HNZ held to account
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: brisbane
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HNZ held to account
Last week the Australian Firework Commissioner found HNZ severely wanting in their dealings with a Pilot dismissed as a result of being accused of various serious breaches while performing P1 duties for the company.
The commissioner ruled 'the process involving the investigation..by various HNZ managers was blatantly flawed and unjust.. it is difficult to imagine any investigative process which could more blatantly disregard the principles of natural justice... the dismissal was harsh unjust and unreasonable... etc etc etc..
(lots more written on the subject- all available in the public domain)
The co pilot was also mentioned as having a memory that 'improved' with time
As a friend and ex work colleague of the 'accused' I am well aware of the effort and toll this took upon this professional and upstanding individual for the year or so this took to come to fruition.
To those at HNZ who took this action against the individual ...
To the person who now has a clear name (in the eyes of the law) well done, sometimes justice is served, a superb individual
The commissioner ruled 'the process involving the investigation..by various HNZ managers was blatantly flawed and unjust.. it is difficult to imagine any investigative process which could more blatantly disregard the principles of natural justice... the dismissal was harsh unjust and unreasonable... etc etc etc..
(lots more written on the subject- all available in the public domain)
The co pilot was also mentioned as having a memory that 'improved' with time
As a friend and ex work colleague of the 'accused' I am well aware of the effort and toll this took upon this professional and upstanding individual for the year or so this took to come to fruition.
To those at HNZ who took this action against the individual ...
To the person who now has a clear name (in the eyes of the law) well done, sometimes justice is served, a superb individual
HNZ have form for this. It doesn't matter squat that the Fair Work Commission found in favor of the pilot, guaranteed his name as gone in the little black book that gets circulated amongst all the employers and his career is screwed. That is the harsh reality I'm afraid.
The harsh reality is that the Fair Works Commission (fireworks was just the OP being dramatic) does not employ pilots, does not compete for contracts in the commercial helicopter world, does not have to operate in a highly competitive industry at a profit. It only has to judge on the facts presented whether or not a dismissal was "fair".
I don't know the pilot, I know HNZ to be a quality operator. Like any operator they invest in recruiting, screening, selection, training and consider their pilots assets that they invest in. No operator throws away that investment without reason. Whether or not they are successful explaining that reason to a Fair Works Commission is always going to be a roll of dice. If HNZ wasn't a good fit for him, perhaps another employer would be.
But take heart, in this industry everyone finds another job regardless of reputation, courtesy of the magic brush of "hours of experience" that blinds employers to any other consideration.
I don't know the pilot, I know HNZ to be a quality operator. Like any operator they invest in recruiting, screening, selection, training and consider their pilots assets that they invest in. No operator throws away that investment without reason. Whether or not they are successful explaining that reason to a Fair Works Commission is always going to be a roll of dice. If HNZ wasn't a good fit for him, perhaps another employer would be.
But take heart, in this industry everyone finds another job regardless of reputation, courtesy of the magic brush of "hours of experience" that blinds employers to any other consideration.
Last edited by malabo; 7th Mar 2016 at 23:03.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: brisbane
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
typo it was- nothing dramatic about it
Malabo- you might want to read the report first and then make comment
I would suggest the 'quality' is somewhat dented here
I have flown for this operator in the past
While there was excellent pilots there were also individuals who should not have been doing what they were employed/ tasked to do
I would also say their 'investment' in training and selection was not apparent during the years i was there
Malabo- you might want to read the report first and then make comment
I would suggest the 'quality' is somewhat dented here
I have flown for this operator in the past
While there was excellent pilots there were also individuals who should not have been doing what they were employed/ tasked to do
I would also say their 'investment' in training and selection was not apparent during the years i was there
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: East Island
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HNZ Held to Account?
sometimes justice is served
the process involving the investigation..by various HNZ managers was blatantly flawed and unjust
Before going on, I'd encourage you to google the name of the commissioner and do some reading to provide some context on things. Also, I'm curious to know your thoughts on why the amount of compensation awarded is less than a quarter of what was requested. It seems incongruous when you look at the strength of the language used in the finding.
The FWC is sometimes accused of not being across the technical matters at the heart of some disputes, which means that the internal company process to manage technical disputes can carry more weight than the original issue once it reaches arbitration. I think that this is evident in this decision and had HNZ gone about things in a more considered way, then the result would have been very different. In my opinion, the commissioner has clearly misunderstood quite a lot of the technical aviation evidence presented, and has missed the point in many of his statements. But there’s no doubt that when you ask the question, ‘did the complainant receive fair and just treatment during the investigation of the incident’, the answer has to be no. If she was dismissed as the result of that process, then it’s fair enough to say she was unfairly dismissed. But it may not be fair enough to conclude that what occurred didn’t warrant dismissal or disciplinary action, as I think TorqueStripe has identified with his entirely reasonable questions.
There’s a couple of very principled people that have had their names and reputations unfairly tarnished after being dragged into this whole sorry mess – on both sides of the case. You’ve identified yourself as a friend and ex-colleague of the complainant Chook13!. It’s not clear if you worked with the complainant in the Army as well as at HNZ but there’s a few people in both organisations who might provide a robust counterpoint to your enthusiastic cheerleading. No doubt she’s grateful to you for this, but that’s what friends are for, right?
To those at HNZ who took this action against the individual ...
Last edited by ONAH2N; 23rd Mar 2016 at 01:29. Reason: My own typos
Reading this thread I was struck with all the similarities to another offshore heli operator that I once had the misfortune to work for. Then I read the webpage and recognised a number of faces now working for HNZ that were also with the same operator.
Either they have brought their previous "activities" to HNZ or the offshore heli game is populated by the same sort of people.
CC
Either they have brought their previous "activities" to HNZ or the offshore heli game is populated by the same sort of people.
CC
I worked for them for 5 years. They underpaid a group of their pilots for years and were dragged kicking and screaming by the pilot union to the Industrial Relations Commission. Of course they rolled over just before it was listed for hearing so there could be no adjudication on the matter. They then chose not to renew those pilots contracts, to be replaced by cheaper labor, which of course triggered another round of action by the pilot union. True to form they rolled over again just before the matter went to a hearing and the pilots were re-instated with back pay. The money they spent on legal representation to duck and weave their way out of court would have hired a pilot for years. The really illogical thing about the whole episode was that the pilot salary increases were chargeable to the client, plus their contract margin, so if the pilots had been paid the correct rate from the outset it would have been better for the company profitability. All they did was needlessly cause ill feeling between the affected pilot group and the company. None of the affected pilots ever worked for HNZ again.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HNZ (i am talking sthn hemisphere) have had some great people work for them over the years... and they have virtually all moved on, or been pushed out ! At the same time, the company has been in Fair Work battles with ex-employees on an almost consistent basis. Add to that the long list of contracts lost, or failure to be won, and you don't have to read much between the lines. Find any bar with some helicopter pilots in it (or engineers), and you will find endless stories of HNZ despair. Look to the upper management for the cracks, it does not take much investigation to see the causes or the demise... 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 50 50 Broome
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why HNZ hired a bunch of ex CHC Australia Management, the very Management team which is partly responsible for CHC being in the poor shape its in today. HNZ is the poorer now that many of the old team have gone.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: brisbane
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
onah2h alphabet whatever you call your self
Mate
i could give a stuff ref your stupid 'enthusiastic cheerleading' pointless garbage comments
the lady is a friend of mine no doubt
i respect her and her skills and determination in an industry that is not generally female friendly
i respect the effort she has made to extend her qualifications and skills and move on from those like yourself who come out with totally irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with this case
i also respect a great deal of other people who make the effort and do not quit when up against it.. you my friend, based on your childish comments would not even get a sniff in.
whether she has transgressed in previous employment or not and if you or others have ****e to throw fill your boots
and you would be the perfect pilot??
i personally have made many errors in aviation and will continue to do so I'm sure... please send me your manual of excellence (bound to be a best seller eh?)
HNZ do not have a good rep for either getting contracts or keeping good people or as in this case doing the right thing
they HAVE been found wanting and that is all there is to it
interestingly enough it was AFAP lawyer who assisted to get the right result.. you might want to stop paying your dues if you feel so strongly about your comments...
HNZ blew it and so did x number of people involved in this case- good people on both sides drawn into it- purely HNZ's fault as they failed to perform and manage as they should and knew they should
you choose to quote ' sometimes justice is served' and then carry on about it. its absolutely obvious what i mean by it as is made clear later by the 'enthusiastic cheerleading' comment that you also understand it so why make a comment on it.
dismissal from a job, especially when it is for a reason that is not valid/ fair/ justified etc is traumatic for the person who has just been shafted while those on the other side carry on as if nothing has ever occurred and without care for those destroyed by their actions.
there are procedures in place both legally required and morally incumbent on an employer to manage those they see as transgressors in the way they conduct themselves.
HNZ did not do this.. appeared to stretch the truth.. and sacked an employee without due process. which part of this do you not get??
history of the accused is totally irrelevant when a judgement is made.
another pre pubescent comment from yourself 'what held you back from finishing your comments? typo?' - if you are not able to work it out. to those at HNZ who took action against this individual you have been found wanting, liable (?), etc etc you fill it in shark you're the brains. the pilot got sacked without being afforded due process, the co pilot's memory got better with time.. what does that say?
leave you with it chief! you list of friends must be kinda short if that is your attitude to someone who stands up for themselves and by osmosis helps the industry (yep inadvertently even you)
i could give a stuff ref your stupid 'enthusiastic cheerleading' pointless garbage comments
the lady is a friend of mine no doubt
i respect her and her skills and determination in an industry that is not generally female friendly
i respect the effort she has made to extend her qualifications and skills and move on from those like yourself who come out with totally irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with this case
i also respect a great deal of other people who make the effort and do not quit when up against it.. you my friend, based on your childish comments would not even get a sniff in.
whether she has transgressed in previous employment or not and if you or others have ****e to throw fill your boots
and you would be the perfect pilot??
i personally have made many errors in aviation and will continue to do so I'm sure... please send me your manual of excellence (bound to be a best seller eh?)
HNZ do not have a good rep for either getting contracts or keeping good people or as in this case doing the right thing
they HAVE been found wanting and that is all there is to it
interestingly enough it was AFAP lawyer who assisted to get the right result.. you might want to stop paying your dues if you feel so strongly about your comments...
HNZ blew it and so did x number of people involved in this case- good people on both sides drawn into it- purely HNZ's fault as they failed to perform and manage as they should and knew they should
you choose to quote ' sometimes justice is served' and then carry on about it. its absolutely obvious what i mean by it as is made clear later by the 'enthusiastic cheerleading' comment that you also understand it so why make a comment on it.
dismissal from a job, especially when it is for a reason that is not valid/ fair/ justified etc is traumatic for the person who has just been shafted while those on the other side carry on as if nothing has ever occurred and without care for those destroyed by their actions.
there are procedures in place both legally required and morally incumbent on an employer to manage those they see as transgressors in the way they conduct themselves.
HNZ did not do this.. appeared to stretch the truth.. and sacked an employee without due process. which part of this do you not get??
history of the accused is totally irrelevant when a judgement is made.
another pre pubescent comment from yourself 'what held you back from finishing your comments? typo?' - if you are not able to work it out. to those at HNZ who took action against this individual you have been found wanting, liable (?), etc etc you fill it in shark you're the brains. the pilot got sacked without being afforded due process, the co pilot's memory got better with time.. what does that say?
leave you with it chief! you list of friends must be kinda short if that is your attitude to someone who stands up for themselves and by osmosis helps the industry (yep inadvertently even you)
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: East Island
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that was a bit emotional wasn't it?
Lets not make any assumptions bro
If we're being honest with ourselves, that's probably not true is it?
I’ll assume you intended to be ironic in writing about comments that are not relevant to the case. But which comments do you mean exactly? 
Get a sniff in where? I think I’m doing OK for myself. Just my opinion.
Which transgressions are you talking about?
Not even close. Frankly, I'm embarrassed to call myself one.
Another point we can agree on.
No argument from me. See my original post. May need to remove your blinkers to see it. I won’t make you feel bad about conceding this point you know.
Not a member. Can’t stand lawyers anyways, and I don’t think the AFAP would be much use to me here.
They sure did.
Why? Because you’re acting like a cheerleader and not an objective commentator. Which is absolutely OK but don’t pretend to be anything else Feathers.
I apparently have no friends (re your comment below) but if I did I’d want one like you, bravely going to bat on my behalf on the interwebs. You big bantam rooster you.
Mostly I made it because it amuses me to see you get so excited though.
Ops normal, as you know. Not just the aviation industry.
I do get it. I said it too. You really should re-read what I wrote. 
I also said that stuffing up the process doesn’t necessarily mean that there was nothing to warrant conducting one.
You keep talking about previous transgressions and history of the accused. Very close to an own goal. Do you really want to go there??? I wouldn’t be very happy with you as my lawyer. 
Nah, I just wanted to hear you finish your sentence. Seems a bit pre-pubescent and passive-aggressive to leave things left unsaid. At least that’s what my wife tells me.
It says HNZ didn’t follow due process? I think we’ve covered that.
Thanks blinkers! I’m all for people who stand up for themselves but my admiration is not unconditional. Perhaps that’s why I have a kinda short list of friends.
I'm sorry for stirring you up though my feathered friend Rooster. It’s been a chilly easter weekend and I’ve had a few reds for warmth. If I had any friends they’d probably say I was a bit of a stirrer on the piss. One of my many failings. But thanks for giving me an excuse to have another one
i could give a stuff ref your stupid 'enthusiastic cheerleading' pointless garbage comments
i respect the effort she has made to extend her qualifications and skills and move on from those like yourself who come out with totally irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with this case
i also respect a great deal of other people who make the effort and do not quit when up against it.. you my friend, based on your childish comments would not even get a sniff in.
whether she has transgressed in previous employment or not
and if you or others have ****e to throw fill your boots
and you would be the perfect pilot??
and you would be the perfect pilot??
i personally have made many errors in aviation and will continue to do so I'm sure...
HNZ do not have a good rep for either getting contracts or keeping good people or as in this case doing the right thing
they HAVE been found wanting and that is all there is to it
they HAVE been found wanting and that is all there is to it
interestingly enough it was AFAP lawyer who assisted to get the right result.. you might want to stop paying your dues if you feel so strongly about your comments...
HNZ blew it and so did x number of people involved in this case- good people on both sides drawn into it- purely HNZ's fault as they failed to perform and manage as they should and knew they should
you choose to quote ' sometimes justice is served' and then carry on about it. its absolutely obvious what i mean by it as is made clear later by the 'enthusiastic cheerleading' comment that you also understand it so why make a comment on it.
I apparently have no friends (re your comment below) but if I did I’d want one like you, bravely going to bat on my behalf on the interwebs. You big bantam rooster you.
Mostly I made it because it amuses me to see you get so excited though.
dismissal from a job, especially when it is for a reason that is not valid/ fair/ justified etc is traumatic for the person who has just been shafted while those on the other side carry on as if nothing has ever occurred and without care for those destroyed by their actions.
there are procedures in place both legally required and morally
incumbent on an employer to manage those they see as transgressors in the way they conduct themselves. HNZ did not do this.. appeared to stretch the truth.. and sacked an employee without due process. which part of this do you not get??
incumbent on an employer to manage those they see as transgressors in the way they conduct themselves. HNZ did not do this.. appeared to stretch the truth.. and sacked an employee without due process. which part of this do you not get??
I also said that stuffing up the process doesn’t necessarily mean that there was nothing to warrant conducting one.
history of the accused is totally irrelevant when a judgement is made.
another pre pubescent comment from yourself 'what held you back from finishing your comments? typo?' - if you are not able to work it out. to those at HNZ who took action against this individual you have been found wanting, liable (?), etc etc you fill it in shark you're the brains.
the pilot got sacked without being afforded due process, the co pilot's memory got better with time.. what does that say?
leave you with it chief! you list of friends must be kinda short if that is your attitude to someone who stands up for themselves and by osmosis helps the industry (yep inadvertently even you)
I'm sorry for stirring you up though my feathered friend Rooster. It’s been a chilly easter weekend and I’ve had a few reds for warmth. If I had any friends they’d probably say I was a bit of a stirrer on the piss. One of my many failings. But thanks for giving me an excuse to have another one
Thanks Same again.