New Zealand court rules in favor of pilot who had sex with flight attendant

[News_Editor]

New Zealand court rules in favor of pilot who had sex with flight attendant

2011-09-28 02:21:17 GMT+7 (ICT)

WELLINGTON (BNO NEWS) -- A Court of Appeal in New Zealand has ruled in favor of an Air Nelson pilot who had sex with a flight attendant during an unscheduled stopover in 2008, local media reported on Tuesday.

The unidentified pilot was previously fired after having sex with one of the flight attendants after a night of drinking at a hotel in Napier, a city on the eastern coast of the North Island of New Zealand. The crew was forced to spend the night there in May 2008 after an unscheduled stopover.

But the flight attendant said she had no memory of the encounter and claimed the sex happened without her consent. The pilot, meanwhile, insisted that the 19-year-old woman left his hotel room with 'a smile on her face'.

On Tuesday, according to the Stuff.co.nz news portal, a Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the pilot and rejected an attempt by Air Nelson to challenge an earlier Employment Court decision which criticized the airline's handling of the pilot's dismissal and ordering he be reinstated.

"Air Nelson remains disappointed that the Employment Court in its judgment sets a far lower standard of expectation on the behavior and professional standards of pilots than the airline," a company statement said following the ruling, Stuff reported.

The statement added: "The Court of Appeal decision declining Air Nelson's request once again highlights the very high threshold facing employers when trying to review Employment Court judgments believed to be erroneous. The process does not allow factual findings to be challenged."

Lawyer John Haigh QC, who is defending the pilot, said it is now up to the airline to reinstate him. Air Nelson previously claimed it would not be possible to reinstate the pilot because flight crews are aware of the incident and this may have damaged their confidence in him.

However, the Appeals Court agreed with the Employment Court's conclusion that 'this evidence was exaggerated', Stuff reported. Air Nelson was also ordered to pay the pilot's costs in the Appeals Court.

Air Nelson, a subsidiary of Air New Zealand, is a regional airline based in Nelson. It operates services on provincial routes under the Air New Zealand Link brand and operates only 50-seat Bombardier Q300 aircraft.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-09-28

[bigbamboo]

Was she watching the Rugby World Cup at the time?

[johna]

Having sex in a hotel is not the airlines business, possible turning up for work with a hangover after a night of drinking would be of greater concern to me.

[handydog]

The guts of this report should be read in the context of that it was/is a test case for the NZ employment laws.

These sort of employment problems (bed hopping between co-workers) are not uncommon and regually end up in court because the employer views the indiscretion as a breach of employment contract rather than the breach of company policy which it realy is.

Aside to this is eveyone seems to delight in a juicy story involving a bit of sex and debaucery. The post header is misleading.

Recently the the employment laws were "tweeked' by the current government, and what is not outlined in the story is when the accused actually committed his sin. Given the speed of the court system in NZ it could easily have been two years ago.

Given it is an employment issue it would have gone through the Employment Court and not the District Court system as what he/they did was not criminal.

What is most dissapointing is it is the tax-payer who has realy been screwed....

Nelson Air is owned by Air New Zealand...

Air NZ is publily listed but the government retains the majority share

The Employee will have had Legal Aid (government payed) for both court hearings

Costs and compensation will have been awarded against the employer...

...Final situation:

an umemployed pilot

two air-crew with a tarnished reputation

tax payers that forked out a couple of hundred thousand to fund the investgation and court hearings

only winners are the lawyers

[mpoppel]

The guts of this report should be read in the context of that it was/is a test case for the NZ employment laws.

These sort of employment problems (bed hopping between co-workers) are not uncommon and regually end up in court because the employer views the indiscretion as a breach of employment contract rather than the breach of company policy which it realy is.

Aside to this is eveyone seems to delight in a juicy story involving a bit of sex and debaucery. The post header is misleading.

Recently the the employment laws were "tweeked' by the current government, and what is not outlined in the story is when the accused actually committed his sin. Given the speed of the court system in NZ it could easily have been two years ago.

Given it is an employment issue it would have gone through the Employment Court and not the District Court system as what he/they did was not criminal.

What is most dissapointing is it is the tax-payer who has realy been screwed....

Nelson Air is owned by Air New Zealand...

Air NZ is publily listed but the government retains the majority share

The Employee will have had Legal Aid (government payed) for both court hearings

Costs and compensation will have been awarded against the employer...

...Final situation:

an umemployed pilot

two air-crew with a tarnished reputation

tax payers that forked out a couple of hundred thousand to fund the investgation and court hearings

only winners are the lawyers

I don't know the details of this specific story.. but you say the headline is misleading which I don't think it is. The OP clearly said the issue went through the Employment Court initially, which criticized the airline's handling of the pilot's dismissal and ordered he be reinstated. A Court of Appeals reaffirmed their ruling by rejecting Air Nelson's attempt to challenge the Employment Court's decision.

Also you mentioned the story doesn't say when it happened.. but the story said it happened in May 2008.

(And yes, the only winners are probably the lawyers Unless maybe the pilot gets compensation, which I think is pretty likely, because the court ordered he be reinstated while this is probably unrealistic after what happened.)

Edited October 5, 2011 by mpoppel