Pilot takes former employer to court

[sexy time]

Folks - watch this space.....just when NZ aviation seems to be settling down again after some media attention about pilots taking employers to court (and losing!) we have another.......

Apparently the individual was sacked from a reputable GA operator for being an absolute muppet and after it dawned upon this person that a dismissal is rather a smudge on ones CV he has enlisted some flash lawyers (with daddy's money) to try and "turn back time".....

Win or lose the attention will do his career aspirations no good whatsover!

[shovel]

Reputable GA employer??:} Anyway will watch this space.

[ginjockey]

Based on some of the rot that gets posted on these pages these days the terms " sacked for being a muppet" could mean anything and the term " reputable GA employer" could also mean absolutely anything. He could be a t*sser sacked from a good employer or he could be a great employee sacked by a dodgey rat with a few planes and a mobile phone. It all depends on one's personal bias when it hits an internet chat room.

I'm sure that this one little case, whatever it may be, is hardly the death knell for anything. Lets see what the court says, if it proceeds. That's the safest way to the facts isn't it?

cheers

Gin

[jack red]

The court will sort that out.

[Onewordanswer]

I don't know the employer or the employee or any facts whatsoever but I am firmly on the side of the employer on this one. Apparently the individual was sacked from a reputable GA operator for being an absolute muppet I mean one can't really expect people to fly with a puppet. Although I guess if it was freight there would be a case to answer.:}

[cjam]

Me too. I mean how can you seriously expect a muppet to make command decisions under pressure.If he was flying twins then I seriously doubt his wooly legs would have been strong enough to counter the yaw induced by an engine failure on take off, and everyone knows that their button eyes are prone to popping off in turbulence. It's just rediculous.

[118.8]

Won't be the first time the "reputable GA operator" has been in the emloyment court

:E

[jack red]

Won't be the first time the "reputable GA operator" has been in the emloyment court
--------------and LOST !

[Frickman]

Here, wot av you lot got against muppets.

After all, they managed to send PIGGS INNN SPAAAACE.

[mattyj]

One of my previous GA employers reminds me of the two old guys in the balcony..

...manamana do do do do..

[Bongo Bus Driver]

Hey Sexy
I hear the case has gone to court. Do you have an update on how it went????

[the maori mobster]

then the muppet gets picked up by the opposition to go fly for them?

now does that mean the new operator are muppets or that the first operator lost a good thing?

i think the the first option.

muppets are everywhere and they show there faces in all the wrong places at all the wrong times.

muppets are muppets cos they are full of stuffing and a hand up their backsides. take the hand out and they're nothing

[Split Flap]

Court verdict out in a couple of weeks............

[sexy time]

In my opinion the VERDICT is all ready out !

Air adventures no 2 - ready in waiting!

Sexy

P.S Apologies for any offence caused to muppet lovers - I to have soft spot for small fury farm animals!

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

****! You are the funniest golfer I ever did hear.

First beer is on me while you tell the jokes! :ok:

[clark6]

Well the verdict is out, and it looks like Sexy Time is the real muppet, for calling the facts before they are really decided!

It was found that the "Reputable GA Employers," decision to dismiss the "Muppet Pilot," was not a decision which a fair and reasonable employer could make in all the circumstances.

Not only that but the employee was found to be completely blameless in that he in no way contributed to the dismissal.

The dismissal was found to be the result of poor training and was carried out in a premptory fashion.

Lets also consider the following:

The employee gave the employer every opportunity to settle out of court, including the offer of paying his own legal fees provided the employer removed the dismissal and put it down to a resignation. They refused and said they would rather go to court.

Additionally after no extra flying training the employee was employed by the opposition, and successfully passed his check straight away.

Something deeper here! I think so.

"Muppet Pilot" 1
"Reputable GA Employer" 0

[118.8]

I would tend to go with....

"Muppet Pilot" 0
"Reputable GA Employer" 0

There were no winners on this one.

[Bongo Bus Driver]

I agree with 118.8.

In fact the current employees of the employer are the biggest losers. If money has to be spent on fines etc then there is less money available to upgrade the fleet or to pay higher wages.

[NZLeardriver]

So what company was it?

[sexy time]

Clark 6 (or pehaps more aptly clown 6 / clown's daddy)

It is rather ironic or perhaps a bad omen that I read "The Verdict" the same day I read an article about the Air Adventures crash.

The underlining theme from both events is that there are certain indivuals that simply do not have the attributes to operate an aircraft safety!

Evidence given by several of the former employee's workmates spoke of an inconsistent / arrogance attitude towards his flying.

Unfortunately it appears the employment court has focused on the method of the individual's dismissal and not the reason behind it.

Yes the individual was employed by the opposition - for political purposes alone - now that these purposes has been served and it dawns upon the new employer just how dangerous this individual is he will find himself without work. This time there will be no contract/employment law to hide behnd. Let's hope it happens before we have another "Air Adventures crash"

There is no winner out of this debacle - the former employer can rest easy that they have done their best to remove this threat. Unfortunately the loser is still the NZ public as they are unknowingly / undeservedly being exposed to this clown!!

Let this "forum" speak the truth !!

Over and out

sex

[Wizofoz]

I don't know the details of this case, but I must say that I have always found aviation companies, especially small GA outfits, have always seemed to think they existed in some kind of time warp, immune from the harsh realities of modern employment law and litigation.

IF the pilot in question DID have problems, the employer could have followed a proper course of retraining, disciplinery procedures, official warnings and finally dismissal. Particularly in flying, you'd find the employee would usually leave before it got to dismissal, saving everybody the hassle.

Right or wrong, the days of "I'm the boss, you're fired" is over, and dealing with employees such that you cover yourself is just a (considerable!!) cost of doing business.

[Emperor Palpatine]

'Evidence given by several of the former employee's workmates spoke of an inconsistent / arrogance attitude towards his flying'

hey sexy time, didnt it also come out at the trial that these statements that you mention were written by one of the company owners??? Think so!!!

[Whisky Hatch]

Didn't it also come out that his ability was very sub-standard?? Bringing about this whole issue in the first place??

But anyway, good luck to the guy...

And to his future employers.

[Swamp Donkey]

Sexy time - thanks for the facts!

Whiskey Hatch - correct !

Emperor Ballbags - I gave evidence and I wrote it and it is the truth!!

[Split Flap]

So now companies have to wait untill an pilot scrunches some of their equipment before they are allowed to discontinue the pilots employment.
Sounds real clever. Just another hole in the swiss cheese if you ask me.
Im sure that the employer didn't fire the pilot just because they didn't like the color of his socks so a degree of "Muppetness" must have been demonstated at some stage.

[Bongo Bus Driver]

Employers should take action if an employee is a danger to themselves and their customers. To do this the employer should have clear guidelines on what qualifications a new employee should have prior to joining a company. ie focus on piloting skills not the other bollocks that seems to go on in interviews these days.

Once someone is employed the employer then is responsible to provide adequate training to give the employee a reasonable chance of success. If there is a problem then a clear outline of what is expected should be delivered to the employee.

The employee was given 3 training flights and a check ride to come up to speed. But after the first of these flights the employee was dismissed for serious mis-conduct. Had the employer allowed the employee to complete the 3 flights and the check and if the employee had failed that check then the dismissal would have been justified.

It is my understanding that serious mis-conduct dismissals are for single incidents such as punching out another member of staff, taking drugs or things like that.

The mistakes made on the training flight in question were not in the opinion of the authority serious mis-conduct and because they were mistakes that could be expected of any person under going training.

I hope every employer learns from this and changes their selection and training process to protect themselves from a similiar fate. At the same time it is also the responsibility the pilots to get themselves up to speed and to stay as current as possible because following this discission employers will be looking for higher standards from new staff. If they do not find them then wages will go down to reflect the extra training required to get them up to standard. Or worst still bonding will become common place in GA!!!!!!!!!

[Onewordanswer]

single incidents such as punching out another member of staff
What if you just rough them up a little?:}

[Parablues]

well it's about bloody time! it's time that someone got some "BALLS" in this industry and actually did something!!!