Westpac Helicopters NSW ordered to reinstate terminated Pilot
Thread Starter
Westpac Helicopters NSW ordered to reinstate terminated Pilot
This looks interesting, I can’t get past the paywall has anyone read or heard of the actual story?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...3a6-1676270915
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...3a6-1676270915
A helicopter rescue service has been ordered to reinstate a pilot who was sacked because she could not master a key manoeuvre required to carry out difficult rescue operations.The northern NSW Westpac Rescue Helicopter service employed Susana Henderson, knowing she did not have experience on AW139 aircraft.
A former Australian Army pilot, Ms Henderson was hired by the rescue service ahead of another pilot with AW139 experience, in October 2021.
It was agreed she would undergo training on the helicopter, described as a “modern glass cockpit helicopter with an advanced autopilot and flight management system”.
According to the Fair Work Commission, the “training took longer than anticipated” and when Ms Henderson arrived for her final assessment on March 2, 2022, she was told it would not proceed because she had not met company standards in all areas of her training.
A show cause process then took place, and the rescue service took the decision to sack her due to concerns about her ability to “accurately position the AW139 aircraft and maintain a stable hover on a consistent basis”.
Ms Henderson was given severance pay, but then took legal action claiming her dismissal was “harsh, unjust and unreasonable”.
The Commission heard Ms Henderson’s training had been ad hoc due to various factors, but she eventually amassed over 60-hours in the AW139.
However, the head of flight operations Robert Fisher reported in January 2022 that Ms Henderson “demonstrated a clear lack of ability to consistently meet the service’s standard for winching, hovering and low level operations of the aircraft”.
In the coming months, Ms Henderson continued her simulator training and, during the Lismore floods, conducted multiple flights transporting critical equipment and people in “extremely challenging conditions”.
Concerns about her ability to maintain a stable hover ultimately led to her termination, but Ms Henderson argued she was never warned performance issues could affect her ongoing employment.
In a lengthy decision, Fair Work Commission deputy president Tony Saunders ruled it was unreasonable for the helicopter service to sack Ms Henderson rather than provide her with further training.
“I have found on the balance of probabilities that it is likely that Ms Henderson would have met the standard required if she had been provided with a further period of training of about two weeks,” said Mr Saunders.
He also ruled the helicopter rescue service should reinstate her to the position of AW139 pilot, despite their objections.
“I am satisfied that a sufficient level of trust and confidence can be restored to make an employment relationship between Ms Henderson and the (rescue service) viable and productive,” Mr Saunders said.
He ruled against forcing the helicopter service to provide backpay due to the fact they had already spent $169,000 on her training, which was “$58,100 more than initially budgeted”.
The Westpac Rescue Service has been contacted for comment.
The decision comes months after the FWC ruled Virgin Australia’s sacking of a flight attendant, who went to sleep on the job and watched movies during flights, was unfair.
That ruling was overturned on appeal to the full bench of the Commission.
A former Australian Army pilot, Ms Henderson was hired by the rescue service ahead of another pilot with AW139 experience, in October 2021.
It was agreed she would undergo training on the helicopter, described as a “modern glass cockpit helicopter with an advanced autopilot and flight management system”.
According to the Fair Work Commission, the “training took longer than anticipated” and when Ms Henderson arrived for her final assessment on March 2, 2022, she was told it would not proceed because she had not met company standards in all areas of her training.
A show cause process then took place, and the rescue service took the decision to sack her due to concerns about her ability to “accurately position the AW139 aircraft and maintain a stable hover on a consistent basis”.
Ms Henderson was given severance pay, but then took legal action claiming her dismissal was “harsh, unjust and unreasonable”.
The Commission heard Ms Henderson’s training had been ad hoc due to various factors, but she eventually amassed over 60-hours in the AW139.
However, the head of flight operations Robert Fisher reported in January 2022 that Ms Henderson “demonstrated a clear lack of ability to consistently meet the service’s standard for winching, hovering and low level operations of the aircraft”.
In the coming months, Ms Henderson continued her simulator training and, during the Lismore floods, conducted multiple flights transporting critical equipment and people in “extremely challenging conditions”.
Concerns about her ability to maintain a stable hover ultimately led to her termination, but Ms Henderson argued she was never warned performance issues could affect her ongoing employment.
In a lengthy decision, Fair Work Commission deputy president Tony Saunders ruled it was unreasonable for the helicopter service to sack Ms Henderson rather than provide her with further training.
“I have found on the balance of probabilities that it is likely that Ms Henderson would have met the standard required if she had been provided with a further period of training of about two weeks,” said Mr Saunders.
He also ruled the helicopter rescue service should reinstate her to the position of AW139 pilot, despite their objections.
“I am satisfied that a sufficient level of trust and confidence can be restored to make an employment relationship between Ms Henderson and the (rescue service) viable and productive,” Mr Saunders said.
He ruled against forcing the helicopter service to provide backpay due to the fact they had already spent $169,000 on her training, which was “$58,100 more than initially budgeted”.
The Westpac Rescue Service has been contacted for comment.
The decision comes months after the FWC ruled Virgin Australia’s sacking of a flight attendant, who went to sleep on the job and watched movies during flights, was unfair.
That ruling was overturned on appeal to the full bench of the Commission.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 13th Feb 2023 at 09:06. Reason: Add article quote & fix link
https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/r...bly-rare-case/
Takes a bit of reading through, but has a happy ending for all!
Takes a bit of reading through, but has a happy ending for all!
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
That’s interesting I can’t read the article but the link works.
It can’t be a good thing for the industry FWA forcing companies to employ pilots that are not considered proficient.
Externally it looks as if there was opportunity for extra training and remedial training
It can’t be a good thing for the industry FWA forcing companies to employ pilots that are not considered proficient.
Externally it looks as if there was opportunity for extra training and remedial training
Did you read my link?
Well, that'll solve the Navy and RAF's pilots shortage at a stroke then. All the hundred of us that have been chopped over the years must be reinstated!
Can I (try to) fly the Wessex V please?
Can I (try to) fly the Wessex V please?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Best of luck to anyone she tries to rescue on a dark and stormy night over the “oggin”
Thread Starter
The following users liked this post:
Already spent an extra 58k and another 2 weeks should do it hey! What if she doesn't come up to standard? How much do they have to spend before they can say sorry you're just not good enough. The courts need to be held accountable when she kills someone on a line or they die because she wasn't good enoughto pick them up. standards are there for a reason.
I cannot believe anyone could say with a straight face that they don't think their flying ability would affect their employment as a pilot.
I cannot believe anyone could say with a straight face that they don't think their flying ability would affect their employment as a pilot.
The following 3 users liked this post by ascj:
Ahh ok - she's Australian; makes sense now.
Fair work claims are almost part of the termination process for pilots in Australia. Clear out locker, hand back kit, file fair work claim.
Fair work claims are almost part of the termination process for pilots in Australia. Clear out locker, hand back kit, file fair work claim.
The following users liked this post:
Per the linked decision she checked out at the next company just fine. On the other hand in the opinion:
Perhaps the company has liability for not hiring a person when they should know their own employees have decided to undermine them.
True it is that Ms Henderson has been critical in her evidence and submissions of particular conduct on the part of Mr Shepherd and Mr Fisher. Mr Shepherd has left his employment with the Respondent. As a result, he will not be working at the Lismore base if Ms Henderson is reinstated. In any event, Mr Shepherd did make inappropriate comments to Ms Henderson during her first training flight, including that he was keeping a ‘paper trail’ for the purposes of her dismissal. As to Mr Fisher, I have found for the reasons explained in paragraph [184] above that he wanted the Respondent to employ an experienced and qualified AW139 pilot in lieu of Ms Henderson, and after he was not able to convince others to agree to that course of action, he repeatedly campaigned for Ms Henderson’s dismissal throughout her employment.
Nigerian In Law
I was starting to lose the will to live half way through. Legal s**t has that effect on me. Must be the residual trauma from reading court documents during my divorces.................
Is it me or does it seem there was more to this than straightforward lack of ability and/or misogyny ?
NEO
Is it me or does it seem there was more to this than straightforward lack of ability and/or misogyny ?
NEO
Introducing too much diversity in hovering standards is probably not a good idea.
Quip aside, type training is one thing; a good standard for hoist work is down to experience, recency and [line] training. If it ends it ends up in court, more than one thing has gone wrong.
Quip aside, type training is one thing; a good standard for hoist work is down to experience, recency and [line] training. If it ends it ends up in court, more than one thing has gone wrong.
The following users liked this post:
If she can't hover, perhaps she should just be suspended?
The following 7 users liked this post by DuncanDoenitz: