|Table of Contents |
Being Cabin Crew | The Ugly Truth Part 3
Page 1 – Fighting Hatred in the Workplace
Page 2 – Employing a Sociopath
Page 3 – The Day that Changed My Life
Page 3 – When It All Becomes Too Much
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 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. Had it been reported a week earlier I’m certain someone would have been in contact with me sooner, especially considering it came from the CEO.
I was contacted by Fred around midday on the 22nd. 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 having 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 Jack and I. I also think he would also have made reference to them in his email. Afterall his email documented what had taken place.
When I asked him by 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 hadn’t 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 operate a further two flights which is four sectors to/from Tel Aviv.
The reason Fred hadn’t seen copies of the messages was because it was all very last minute. The only thing Jack sent when he reported the matter to the Head of Cabin Crew was a copy of my post.
Having seen my name on the flight the day before it was due to leave, I believe Jack wanted me to be removed. I’m also sure he would have been extremely busy preparing for the press launch flight the following day. Fred therefore 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 along with screenshots of the messages exchanged between Jack and myself;
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. Bear in mind all this has 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 liked the post and have spoken to both people.
Take a look at these points which come from the company’s policy manual. I’ve deleted 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 now 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;
I think it would be difficult to substantiate raising a grievance against me for a post the company felt was negative when “kvetching” seems to be an old Jewish tradition. 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 people all of whom would have taken the comment 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 (Jewish people shouldn’t use the O when writing the word G-d).
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 would depend on the context in which it was said.
So why was my comment treated not only as a grievance but as final written warning?
This is one of the emojis I used in my post;
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 showing your face, even though you work in recruitment and as cabin crew. You’ll have to read the next chapter of my blog to see what I mean by that!
The video I’m referring to was widely shared around the company. The employee concerned who was on my flight to Atlanta is still employed.
It also excludes replaying a “pornographic video” on your iPad in full view of anyone who may want to watch it. I’m referring to the cartoon I sent to T and Ven on the bus to the airport in Atlanta.
From the very beginning there was never any chance of this matter being dropped. Fred was determined for this grievance to be upheld just like the previous two managers were determined for Bart’s grievance to be upheld.
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 Cabin Crew basically said that in the outcome of my appeal.
This is what she said;
In recent years you were rarely thanked for doing something well but as soon as you did something wrong you’d hear from a manager immediately.
This is why I occasionally wrote a more detailed performance review on cabin crew 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. Take a look at this.
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 this crew member 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. We had never flown before 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 crew line 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 sent to the Head of Cabin Crew.
Earlier in this chapter I mention 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 feel the need to include this to reiterate once again how much of my free time I gave to the company.