Being told to come to work, then not calling until 45 minutes before she was due to start? This ain't mcdonalds. If Air NZ couldn't take off because of lack of crew, what do you expect that costs in direct costs, let alone loss of reputation?
Yeah she behaved inappropriately and contributed. The ERA specifically referred to this.
nickrout: Being told to come to work, then not calling until 45 minutes before she was due to start? This ain't mcdonalds. If Air NZ couldn't take off because of lack of crew, what do you expect that costs in direct costs, let alone loss of reputation?
Yeah she behaved inappropriately and contributed. The ERA specifically referred to this.
No. She advised her employer (Crew Control) at approx 5.15pm the previous day. It is her unions advice she was entitled to leave so why should she not take an entitlement when there is a need.
If airNZ is to run long haul flights and offer staff more than the statutory basics for sick leave entitlements (ask them how many sick days they get a year and how many they can accrue!) it is surely also incumbent on AirnNZ to manage the risk of staff taking their entitlements. This means having back up crew with flexibility in rostering. It means having a PaDM on-call. It means having a Crew Control to help manage adversity. Employees are employees - they are not there to take the employers risks.
lets see what happens after "... a further half day hearing and the attendance of Ms Jeffries and Mr Morpeth, either in person or by telephone."
AirNZ should look at itself closely. Here we have an “offense” of a relatively straightforward nature occurring on 9 March. They had two months, several internal investigation meetings, loads of witnesses so no shortage of information upon which to make a decision based on veracity. Having somehow stumbled across a facebook page after those efforts and then wanting to dig into bank account details still doesn’t make sense to me. AirNZ should have sufficiently robust processes to uncover the truth, or as close as they are going to get to it, through their process.
And lets assume for a moment that these records do show that she was at the beach on the 9th. This then opens up the argument on what a person is required to do, or not do during a period of sickness. I am struggling to think that there is any legislative requirement that one must stay at home all the time, or one must not venture out doors, or that one may not take a break from caring for a sick person. Could it be argued she was taking a “rest period” during this time off. This is a whole can of worms yet to be opened.
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201336/AirNZera.pdf [4] On 8 March 2013 at 1 pm, Ms Kensington and a friend, Les Kitto, were on leave at Takapuna beach, when her sister, Vania Kensington-Morpeth (Mrs Morpeth), rang. She had recently given birth to her first child. Ms Kensington had assisted with care for the previous three weeks together with their mother, who was returning home. Her sister wasn’t feeling well and felt she needed someone to be with her the following day as her husband, Andrew Morpeth, had to work.
The pictures on facebook were posted on the 8th, a day which Kensington already had leave. Her sister was seen by a colleague of her midwife's on the 8th. Her sister then her on the 8th to arrange for her to be there as no-one else was available. Kensington then tried to talk to her boss etc to get the 9th off for that purpose. AirNZ thought it was suspicious, because she was already off on the 8th and thought she was making up excuses to take off more time. Kensington explained herself very poorly, I mean look at that txt ffs, but AirNZ should have seen all the facts during their investigation. Based on the ERA's own facts I can't see how the ERA determined that the AirNZ investigation was fair and not pre-determined, given that evidence was ignored, witnesses were assumed to be lying when their honesty was not in question, and AirNZs original assumption was carried through to the end of the investigation without any proof.
nickrout: Being told to come to work, then not calling until 45 minutes before she was due to start? This ain't mcdonalds. If Air NZ couldn't take off because of lack of crew, what do you expect that costs in direct costs, let alone loss of reputation?
Yeah she behaved inappropriately and contributed. The ERA specifically referred to this.
As minimoke points out that's not true. The way I see it here, Ms Rosevear behaved inappropriately and contributed by not seeking a better explanation from Kensington, by not allowing Kensington her legal entitlements simply because they were short staffed (giving another excuse doesn't change the obvious fact that this was why), and by discussing her eligibility for leave with Ms Snell (the PaDM) without knowing the facts and in fact by the sounds of it getting at least some of those facts wrong. Snell couldn't make a proper discussion based on what Rosevear had to say, Rosevear should have got Kensington and Snell talking directly to discuss eligibility. The determination didn't explore this, but I say this is where AirNZ's internal policy's really started to go wrong. And it's all because they were short staffed and expected Kensington to cave rather than union up and take her entitlement.
I'd love to see what the union is doing & has to say about all this, because it sounds like they failed Kensington pretty hard. After all they gave her the advice that she was entitled.
PaulBags: Kensington explained herself very poorly, I mean look at that txt ffs, but AirNZ should have seen all the facts during their investigation. Based on the ERA's own facts I can't see how the ERA determined that the AirNZ investigation was fair and not pre-determined, given that evidence was ignored, witnesses were assumed to be lying when their honesty was not in question, and AirNZs original assumption was carried through to the end of the investigation without any proof.
Not a bad summary!
You may be a bit harsh on the text’s. I didn’t think they were too bad – certainly a lot better than I’ve had to deal with. Sure – not as precise as they might have been but this is the era of texting.
I agree AirNZ probably thought the conversations on the 8th were suspicious. But there is an expression in law (which I’m blowed if I can remember) which basically figures that sometimes the deliberate setting up of an apparent alibi is an indication that a person didn’t actually do the offence.
It seems to me that if she wanted to scam a day off it would have been much simpler to ring in on the 9th and say she needed a Sick Day due to her sisters incapacity. Why go to all the trouble of setting up an alibi on the 8th for a day off? So AirNZ may not have been a fair and reasonable employer by coming up with the suspicion in the first place. Though reading between the lines it looks like Kensington has pretty much exhausted most of her entitlements – but that in itself may not be enough to create a suspicion in a fair persons mind.
I also agree on the pre-determination issue. This is a routine employment problem. The internal investigations should have taken no longer than a week subject to witnesses availability. That the process took so long suggests to me an attempt to stitch Kensington up. There was obviously a pre determined approach which they wouldn’t waiver from – for example the ludicrous suggestion that they would only speak to the brother in person. There is nothing wrong with talking to him over the phone and then figuring out where to from there. How can an employer knowing (wrongly) that kensingtons sister had a C Section not consider there may be some truth to Kensingtons tale?
Given Kensington wanted to avoid conflict on the 8th I think we can take from that an environment which was frosty between her and her Manager. What better way of ridding yourself of a problem than finding an opportunity of sick leave abuse.
Given AirNZ probably had a suspicion on the 9th they no doubt had an opportunity, either through the law or through their own internal policies or contract to get a med cert off Kensington (her sister) on that day. That they didn’t indicates either a lack of process or perhaps a conscious decision to not go down that track and give Kensington an opportunity to come up with evidence that secures her position. Either way I still struggle to see how it is that Kensington contributed to her situation. So AirNZ didn’t take an opportunity to get a Med Cert but now want an opportunity to peer at Facebook and Bank Accounts. I still maintain it is wrong.
PaulBags: Kensington explained herself very poorly, I mean look at that txt ffs, but AirNZ should have seen all the facts during their investigation. Based on the ERA's own facts I can't see how the ERA determined that the AirNZ investigation was fair and not pre-determined, given that evidence was ignored, witnesses were assumed to be lying when their honesty was not in question, and AirNZs original assumption was carried through to the end of the investigation without any proof.
Not a bad summary!
You may be a bit harsh on the text’s. I didn’t think they were too bad – certainly a lot better than I’ve had to deal with. Sure – not as precise as they might have been but this is the era of texting.
I tend to be harsh on people. I still think her boss should have sought better clarification of the reason for sick leave, bosses should be sympathetic to peoples dificulties expressing themselves. If it was me I'd be asking why not being able to drive required that someone stay with her, for one thing.
It seems to me that if she wanted to scam a day off it would have been much simpler to ring in on the 9th and say she needed a Sick Day due to her sisters incapacity. Why go to all the trouble of setting up an alibi on the 8th for a day off? So AirNZ may not have been a fair and reasonable employer by coming up with the suspicion in the first place. Though reading between the lines it looks like Kensington has pretty much exhausted most of her entitlements – but that in itself may not be enough to create a suspicion in a fair persons mind.
Very good point, I'll have to remember that one.
How can an employer knowing (wrongly) that kensingtons sister had a C Section not consider there may be some truth to Kensingtons tale?
I'm assuming that complications not associated with a c-section were brought up by Kensington that we're not seeing reference to in the determination. Those statements by kensington could have been verfied during the investigation, however:
[40] ... Ms Jeffries medical opinion was Mrs Morpeth needed to heal possibly from on-going ligamental pain and/or a complicated and traumatic labour and birth. She concluded [in] my opinion, it was in Vania’s best interest to have her sister with her in this time of need. She invited Air NZ to contact her if they required any further information.
I'm not sure either of those things would arise from a c-section. But then I barely ever see a doctor, let alone know anything that they know.
Given Kensington wanted to avoid conflict on the 8th I think we can take from that an environment which was frosty between her and her Manager. What better way of ridding yourself of a problem than finding an opportunity of sick leave abuse.
Given AirNZ probably had a suspicion on the 9th they no doubt had an opportunity, either through the law or through their own internal policies or contract to get a med cert off Kensington (her sister) on that day. That they didn’t indicates either a lack of process or perhaps a conscious decision to not go down that track and give Kensington an opportunity to come up with evidence that secures her position. Either way I still struggle to see how it is that Kensington contributed to her situation. So AirNZ didn’t take an opportunity to get a Med Cert but now want an opportunity to peer at Facebook and Bank Accounts. I still maintain it is wrong.
Air NZ also attempted to use the fact she has taken 'more than the average' amount of leave against her, but I can't see how that could be at all relevant. Of course you are going to have a good percentage of your employee base who are on the above average side (That's how averages work).
ajobbins: Air NZ also attempted to use the fact she has taken 'more than the average' amount of leave against her, but I can't see how that could be at all relevant. Of course you are going to have a good percentage of your employee base who are on the above average side (That's how averages work).
Agreed. And let's remember it is a negotiated entitlement with approvals for leave given by air nz. So whose problem is it?
And an average of what - all airnz employees; all long haul cabin crew; all women.? It is totally irrelevant and meaningless statistic. You get a sniff of a stench when dodgy statistics like that start getting thrown around.
ajobbins: Air NZ also attempted to use the fact she has taken 'more than the average' amount of leave against her, but I can't see how that could be at all relevant. Of course you are going to have a good percentage of your employee base who are on the above average side (That's how averages work).
Agreed. And let's remember it is a negotiated entitlement with approvals for leave given by air nz. So whose problem is it?
And an average of what - all airnz employees; all long haul cabin crew; all women.? It is totally irrelevant and meaningless statistic. You get a sniff of a stench when dodgy statistics like that start getting thrown around.
Yes, sdav, I agree. However, Ms Kensington has had phenomenal support from her Flight Attendant crew mates all through her ordeal, and they have welcomed her back with open arms.
Vindicated: Yes, sdav, I agree. However, Ms Kensington has had phenomenal support from her Flight Attendant crew mates all through her ordeal, and they have welcomed her back with open arms.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
