Below is an extract of a chief stewardess's complaint against her IFM and pilots. The complaint is long and I only produced part of it. If you know the outcome of the company's investigation and subsequent action please put in the comment section below.
4 comments:
If the IFM cannot handle it well,by using the Captain as bullwalk,it leads to unfairness and not taking in both side of the incidents.By putting on this page,it serves to proof that all cases,handled with clean hands,no matters rankings.As long the operational aspect of the flight are not affected,it deserves to be heard and rectified.In my opinions,some of IFM could be bloated in the head,trying to browbeat the juniors ,including CSS.Depending on the case,it is worth sorting out,the rights from wrong,the operating crews are not unfeeling digits,to walk over.Bravo to BT for going in the area where fools rush in when angels fear to tread.At the end,the feedbacks on past handling,cases could be reveals.There are cases of nepotism and mishandling on cases.Let us know,and let it air,otherwise being no 1 and being fair,not a yardstick of SQ.One would avoid if scapegoating happens here.
Apparently over peasant hawker food chow tow kway la in jcl la. Die die must eat asian choice or the sinkie coolie food. Dont have will get upset and throw book and rank la
Css also too much ! Pilots can eat jcl food anytime and b4 paxs but she insisted giving the carrot cake to paxs first. Css was wrong!!!
The following are my thoughts. Apart from those points raised by the CSS, my views are as follows:-
The IFM and the 3 pilots might have stepped beyond their job descriptions, namely:-
IFM - I'm sure there are some established rules/guidelines/procedures for the IFM to counsel/reprimand a subordinate. If so, does it include rallying the Capt and 2 pilots to be present? By doing so, it was either a case of the IFM not having a strong case, hence, requiring backup/support. If the CSS had erred, IFM could have told her off on the spot or, if it was serious enough, he could have easily written a voyage report and let the department take it from there. Hence, it is quite clear that the IFM had ulterior motives.
Pilots - I presume, of the 3, only 1 is the Capt of that flight. Assuming, if, and only if, the IFM cannot handle the matter, it might be justifiable for him to refer to the Capt if it was a serious matter requiring immediate rectification (but it was the end of the flight and a written report to the Dept was a better option). But why are the other 2 pilots involved? In legal doctrine, the Prosecutor (in this case, the IFM), the Judge (Capt) and the Jury (2 pilots) must be independent and cannot be in a position to influence others. In this case the Prosecutor/IFM) had "appointed" the Judge (Capt) and the latter had appointed the Jury (pilots). IFM must have felt that the Capt would support him and, in turn, the Capt knew the pilots would have no choice but to agree with him. So, where is the independency and neutrality? As the saying goes, "Justice must not only be done but SEEN to be done" In this matter, my humble view is that it was a NO for both. So, even if, and only if, the CSS had erred in the performance of her duties, she was deprived of her right to the basic elements of natural justice and one key element is "her right to a fair hearing".
If, in the event it was established that the CSS was not guilty of any wrongdoing, wouldn't it be a case of wilful false accusation and defamation on the part of the IFM? He had gathered others to embarrass the CSS? The Capt might have jurisdiction, but how about the 2 pilots. I am sure their responsibilities are mainly to report to the Capt for flying duties and not to assist him with cabin functions or be part of an Inquiry - unless, of course, the CSS actions had aggrieved them. I could go on and on but I think I'd better not bore your readers.
My humble views and I stand to be corrected.
Kay Poh aka BusyBody
Post a Comment