What’s going on up their lately?
They seem to be firing people left right and centre, and for no good reason at that.
I know a few people there and they gave me the skinny on why they were canned. It seems like the ops mgr didn't read the Sask Labour Act. I know he enjoys this website, so I conveniently added a link to it for him:
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/standards/index.htm
Northern Dene Air.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
turbulant sky
- Rank 0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:45 pm
- Location: in the sticks
turbulant sky: I was asking because I was looking them up before and couldn't then and can't know find any information on them. Seeing how Dangler had brought them up, I thought I would ask. I see nothing wrong with that.
I am also curious as to why people are getting fired, but it is nice to have a bit of knowledge about his company don't you think?
Really before you start name calling why don't you just ask why I want to know something about this company. I would be more than happy to let you know.
I am also curious as to why people are getting fired, but it is nice to have a bit of knowledge about his company don't you think?
Really before you start name calling why don't you just ask why I want to know something about this company. I would be more than happy to let you know.
Ask and you shall receive!! But remember you have to ask!!!!
-
Coastal Cowboy
- Rank 2
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:21 pm
Northern Dene Air.
Try looking up Norcanair in Google and that should bring up what you are looking for. It's the same as Northern Dene.
Hope this helps,
CC
Hope this helps,
CC
We're finally on Welfare...C'mon kids help me scatter Car Parts on the Front Lawn..
-
co-joe
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4709
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Try using "cowboy air' in your google search. You'll get better results...
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/3223/
http://www.norcanair.com/info.html
That'll getcha started.
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/3223/
http://www.norcanair.com/info.html
That'll getcha started.
I heard it was a girl from YSF that got busted for nailing some company pilots. Last I checked, you can't fire someone for that. I hope she fights this to the end. BTW, the OPS. Mgr is the same guy that took out a truck on the ice road in his (private!!?? C-172) nearly killing himself and his kid.
How does the saying go?: "People in glass houses......."
How does the saying go?: "People in glass houses......."
-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
HO Driver...For the record, it was NOT the "Operations Manager" that ran into a moving truck, endangering himself, and his child. That was the CP. (like that makes it better somehow?) Anyways, I hear this young lady was quite the looker, and all the guys couldnt work because the blood was too FAR from the TOP of their head! 
This company is run by a decent man, and he treats people fairly (Ops Mgr I mean). Cant speak for how things are up in ZFD or YSF. I somehow doubt that guys were being fired for banging some "willing" participant?
Lets not start bashing these guys. Everything isnt rosey im sure, but they pay their pilots and some former employees of theirs, have some good to say, so who knows? keep it real people.
Fly safe all, Cheers!
This company is run by a decent man, and he treats people fairly (Ops Mgr I mean). Cant speak for how things are up in ZFD or YSF. I somehow doubt that guys were being fired for banging some "willing" participant? Lets not start bashing these guys. Everything isnt rosey im sure, but they pay their pilots and some former employees of theirs, have some good to say, so who knows? keep it real people.
Fly safe all, Cheers!
Unless you are in a Managment / Executive position and whereas you understand and sign the expectations that involve that status of your position the employer in question can not hold a person liable for these types of actions. Or if an employer does state a stipulation on a signing agreement upon hiring. Is this type of office interaction / activity frowned upon...even discouraged? Sure...but it does not hold ground for dismissal. To my knowledge, these incidents took place outside of the work environment, off work time. Therefore, work integrity and work ethic has not been compromised. From my understanding, she was a good employee, pleasant to everyone and did her job. I believe she was layed off...but perhaps by the end of the conversation with her superiors it could have changed to voluntary dismissal. Either way - I would wait until they replace her (hire or laterally move someone in her past position) and then I would sue...and then sue some more.
I think the owners have acted in haste and have twisted their own personal beliefs / preferences in life and incorporated them into the work place. This is not good business practice and is frowned upon - even discouraged by any Labour Board...this is why there are standard guidelines, rights and rules applied and expected to be practiced and followed by all employers.
Considering the recent actions and decisions made over the past few months...who knows, maybe they will be in a position when the words come out from there own mouths..."voluntarily dismissal"
This has brought a whole new "moral low" to this area.
I think it's time to implement an Employee Relation survey... I'm sure the results would be less then surprising to say the least.
So...I say to the persons involved in this over dramatized and extreme consequental incident... - Good luck in your future endeavors and employment...!
I think the owners have acted in haste and have twisted their own personal beliefs / preferences in life and incorporated them into the work place. This is not good business practice and is frowned upon - even discouraged by any Labour Board...this is why there are standard guidelines, rights and rules applied and expected to be practiced and followed by all employers.
Considering the recent actions and decisions made over the past few months...who knows, maybe they will be in a position when the words come out from there own mouths..."voluntarily dismissal"
This has brought a whole new "moral low" to this area.
I think it's time to implement an Employee Relation survey... I'm sure the results would be less then surprising to say the least.
So...I say to the persons involved in this over dramatized and extreme consequental incident... - Good luck in your future endeavors and employment...!
There is fiction in your truth...and truth in your fiction.
Your off duty behaviour can be grounds for dismissal if it is reasonably seen to be damaging the reputation of the company, or if it is significantly interfering with the ability of your co-workers to work with you or each other. There is no requirement for you to have signed a code of conduct agreement or anything else. I think it is quite possible that a series of short term relationships with different co-workers could have a very serious impact on the ability of people to work together productively.
Grounds for dismissal - perhaps, but in a situation like this you need to make sure your backyard is clean ie: Was there a trend of this conduct occurring - if so were reviews and necessary conversations taken before resorting to dismissing the employee. Was there a warning provided?
This girl, regardless if she is pretty or ugly only participated in two situations of where she had interacted with one of her peers.
She was fairly new and I believe no one advised her at any point that this conduct was grounds for dismissal.
I can only speak for myself...but I assure you that that'll be the day my employer has the right to judge what I do in my bed, behind closed doors at 03:00 in the morning.
If results conclude that the work environment is unproductive because of what is occuring out of the work environment and off work time...you better have proof that this is the case.
I wonder if the wives of the OPs managers had any influential say of what the outcome should be...hmmmm?
Either way the decision was made in haste.
This girl, regardless if she is pretty or ugly only participated in two situations of where she had interacted with one of her peers.
She was fairly new and I believe no one advised her at any point that this conduct was grounds for dismissal.
I can only speak for myself...but I assure you that that'll be the day my employer has the right to judge what I do in my bed, behind closed doors at 03:00 in the morning.
If results conclude that the work environment is unproductive because of what is occuring out of the work environment and off work time...you better have proof that this is the case.
I wonder if the wives of the OPs managers had any influential say of what the outcome should be...hmmmm?
Either way the decision was made in haste.
There is fiction in your truth...and truth in your fiction.
If she was only there a short time the burden on the employer is much lower. In fact, you can be terminated "without cause" in the first 30 days . Nothing more than a person just being a poor fit, personality conflict with anyone, etc.
There is nothing bigoted in getting rid of someone who causes peer problems and discontent within the employee group because of their off duty behaviour.
There is nothing bigoted in getting rid of someone who causes peer problems and discontent within the employee group because of their off duty behaviour.
-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
Wilbur... To clarify, aviation falls under the FEDERAL labour code. Therefore, if I dont like the way you cut your hair on your 87th day, I can let you go for THAT reason. Its 90 days not 30 days. Its not "right" or "fair" but thats how its written in our laws. Maybe thats where the "90 days probation" came into play with almost all employers. They know they can turf you within that time frame, with no recourse for the employee. Its not right, but its how it is.
Cheers
Cheers
I think I need to remind everyone that she was not sleeping or pleasuring with only herself.
The fact that one of the male employees was also terminated does not support that the 30 or 90 probation period come into play when deciding their fates.
The probation period was designed to protect employers from employees that lack in job performance. This gives the employer that time to observe and evaluate one's job performance withn a certain time frame. However, upon hiring and upon accepting the position it is consistent business practice that the employer communicates to the employee the probation period and what the expectations are.
Anything outside of that can be up for speculation and judgement. If all business decisions were made based on those two elements...then you are working under a dictatorship which is run by a tyrant.
There was no issue of job perfomance concerns here folks...they got up every morning as the rest of us and did their job to the best of their ability.
If moments of temtation transpired...well it happens.
Jesus...even Bill Clinton wasn't fired for his extraculitar activities...
This isn't about business code...work / labour code... this is about power...using it and abusing it.
The fact that one of the male employees was also terminated does not support that the 30 or 90 probation period come into play when deciding their fates.
The probation period was designed to protect employers from employees that lack in job performance. This gives the employer that time to observe and evaluate one's job performance withn a certain time frame. However, upon hiring and upon accepting the position it is consistent business practice that the employer communicates to the employee the probation period and what the expectations are.
Anything outside of that can be up for speculation and judgement. If all business decisions were made based on those two elements...then you are working under a dictatorship which is run by a tyrant.
There was no issue of job perfomance concerns here folks...they got up every morning as the rest of us and did their job to the best of their ability.
If moments of temtation transpired...well it happens.
Jesus...even Bill Clinton wasn't fired for his extraculitar activities...
This isn't about business code...work / labour code... this is about power...using it and abusing it.
There is fiction in your truth...and truth in your fiction.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Lady :
What Bill clinton was engaged in was not sex.
When a young daughter came home on Xmas her mother said, you know dear I hope you are not having sex with the boys at college.
The daughter said, no mom not according to Bill Clinton.
Cat...bad Cat.
What Bill clinton was engaged in was not sex.
When a young daughter came home on Xmas her mother said, you know dear I hope you are not having sex with the boys at college.
The daughter said, no mom not according to Bill Clinton.
Cat...bad Cat.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Not only is this employrer a crappy one to work for this is a fine that they received because they just happened to get caught in YMM. IF TC ramps any of their planes at any given time, they're pretty much garunteed finding some sort of violation.
Corporation:
Northern Dene Airways Ltd.
Date:
Count(s):
Violation:
Penalty:
Location:
2003/08/19
1
CAR 703.19
$4 000
Fort McMurray, Alta.
2003/08/19
1
CAR 703.37(1)
$1 000
Fort McMurray, Alta.
The Company permitted an aircraft to take-off when it had not been maintained in accordance with the air operator’s maintenance control system.
The Company operated an aircraft when the load restrictions, weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft did not conform to the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual.
Corporation:
Northern Dene Airways Ltd.
Date:
Count(s):
Violation:
Penalty:
Location:
2003/08/19
1
CAR 703.19
$4 000
Fort McMurray, Alta.
2003/08/19
1
CAR 703.37(1)
$1 000
Fort McMurray, Alta.
The Company permitted an aircraft to take-off when it had not been maintained in accordance with the air operator’s maintenance control system.
The Company operated an aircraft when the load restrictions, weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft did not conform to the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual.
-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
Dangler... You just lost any credibility you MAY have had with me . I can only speak for myself here, but any person that can find their way HERE to avcanada, can also im sure, find their way to the TC website and obtain any information they wish in regards to violations of this company or ANY company for that matter.
To post it this way, is nothing short of bitterness and a VERY weak attempt at revenge. Your attempts to manipulate peoples thoughts due to 2 fines (in one ramp check), is feeble at best. Check some "other" companies profiles on the TC website, im sure you`ll find ALOT worse. In fact, some may make your toe nails curl when you read them. Im NOT condoning whatever actions occured that caused them to be violated. Thats why they were fined and corrective action taken. Its not like the 80 grand that RXX got now is it? One of our senior Capts was fined 10 grand last year for something that wasnt even close to his fault? Should I post it for all to see? Are these two diffrent issues?.. Depends on if im bitter towards him or not right? I`m not for any reason, so of course I wouldnt (if there was anything to post haha) Im simply stating that you didnt "need" to take a shot that way, and it doesnt do anything to bolster the position you`ve taken. (For the record, this 10 K fine was reduced to 1K and it was from our friends south of the border, who didnt like getting called out of bed without a filed APIS report and 60 mins prior notice that was SENT via the net and not received by them) See how ridiculous "some" fines can be? You made NO point by posting that fine.
I have no opinion of this companies northern ops other then, theres TWO sides to every story (actually 3, but that would take too long to explain) and im certain you are not completely without some fault for your dismissal. As ive stated, I know the Ops Mgr, and hes a decent and fair man. He doesnt "fire" people for fun. That is such a misconception that people have, is that Ops Mgr`s and CP`s seem to enjoy firing people. Again, I can only speak for myself, but ive truly never ONCE enjoyed "letting anyone go". Its frankly one of the worst parts of the position, even moreso then the constant stress, long hours, smoozin with the muckity mucks so your planes fly for another 3 months blah blah. Anyways, was it infact Dangler, the "Ops Mgr" that let you go?
If it was, im confident he had a reasonable explanation IMHO
.
Lady... I agree with your most recent post to this thread. I certainly didnt mean to imply that employers use that 90 days probation as "an out". You are quite correct that it is supposed to be a time of observation by both employer and employee, to determine if the individual is suited to the company, and visa versa. Sadly, yes, some employers view this as an out, but all I can comment on (not knowing any of the details) is that the Ops Mgr at this company, doesnt "headhunt" that way. Perhaps this young ladies conduct was contrary to what the company expects from its employees? Like I said before, im very uneducated as to what happens in ZFD & YSF, however, they have some decent people on staff and they pay fairly, espically if you are willing to stay on for a few years.
Stay Positive! There are MUCH worse companies then this one out there to work for, and dangler sounds like a child that got grounded because he was caught with his hand in the company cookie jar to be frank.
Fly safe all FTB .
To post it this way, is nothing short of bitterness and a VERY weak attempt at revenge. Your attempts to manipulate peoples thoughts due to 2 fines (in one ramp check), is feeble at best. Check some "other" companies profiles on the TC website, im sure you`ll find ALOT worse. In fact, some may make your toe nails curl when you read them. Im NOT condoning whatever actions occured that caused them to be violated. Thats why they were fined and corrective action taken. Its not like the 80 grand that RXX got now is it? One of our senior Capts was fined 10 grand last year for something that wasnt even close to his fault? Should I post it for all to see? Are these two diffrent issues?.. Depends on if im bitter towards him or not right? I`m not for any reason, so of course I wouldnt (if there was anything to post haha) Im simply stating that you didnt "need" to take a shot that way, and it doesnt do anything to bolster the position you`ve taken. (For the record, this 10 K fine was reduced to 1K and it was from our friends south of the border, who didnt like getting called out of bed without a filed APIS report and 60 mins prior notice that was SENT via the net and not received by them) See how ridiculous "some" fines can be? You made NO point by posting that fine.
I have no opinion of this companies northern ops other then, theres TWO sides to every story (actually 3, but that would take too long to explain) and im certain you are not completely without some fault for your dismissal. As ive stated, I know the Ops Mgr, and hes a decent and fair man. He doesnt "fire" people for fun. That is such a misconception that people have, is that Ops Mgr`s and CP`s seem to enjoy firing people. Again, I can only speak for myself, but ive truly never ONCE enjoyed "letting anyone go". Its frankly one of the worst parts of the position, even moreso then the constant stress, long hours, smoozin with the muckity mucks so your planes fly for another 3 months blah blah. Anyways, was it infact Dangler, the "Ops Mgr" that let you go?
If it was, im confident he had a reasonable explanation IMHO
.
Lady... I agree with your most recent post to this thread. I certainly didnt mean to imply that employers use that 90 days probation as "an out". You are quite correct that it is supposed to be a time of observation by both employer and employee, to determine if the individual is suited to the company, and visa versa. Sadly, yes, some employers view this as an out, but all I can comment on (not knowing any of the details) is that the Ops Mgr at this company, doesnt "headhunt" that way. Perhaps this young ladies conduct was contrary to what the company expects from its employees? Like I said before, im very uneducated as to what happens in ZFD & YSF, however, they have some decent people on staff and they pay fairly, espically if you are willing to stay on for a few years.
Stay Positive! There are MUCH worse companies then this one out there to work for, and dangler sounds like a child that got grounded because he was caught with his hand in the company cookie jar to be frank.
Fly safe all FTB .
The other 2??
Anyone care to shed some light on possible reasons why the other two guys were let go? One was one of the Base Managers appointed this time last year. I am told by former co workers in the know that the certain Base Manager was let go as a result of standing up for the young lady. I AM NOT in the know, however I do respect the opinions of said people. The other also there over 12 months, aparently made a mistake delivering the wrong kind of fuel to a customer and was given a letter NOT a face to face dismissal. I am not sure about you folks out there but I would sure not appreciate a letter firing me after I had worked, for said company, for over a year only making $1000/month before tax.
Anyway happy flying!
P.S. NO I was not terminated from this company.
Anyway happy flying!
P.S. NO I was not terminated from this company.
Gards - To my knowledge no one was dismissed for making the attempt to stand up for the girl in question.
You are halfway correct about the dude who was let go. I'm pretty sure he hadn't been there for over a year. Nevertheless, he supplied the seasonal / tourist customers with the wrong type of fuel. Unfortunately, this resulted with people stranded, some in the middle of no where's, overnight. The fuel was used for motor boats (for fishing) four wheelers, ATV's etc. Arrangements had to be made to locate these said people. In some instances they had to fly and search for them.
Considering some of these tourists / customers are well off and were left stranded in the middle of no wheres due to a significant error...I think the fate of this employee was inevidable.
Trust me...before he received the letter (not sure if that is how it actually went down) communicating his dismissal...I'm sure if he had any business common sense it was pretty much a given.
In my opinion I would have made the same business decision.
You are halfway correct about the dude who was let go. I'm pretty sure he hadn't been there for over a year. Nevertheless, he supplied the seasonal / tourist customers with the wrong type of fuel. Unfortunately, this resulted with people stranded, some in the middle of no where's, overnight. The fuel was used for motor boats (for fishing) four wheelers, ATV's etc. Arrangements had to be made to locate these said people. In some instances they had to fly and search for them.
Considering some of these tourists / customers are well off and were left stranded in the middle of no wheres due to a significant error...I think the fate of this employee was inevidable.
Trust me...before he received the letter (not sure if that is how it actually went down) communicating his dismissal...I'm sure if he had any business common sense it was pretty much a given.
In my opinion I would have made the same business decision.
There is fiction in your truth...and truth in your fiction.
Wilbur:
Agreed if someone does not play well with others and gets terminated in the first 90 days it is perfectly legal. In my experience it is usually for the best.
If what someone does behind closed doors is causing you peer problems and discontent then it is your problem, not theirs. I can understand that you could be uncomfortable working with someone whose values are different from your own, but the second your intolerance leads you to believe that it is their problem, you are a bigot.
Agreed if someone does not play well with others and gets terminated in the first 90 days it is perfectly legal. In my experience it is usually for the best.
If what someone does behind closed doors is causing you peer problems and discontent then it is your problem, not theirs. I can understand that you could be uncomfortable working with someone whose values are different from your own, but the second your intolerance leads you to believe that it is their problem, you are a bigot.
Ahramin,
I know nothing of the specifics of this case, so what I am about to say here is hypothetical and in no way intended to represent what these people may have done.
If you have an employee who engages in short term personal sexual relationships with a number of co-workers, can you see the potential for conflict and hard feelings between those co-workers? Can you see the potential impact on safety if you have two pilots trying to fly an aircraft together who have been in conflict over their "private relationships" with a co-worker?
What somebody does on their own time is their own business, until it begins to have an affect on my business. If the off-duty behaviour of a "rounder" employee creates issues that begin spilling into my worksite it becomes my business. My need to restore a work environment in which co-workers enjoy healthy interpersonal relationships has nothing to do with morality or bigotry; it's pure business pragmatics.
I know nothing of the specifics of this case, so what I am about to say here is hypothetical and in no way intended to represent what these people may have done.
If you have an employee who engages in short term personal sexual relationships with a number of co-workers, can you see the potential for conflict and hard feelings between those co-workers? Can you see the potential impact on safety if you have two pilots trying to fly an aircraft together who have been in conflict over their "private relationships" with a co-worker?
What somebody does on their own time is their own business, until it begins to have an affect on my business. If the off-duty behaviour of a "rounder" employee creates issues that begin spilling into my worksite it becomes my business. My need to restore a work environment in which co-workers enjoy healthy interpersonal relationships has nothing to do with morality or bigotry; it's pure business pragmatics.
-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
