| Table of Contents Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 3 Page 1 – The Head of Cabin Crew Page 2 – Employing a Sociopath Page 3 – The Day Life Changed Page 4 – Shalom Tel Aviv Page 5 – Post Flight Customer Feedback Page 6 – Cue Second Disciplinary Page 7 – Outcome of the Grievance Page 8 – Yee Haw The Last Page! Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 5 |
Outcome of the Grievance
In the outcome to his initial investigation Crew Manager Fred states he learnt on 15th October 2019 that Jack had “raised a concern” about my post. Were that to be true that’s ten days after Jack messaged me.
I believe the complaint was actually made on the 22nd October 2019. Had it been reported a week earlier I believe someone would have been in contact with me sooner, especially considering the complaint came from the CEO of the company.
I was contacted by Fred around midday on the 22nd October. At that time he made no reference to the exchange of messages between Jack and I.
In his email the following day he says nothing about me claiming to have deleted the post. It was me who initially mentioned it.
If Fred became aware of Jack’s complaint on the 15th October as he states, by the 22nd when we first spoke I believe he would have been in possession of a copy of the exchange of messages between us.
I also think he would also have made reference to them in his email. Afterall the email documented what had taken place.
When I asked him on 24th October whether he had see a copy of the conversation between Jack and I he said he had been made aware of it but had not seen a copy. That seems odd considering by the time he replied he had been aware of the matter for ten days.
Furthermore had he genuinely been notified about this matter on the 15th, I’m certain I would not have been allowed to continue operating flights to Tel Aviv.
From the time of the exchange of messages between Jack and I to the time I was contacted by Fred, I operated two flights over a period of two weeks to and from this destination.
The reason Fred hadn’t seen copies of the messages was because it was all very last minute. I believe the only thing Jack sent when he reported the matter was a copy of my post.
Having seen I was part of the operating crew on the press launch flight the following day, I believe Jack wanted me to be removed. I’m also sure he would have been extremely busy preparing for the launch. Therefore Fred had to rely on me sending him copies of the exchange of messages between Jack and I so the investigation could proceed.
The following comes from evidence submitted to Fred;
The following is the outcome of the investigation carried out by Fred. If Jack asked Corporate Communications to remove the post I don’t know why he also asked me to remove it.
Some corrections are needed here. I didn’t say Jack couldn’t have seen the post because I deleted it. This is what I said;
I never claimed to have edited the post. I stated I tried to edit it. This is what the guy from I.T said;
Therefore they did not “confirm” I didn’t edit the post. It was their assumption it wasn’t edited. Any attempt to edit it would not have been visible.
All this had nothing to do with the comment I made that Jack found to be inappropriate.
Fred also states the post was viewed by 38 people but fails to mention two people “liked” it. I only became aware of that during the disciplinary meeting. Until then it had never been mentioned.
I asked the meeting manager to find out who had “liked” it. I’m certain I.T would have access to that information. I have since managed to find out who it was and have spoken to both people.
Take a look at these points which come from the company’s policy manual. I’ve excluded additional examples that are irrelevant;
My post could be perceived as inflammatory language although unintentional. It was definitely unprofessional and could be seen as being disrespectful towards Jewish colleagues/customers. That was never my intention and I was extremely apologetic to the one person I did offend.
According to this company policy the two people who “liked” the post should have been spoken to by their manager. I know they weren’t. That’s probably why the company didn’t want to tell me who they were because they knew I would have asked them.
Although some people may have deemed my post to be negative I’m not sure it would bring the company into disrepute. The following screenshot comes from Chabad.org which is an orthodox Jewish website about all things relating to Judaism;
As I keep saying,this must be kept in context. My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I was poking fun at my own community to a small group of mainly non Jewish people in a private room on a company secure social media platform.
All those except for one who read the comment took it in the spirit in which it was intended.
The dictionary describes “profanity” as blasphemous or obscene language. My language certainly wasn’t obscene but was it blasphemous? The dictionary describes “blasphemous” as being a lack of respect for G-d or religion.
No it wasn’t blasphemous because Jewish people like to kvetch which simply means we’re a fussy lot who expect standards that may not always be easy to achieve. I think every race has their peculiarities, that’s what makes us all unique.
I said immediately I would delete my comment and then thought I already had so I’m safe on the next point.
Was it false or misleading? Not according to many Jewish leaders including the Rabbi I referenced earlier in this chapter.
More recently I have spoken to friends and even my neighbour who’s a rabbi to ask whether they found my comment offensive. They all agreed it totally depends on the context in which it’s said.
In his original message Jack says “I presume this was not intentional but….”.
I made it clear from the start my comment was never meant to cause offence or disrespect to anyone.
I have always wondered and it was mentioned by the Union rep’ who accompanied me to the meeting whether it would have made any difference had I said “US Jews are such a fussy lot”. Or “us blinkin’ Jews are so fussy”. Maybe I should have said “us Jews are a right old bunch of kvetchers!”
This next screenshot comes from the outcome of Fred’s investigation. I’ve highlighted a few points.
Regarding “respecting each other” that clearly excludes anything written by Bart, Anna and Ven no matter how rude, disrespectful and offensive it may be.
Regarding conduct and the points highlighted in the Social Media policy, it excludes uploading a pornographic video of yourself to Instagram full frontal including your face, even though you work in recruitment and also fly. You’ll understand when you read the next chapter.
The video clip I’m referring to was widely shared around the company. The employee in question was on my flight with Bart.
It also excludes replaying a “pornographic video” on your iPad in full view of anyone who wants to watch it. I’m referring to the cartoon I sent to T and Ven on the bus to the airport in Atlanta.
Everything I did in my own time and during my flights to Tel Aviv to try to help make this route a success stood for absolutely nothing. Just like my thirty years with the company. The Head of Department basically says that in the outcome of my appeal.
Bart’s complaint that I didn’t enter crew working positions was dismissed because it was proven not to be true.
With the exception of Anna and Ven, nobody was able to confirm they saw me or were even aware of me touching anyone inappropriately. Except for Peter although what he claimed he was told my Mia was different to what she wrote in her own statement.
Nobody confirmed that Bart was treated any differently to anyone else on the crew. Nobody confirmed they were aware of me ignoring or excluding anyone at any time.
Several other ludicrous claims made by Bart in his complaint were also dismissed because they was no evidence to support them.
Yet this is what the Head of Department said in the outcome of her investigation that I received five days before Christmas;
In recent years within this company I never received thanks or even an acknowledgement when I dealt with something well. This is why I occasionally wrote a more detailed performance review on flying staff with whom I worked. I felt when someone worked hard and had done their very best it deserved to be recognised.
I hoped it would make them feel valued and help with their development and future promotion.
Had it not been acceptable to write these reviews from home or to include a crew member’s manager, my manager or the crew member’s manager could have asked me to stop. Nobody ever did.
Here’s another email conversation with a crew member I flew with. She was on the horrendous flight with me to Miami, the one where I ended up in hospital.
She was extremely kind and supportive. Once back home I read the Voice of Customer feedback comments from our return flight. They were all excellent and two customers mentioned her by name.
She would never get to see the comments because they could not be accessed by the Cabin Crew. I therefore sent her the following email, in my own time. We had never flown previously and never flew again before I was made redundant.
The situation I mention regarding Thomas Cook was in relation to mass redundancies after the airline went into liquidation.
Soon after learning I was facing a second grievance I sent the following email to someone who used to be a Cabin Crew Manager. He then became part of the Product and Service Delivery team and has since been promoted.
I liked him and had a great deal of respect for him. He was always pleasant and respectful to me. Ironically he was one of the six managers who saw a copy of my private and confidential email that was passed around.
Earlier in this chapter I mentioned an email I sent to Fred. In that correspondence I told him I had spoken to another manager about being in Israel over the festival of Yom Kippur.
Here’s the email and his response. I want to include this to once again reiterate how much of my own free time I gave to the company.
Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth 