go further than other organisations to protect their staff. What works for boring old Air Canada might just not suffice for high-livin' WestJet.

[CpnCrunch]

If I didn't want you there you would be trespassing and breaking the law, and if you were breaking the law or disturbing the peace a hotel could kick you out too. Surely that doesn't need to be explained to you. Now, the company could refuse as a matter of policy to pay the room charges if they suspect two people might be breaking their medieval moral code, but they can't stop you from legal association. Nobody can...it's a fundamental freedom. Do you guys get what that means? If not you really do take these things for granted.

It would be truly comical to see a company policy refusing to pay for crew rest accommodations if two employees go behind the same door.

The point is that the constitution guarantees that you can associate with your friends somewhere. It doesn't guarantee that you can do it on a particular hotel's private property.

[Rockie]

If I didn't want you there you would be trespassing and breaking the law, and if you were breaking the law or disturbing the peace a hotel could kick you out too. Surely that doesn't need to be explained to you. Now, the company could refuse as a matter of policy to pay the room charges if they suspect two people might be breaking their medieval moral code, but they can't stop you from legal association. Nobody can...it's a fundamental freedom. Do you guys get what that means? If not you really do take these things for granted.

It would be truly comical to see a company policy refusing to pay for crew rest accommodations if two employees go behind the same door.

The point is that the constitution guarantees that you can associate with your friends somewhere. It doesn't guarantee that you can do it on a particular hotel's private property.

As long as the hotel has no problem with it yes it does. Does the hotel have a problem with it?

[Rockie]

"It's not a moral code. Two employees in a room together playing scrabble would also be cause for termination."

Jesus Photofly, you're worse than the Taliban. Hands up whoever wants to work for a company who will fire you for illicitly playing scrabble.........................anyone?

[photofly]

So I turn to Google, and search for "employer regulate conduct in hotel"

Lots of interesting links. Nothing directly applicable to Canadian federally regulated companies, but the worldwide consensus is that what employees do in their own time is their own business, with certain exceptions. This would appear to be such an exception.

Australia:
http://www.globalworkplaceinsider.com/2 ... -business/

USA:
http://hotelexecutive.com/business_revi ... -workplace

And there are others. It's not as clear-cut as you think.

"It's not a moral code. Two employees in a room together playing scrabble would also be cause for termination."

Jesus Photofly, you're worse than the Taliban. Hands up whoever wants to work for a company who will fire you for illicitly playing scrabble.........................anyone?

Hands up who wants to work for a company that has a strongly enforced policy against allowing employees into situations where harassment is reasonably foreseeable? Anyone? I thought so....

On the positive side, you are welcome to have as many threesomes and orgies as you like; just as long as there's at least one other person in the room to witness any harassment. Does that set your mind at ease?

[Rockie]

Nothing new. If crew conduct at a hotel reflects poorly on a company then the company can and will take action against you because you are damaging their brand and reputation. Perhaps you can tell us how a bunch of crew members playing scrabble in the Captain's room reflects badly on a company?

How does two consenting adults having carnal relations in a hotel room without disturbing the other guests reflect poorly on a company's reputation? What business is it of the company?

What an absurd conversation....

[photofly]

Nothing new. If crew conduct at a hotel reflects poorly on a company then the company can and will take action against you because you are damaging their brand and reputation. Perhaps you can tell us how a bunch of crew members playing scrabble in the Captain's room reflects badly on a company?

A bunch of crew members is just fine. When it gets down to the last two, someone else will have to stay or they'll have to move to the lobby.

How does two consenting adults having carnal relations in a hotel room without disturbing the other guests reflect poorly on a company's reputation? What business is it of the company?

It's the company's business because the company has no way of telling who is consenting, and who isn't.

If one of those adults the next day accuses the other of sexual harassment then the company has a duty to investigate and decide who's telling the truth. It is precisely this duty that gives the company the right to regulate what its employees do in that hotel room.

Needless to say, having to hold an enquiry is total waste of company time and resource, with no happy ending.

Regardless of the outcome of such an enquiry there is a significant chance of the company being brought into disrepute (just look at WestJet) so the company has every right to take steps to prevent this situation arising.

[land3]

March 9: Maui prosecutors waiting to serve WestJet pilot with summons. Lawsuit alleges sexual assault in 2008 in Grande Prairie by Pilot M. Eight women have now come forward.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/maui-prosecutors-w ... -1.2809549

[Rockie]

It's the company's business because the company has no way of telling who is consenting, and who isn't.

It's not the company's business until one person isn't consenting, that's when it becomes illegal - not before. Haven't you heard the quote "there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation"? Pierre Trudeau said it. Well, neither does your employer.

Why not apply your ridiculous standard to society as a whole? No two people permitted alone anywhere, ever. After all it's our business because we would have no way of telling if someone is consenting or not, and investigating and prosecuting claims is a difficult, expensive burden on society. We just don't know what you're capable of Photofly and you need to be controlled.

[gasbag1]

Photofly

The Canadian Charter of Rights trumps all judgements. No company can tell any employee who or who not they can associate with with in reason. Any reasonable person would understand that humans are not loners. Any company that would require, no 2 employees can be together alone is ridiculous. Normal business could not be completed with that restriction. How could most flight decks be crewed? So how can you make a rule for work and a different rule for layovers.

Even if flight crews were to all men or all female, there can still be many different kinds of harassment.

EDUCATION is the key and along with education is investigation and if necessary, termination. I think all federally regulated companies must have a harassment policy, larger companies have a harassment officer who investigates any complaints.

[photofly]

Haven't you heard the quote "there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation"? Pierre Trudeau said it. Well, neither does your employer.

A hotel room paid for by a company is not a private bedroom, and WestJet is not part of Government.

I'm amused that, so far, you've appealed about Sharia law, the Constitution, and now what PET had to say about the decriminalization of homosexuality. Can you really not think of any more focused objections?

No company can tell any employee who or who not they can associate with with in reason. Any reasonable person would understand that humans are not loners.

It gets better and better. So now you can't spend a night alone in a hotel room - you just have to have company - because otherwise you'll be lonely? If you're scared of the dark, bring a teddy bear, not a Flight Attendant.

This restriction is well within reason, if WestJet has a problem with sexual harassment on layovers.

[True North]

Photofly

The Canadian Charter of Rights trumps all judgements. No company can tell any employee who or who not they can associate with with in reason. Any reasonable person would understand that humans are not loners. Any company that would require, no 2 employees can be together alone is ridiculous. Normal business could not be completed with that restriction. How could most flight decks be crewed? So how can you make a rule for work and a different rule for layovers.

Even if flight crews were to all men or all female, there can still be many different kinds of harassment.

EDUCATION is the key and along with education is investigation and if necessary, termination. I think all federally regulated companies must have a harassment policy, larger companies have a harassment officer who investigates any complaints.

Are you guys for real? Do you actually think that in this country, in this day and age, that someone who is educated enough to land a job flying a 737 at WestJet isn't educated enough to know what sexual harassment is?

I think photofly has come up with a very realistic solution. Freedom to associate?? You can associate in the restaurant, in the bar, at the pool or on the beach. Just not one on one in a company-paid-for hotel room. Good luck challenging that in court. Companies have policies against employees dating for crying out loud. It becomes a condition of employment and if you don't like it, you're free to seek employment elsewhere.

Whatever the outcome of this debacle, whether it's shown that WestJet was negligent or even if they did everything they could - especially if they did everything they could, I expect they will introduce some new and quite possibly "draconian" measures to protect themselves in the future.

[brooks]

So she got intoxicated and went to Pilot M's hotel room for some "light balcony conversation". Another flight attendant comes forward who had a sleep over but because it wasn't a great sleep over it was probably sexual harassment.

This is turning into a Jian Ghomeshi 2.0. In my opinion if Mandalena doesn't stop with the sassy TV interviews she risks damaging her case and ultimately might be looking at a defamation lawsuit, considering her FB post and public petition to oust Greg S.

[photofly]

I don't think it's her petition.

[Roar]

I'd like to preface my comment by saying that I am in no way accusing nor defending either the Pilot or FA's actions, I have no idea what happen therefore cannot pass judgement .
I am simply making a comment on an interesting point this thread has brought up. That point is when you are in your hotel room that is paid for by the company, are you "at Work" ?
The government of Canada defines work as. "Generally, "work" is given a broad definition as using or engaging the services of another.
Furthermore, it can be said that an employee is at work when he or she is at the disposal of the employer and under the employer's direction at the place of work." Given that definition I would postulate that since the employee at the hotel is not at the disposal of the employer as they are "off duty" and since the hotel becomes the employees de facto home they are no longer "at the place of work". Therefore the employee does not meet the criteria for "at work" while at a hotel (my opinion only).

Not to pick on you Photofly, but you have been the chief poster that the employee is under the direction of the employer while at the hotel so I'm sure you will disagree with me on the above point. Lets suppose that you are correct and I'm wrong. Then would it not follow that since the employee is at the disposal and under the direction of the employer at the hotel and therefore "at work", that said employee should be compensated for all those hours at the hotel? By that I mean, aviation is federally regulated in terms of the labour code and since aviation has variable schedules most aviation companies use an Averaging of hours plan which removes the requirement to pay over time after 8 hours of work per day or 40 hours per week and replaces it with an average over a defined period of time, using 40 times the number of weeks in the averaging period. For example lets say the employer uses a 52 week average that equates to 2080 hours a year. Given your position that the employee is at work for what amounts to 24 hours a day while on the road, after only 87 days on the road the employee should be getting overtime.
If you are correct in your assertion, and I certainly hope you are, that's great news as aircrews are about to make a lot more money!!

I am certainly not a labour lawyer and could very well be misinterpreting the labour code. Thoughts, comments, explain to me where my interpretation is flawed, I'm more than happy to listen.
Cheers,

[boeingboy]

So she got intoxicated and went to Pilot M's hotel room for some "light balcony conversation". Another flight attendant comes forward who had a sleep over but because it wasn't a great sleep over it was probably sexual harassment.

Really? Try reading about what happened. Dont trivialize what happened.

All 6 crew went to the hotel room and were socializing. After a while they left one by one. The FA in question then tried to leave and he attacked her.

[photofly]

I'd like to preface my comment by saying that I am in no way accusing nor defending either the Pilot or FA's actions, I have no idea what happen therefore cannot pass judgement .
I am simply making a comment on an interesting point this thread has brought up. That point is when you are in your hotel room that is paid for by the company, are you "at Work" ?

Here is what the Ontario Human Rights Commission has to say:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/sexual-harassm ... fact-sheet

"Applying the Human Rights Code in employment
The Code says every person has the right to be free from unwelcome advances or solicitation in employment. “Employment” includes applying and interviewing for a job, volunteer work, internships, etc. It also includes activities or events that happen outside of normal business hours or off business premises, but are linked to the workplace and employment.

Example: An employer may be held liable for incidents that take place during business trips, company parties or other company-related functions."

Accepting the different jurisdiction in this case, it's hard to argue that different principles entirely will apply under Federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal on this point in Simpson vs. Consumer Association of Canada:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... 23994.html

It would be artificial and contrary to the purpose of controlling sexual harassment in the workplace to say that after-hours interaction between a supervisor and other employees cannot constitute the workplace for the purpose of the application of the law regarding employment-related sexual harassment.

Nobody in this case - certainly not Westjet - claims the employer has no responsibility for what happens between staff in hotel rooms on layovers.

[Roar]

Here is what the Ontario Human Rights Commission has to say:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/sexual-harassm ... fact-sheet

That's interesting and seems reasonable. Is there a similar definition that covers Federally regulated workers? And I'm unfamiliar with the OHRC who are they, do there definitions equate to legal definitions?

[complexintentions]

So she got intoxicated and went to Pilot M's hotel room for some "light balcony conversation". Another flight attendant comes forward who had a sleep over but because it wasn't a great sleep over it was probably sexual harassment.

Really? Try reading about what happened. Dont trivialize what happened.

All 6 crew went to the hotel room and were socializing. After a while they left one by one. The FA in question then tried to leave and he attacked her.

Uh...is that last bit a legally proven fact? Or just hearsay?

Because you see, that's actually the bar to clear. Not just someone's word.

That's the problem. Too many people are reading allegations as "something that happened". Wrong, both legally and practically.

Unfortunately the complainant's openly displayed militancy about gender issues doesn't suggest an unbiased outlook on the situation...

[Shady McSly]

I don't think Westjet's going to make the 'Top 100 Employers of 2016' list.

[Rockie]

Well photofly, your elegantly simple solution is actually the law in many parts of the world. Makes one wonder why no Canadian companies have adopted it, I'm sure Westjet would try anything at this point.

Maybe if she were wearing a burka this wouldn't have happened....

In fact make everybody wear a burka on layovers to avoid that pesky "sexism" thing. Call it an off duty uniform.