|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
Fighting Hatred in the Workplace
In 2011 I had an encounter with the Head of Cabin Crew that led to me reporting her for breach of confidentiality. I believe in 2019 when my name came to her attention because of the grievance raised against me by Bart, that she used the opportunity for revenge.
When a second incident was then reported to her by the CEO she asked for it to be dealt with as a final written warning. Bart’s grievance was also being dealt with as a final written warning.
She would have been aware that in line with company policy if upheld, I could be dismissed.
Quite early on in the first grievance investigation I sensed something wasn’t right. Despite Bart’s complaint being made up entirely of lies, crew line manager Lana who conducted the initial investigation didn’t appear to be overly concerned.
In law the objective of a grievance is described as an opportunity to collate balanced evidence from both sides and to be fair and objective. It’s not about proving guilt. The purpose of the investigation is to establish whether there has been a breach of any company policies.
It was clear from the start, this investigation was taking a different direction. There was no interest in establishing whether the allegations that had been made were truthful. The company only seemed to be interested in ensuring the grievance against me was upheld.
The evidence being examined was far from balanced. Every word I said in my defence was the truth and was backed up with hard indisputable evidence. Everything Bart said in his complaint was a lie. The only evidence he could provide to support his allegations came from his now ex fiancée and three or possibly four crew with whom he colluded.
Bart whose an ex police officer is a manipulative liar with a sense of entitlement. He was aggrieved at not having been given the opportunity to work up in a supervisory position on our flight. A colleague who had been with the company for just a few months longer was given that opportunity.
He had never flown previously and having joined the company in February 2018 had been with the company for just eleven months. Katrina who worked up as Cabin Supervisor had flown with another airline for thirty years, twenty as a Cabin Manager.
Later in my blog when witness statements are published you’ll see collusion between Bart, Anna and Ven could not have been more obvious. Despite that, in the outcome to my appeal the Head of Cabin Crew stated she could find no evidence of collusion.
All crew line managers report to the Head of Cabin Crew. Since publishing the first chapter of my blog I’ve been told she’s the driving force behind most if not all grievance investigations. She has since left the company.
Following the initial investigation carried out by cabin crew manager Lana, I was told there was no case to answer for the complaint of bullying and harassment. That was in relation to bullying and harassment on the aircraft.
Bart’s entire complaint focussed on character assassination. He was upset at not having been given the opportunity to work up in a supervisory role. He was also unhappy that I had addressed several performance related issues with him during the flight. I then wrote a performance appraisal that was copied to his manager.
Crew line manager Lana went on to say there was a case to answer for several other complaints.
Another complaint that was dismissed following the initial investigation was then upheld by crew manager Hayley who dealt with the disciplinary process.
This relatively new manager had no idea what she was doing and had clearly not read the outcome of the initial investigation properly or at all.
She was repeatedly described by the Head of Cabin Crew as “a very experienced manager” yet nothing could have been further from the truth. She was oblivious that Bart’s complaint about the way I conducted my pre-flight safety briefing and in particular my use of the phrase “up the creek without a paddle” had already been dismissed.
In her farcical investigation that took six weeks to complete she upheld this point along with another regarding my briefing being “unusual and intense”.
The following comes from the outcome of the investigation carried out by crew manager Hayley;
The following screenshot comes from my appeal.
Here’s something interesting about what cabin crew manager Hayley says about the ice-breaker she uses when she flies. Bear in mind this would have meant me asking nine crew an individual question. I then had to ask the same nine crew an individual safety question.
We only have twenty minutes for the pre-flight briefing and there’s a lot of information that must be covered during that time.
According to her LinkedIn profile she was a cabin crew base manager at her previous two airlines. She says nothing about ever having flown as cabin crew.
Although cabin crew line managers at this airline do fly, they do not fly as Flight Manager or Cabin Supervisor. They would therefore never conduct a pre-flight safety briefing.
The following screenshot comes from the outcome of the appeal carried out by the Head of Cabin Crew.
Regarding the comment “up shit creek without a paddle”, what I actually said can be seen in Bart’s complaint;
The following screenshot comes from the outcome of the initial grievance investigation carried out by crew manager Lana;
Bart’s allegation that my briefing included “a bombardment and tirade of safety questions” and that I subsequently “became visibly and verbally annoyed despite everyone answering” was like everything else in his complaint, a devious and malicious lie.
Witness statements from the rest of the crew failed to support this allegation.
Throughout his complaint he recounted situations that had taken place and manipulated them. He knew if he was to be believed he had to get other crew members to support his version of events.
This is someone with an impressive memory for detail which I suppose is a prerequisite of being a police officer. His complaint was submitted almost four weeks after we landed home from our flight to Atlanta.
During the early part of my pre-flight safety briefing I asked the crew six safety related questions. The first three were answered immediately by best friends Katrina and Claire. There was no response from anyone else in the room.
The following screenshot which comes from evidence I submitted shows how Bart manipulated what I said to them to make it appear as if I was “visibly and verbally annoyed”.
Throughout his grievance he attacked every aspect of my behaviour in an attempt to build a picture of someone who was angry, unprofessional and a bully.
I had been a Flight Manager for nineteen years, in the company for almost thirty and had a clean work record. I had also only been back at work for ten months after being off for almost two years with issues relating to my mental health.
The crew members who complained about the different style of delivery of my pre-flight safety briefing in their statements were Bart’s now ex fiancée Anna, Peter and Mia.
Katrina and Claire who had been with their previous airline for thirty years and crew member T who worked up as Economy Cabin Supervisor had no complaints.
A statement made by Lottie was also quite interesting. I’ll share all the responses with you later in the blog. This was the backlash from asking the group as a whole a handful of basic safety questions.
In Bart’s grievance he said he wished for “a suitable sanction to be put in place“. He then said he “was happy for that to be as severe as loss of employment”.
Something else he said can be seen in the screenshot below which comes from minutes taken during his meeting with cabin crew manager Lana. Pedro was the Employee Relations Consultant. His purpose for being present was to take minutes and ensure correct procedures were followed.
The Employment Relations Consultant who is no longer with the company is a solicitor in employment law.
Another complaint made by Bart was my use of the words “quite why” in his performance appraisal. He said he felt I was being sarcastic and was ridiculing him. He claimed that amounted to bullying and harassment. You can see what I wrote here.
The following screenshot comes from the outcome of the initial investigation carried out by crew manager Lana. What’s interesting is that she states in an earlier section of her investigation that she could find no evidence of bullying or harassment having taken place on the aircraft. She then says words I used in my appraisal amount to bullying and harassment.
The following comes from the outcome of crew manager Lana’s investigation;
How does anyone feel when they’re given a constructive appraisal? The only way to progress in your career is to learn new skills and to be developed by those with more experience than you.
When you read the appraisal you’ll see it was written in a courteous and professional manner.
Reading the last paragraph in the screenshot above regarding treating colleagues with dignity and respect, when you read Bart’s complaint and witness statements written by Anna and Ven it shows how farcical this investigation was.
What they wrote was incredibly rude, disrespectful and downright offensive. The fact Bart said he was “happy for the sanction against me to lead to loss of employment” speaks volumes about the nature and character of this spiteful and unpleasant individual.
The union rep’ who accompanied me to several of the meetings said she had never heard anyone say anything like that before. Someone was determined for this grievance to be upheld and I’m pretty sure who that was.
Crew manager Lana repeats elsewhere in her investigation that my words were not respectful or professional. She says I gave no consideration as to how Bart may feel from reading my performance appraisal.
Company policy recommends disputes initially be dealt with through mediation. Despite Bart being in probation he refused this option. That’s because having told a pack of lies there was no way he’d be able to support his diatribe in a face to face meeting with me.