EK Disciplinary Hearings
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK Disciplinary Hearings
With so many pilots and cabin crew going through disciplinary proceedings and receiving warning letters, it occurred to me that perhaps we should look at the matter in a different way.
I propose that from now on, a disciplinary hearing should be joyously embraced, and a warning letter should be viewed as a badge of honour. To this end, most supermarkets and stationary stores sell small stars, which should be worn on the lapel of the shirt or jacket.
A bronze star for a “verbal warning”.
A silver star for a “written warning” and
A gold star for a “final written warning”.
Any attempts by staff to intentionally confuse the “verbal warning” which is in writing, with the “written warning” which is also in writing, in order to unlawfully accumulate silver stars should be discouraged, and may result in disciplinary action.
Naturally, you would be in contravention of the uniform standards manual, which would then result in a further disciplinary hearing, and the accumulation of stars in a manner that would make any tin-pot dictator quite envious.
For the select few who received a final written warning with summary dismissal and loss of “EOSB/Provident Fund/Pension, a platinum star with ribbon would be worn on the lapel of your business attire as you are escorted out of the country by security/immigration.
I propose that from now on, a disciplinary hearing should be joyously embraced, and a warning letter should be viewed as a badge of honour. To this end, most supermarkets and stationary stores sell small stars, which should be worn on the lapel of the shirt or jacket.
A bronze star for a “verbal warning”.
A silver star for a “written warning” and
A gold star for a “final written warning”.
Any attempts by staff to intentionally confuse the “verbal warning” which is in writing, with the “written warning” which is also in writing, in order to unlawfully accumulate silver stars should be discouraged, and may result in disciplinary action.
Naturally, you would be in contravention of the uniform standards manual, which would then result in a further disciplinary hearing, and the accumulation of stars in a manner that would make any tin-pot dictator quite envious.
For the select few who received a final written warning with summary dismissal and loss of “EOSB/Provident Fund/Pension, a platinum star with ribbon would be worn on the lapel of your business attire as you are escorted out of the country by security/immigration.
That's hilarious.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys , That's not fair .You have commandeered a concept which has taken your neighbour AAB out there 40 minutes to the west , years and years to get recognized across the entire Gulf !! So much so it can be used as a letter of recommendation and a free pass through Days1 & 2 of the assessment .
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: .
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we assume that all TRIs/TREs are on a final written warning?
Or does a tailored gold star, when not a trainer, automatically result in a final written warning, thereby allowing you to keep the gold star that you had tailored?
Or does a tailored gold star, when not a trainer, automatically result in a final written warning, thereby allowing you to keep the gold star that you had tailored?
short flights long nights
Is it a talking email?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damnit....my warning got rescinded an hour or two later after some thought was finally put into what they were saying!!! Would have lost my star......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Nikita!
On a more serious note, is anyone else absolutely appalled by the fact that the company can take away 66% of your Provident Fund in the event you are found guilty of a rather vaguely interpretted "gross misconduct"?
It seems horrifying to me that having already taken your career and dignity, they now reach in and take your pension as well.
In recent times, there have been a few cases where the company has "offered" pilots the rather stark choice of "resign and go quietly" or else we invoke chapter C6 of the ERM, and take your pension. In some cases, that's a hit of well over a million Dhs, and not really a choice at all.
Are there any other companies in the world that do the same?
We all go to work knowing that our job is only as good as our next landing, but our pension as well?
All comments gladly received; rational and otherwise.
On a more serious note, is anyone else absolutely appalled by the fact that the company can take away 66% of your Provident Fund in the event you are found guilty of a rather vaguely interpretted "gross misconduct"?
It seems horrifying to me that having already taken your career and dignity, they now reach in and take your pension as well.
In recent times, there have been a few cases where the company has "offered" pilots the rather stark choice of "resign and go quietly" or else we invoke chapter C6 of the ERM, and take your pension. In some cases, that's a hit of well over a million Dhs, and not really a choice at all.
Are there any other companies in the world that do the same?
We all go to work knowing that our job is only as good as our next landing, but our pension as well?
All comments gladly received; rational and otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never heard of anyone having their provident fund retained. This Company has always offered the opportunity to resign, thus allowing them to keep all of the fund even after cases of sexual harassment and gross negligence (that's the carrot to avoid messy legal action and bad press).
And the only fund they could legally retain is the A fund as that's the fund they've contributed too. The B & C fund will always be yours whatever the situation as that was your contribution.
And the only fund they could legally retain is the A fund as that's the fund they've contributed too. The B & C fund will always be yours whatever the situation as that was your contribution.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UAE
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I look at the other way round- the threat of loosing 66% of your retirement fund (who could afford that if they have been here more than a couple of years?) is used as a stick to beat you with if you threaten to turn awkward with threats of legal action and media exposure. Emirates doesn't use carrots for anything, there is only the stick.
As snake says, where else could a company threaten to take half your pension fund off you if you misbehave and/or make a mistake?
As snake says, where else could a company threaten to take half your pension fund off you if you misbehave and/or make a mistake?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more common than people realise, even in 'civilised' Europe. Have heard of several cases of police who've had their pensions removed when they've been sacked for gross misconduct.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be the case BYMONEK. It is worth considering though how easily you can be 'had' for 'gross misconduct'. At home you will have easy access to labour laws and courts, Unions and management that are held accountable by law. So while you can end up losing your pension, the reasons would be quiet solid and justified.
Last edited by han.solo; 19th Apr 2015 at 05:28. Reason: syntax / clarification
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In many cases a Public Servant such as a Policeman most likely has a tax payer funded pension not self funded. If found guilty after a fair hearing available in say Europe, it would be a bit of a stretch to expect the taxpayer to then pay for their retirement...Very different situation.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ
The A fund is not 'self funded', it's funded by the Company. That's the point I'm trying to make here and is perhaps being missed. I'm not questioning the possible unethical process that may or may not be used, just whether a person has the right to a pot of money that the Company has provided. Whether we like to accept it or not, there are unfortunately a very small minority of our colleagues who do stupid things at times, not always unintentionally.
Hypothetical scenario; Two pilots join on the same date and each do 10 years service, one unblemished, the other of sailing close to the wind with many warnings under his belt. Both now leave exact same day but under different circumstances with bad boy 'resigning' (getting fired) and golden balls having a joint retirement party on the third floor with TCAS. Following your logic, and apologies if I misunderstand you here, it's acceptable that both leave with the same Company contributions? I know I'll be shouted down for this, but I think the Company would have every right to keep its own contributions if a person was genuinely found guilty of gross misconduct. To not accept that principle would surely go against the true meaning of a 'just' culture, something that most of us support and demand in our challenging environment. The fact that the Company has always offered a more satisfactory option to resign must surely be a good think for those involved, no?
How the Company gets to that stage, however, is a different story altogether and not one that could always be defended.
The A fund is not 'self funded', it's funded by the Company. That's the point I'm trying to make here and is perhaps being missed. I'm not questioning the possible unethical process that may or may not be used, just whether a person has the right to a pot of money that the Company has provided. Whether we like to accept it or not, there are unfortunately a very small minority of our colleagues who do stupid things at times, not always unintentionally.
Hypothetical scenario; Two pilots join on the same date and each do 10 years service, one unblemished, the other of sailing close to the wind with many warnings under his belt. Both now leave exact same day but under different circumstances with bad boy 'resigning' (getting fired) and golden balls having a joint retirement party on the third floor with TCAS. Following your logic, and apologies if I misunderstand you here, it's acceptable that both leave with the same Company contributions? I know I'll be shouted down for this, but I think the Company would have every right to keep its own contributions if a person was genuinely found guilty of gross misconduct. To not accept that principle would surely go against the true meaning of a 'just' culture, something that most of us support and demand in our challenging environment. The fact that the Company has always offered a more satisfactory option to resign must surely be a good think for those involved, no?
How the Company gets to that stage, however, is a different story altogether and not one that could always be defended.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I'll be shouted down for this, but I think the Company would have every right to keep its own contributions if a person was genuinely found guilty of gross misconduct.
There lies the whole question.
If this is unilaterally in the company's esteem, with no unbiased legal recourse, then you are completely wrong to defend the whole thing.
Now you can pretend that this is not the case, that we could go to court with a fair chance, then i repeat what i said on another thread:
You are simply naive.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glofish
I think my last paragraph confirms what you're saying so you're preaching to the converted. That's not my point and I think I've made it quite clear that's the case. I'm most certainly not trying to 'defend the whole thing'.
As for the legal system, it would be irresponsible to comment, given the new rules of bad mouthing Dubai.
I think my last paragraph confirms what you're saying so you're preaching to the converted. That's not my point and I think I've made it quite clear that's the case. I'm most certainly not trying to 'defend the whole thing'.
As for the legal system, it would be irresponsible to comment, given the new rules of bad mouthing Dubai.