stephen phillips wrote:
> Given the nature of the information given by Chris all I can say is
> thank god I do not work for most who have replied so far. There is no
> clear indication that any of the "incidents" are clearly documented or
> provable. If the "incidents" came so close to hull loss or serious
> damage presumably they were subject of investigation by NZ air safety or
> equivalent; if they were not then the fisrt question is - Why not?
> Secondly, were the "incidents" investigated by the company? What was
> the outcome of either or both of these investigations - if they occured?
>
> However, regardless of the outcome of any ivestigation if the company
> has clear evidence of "... a history if denial of his own problem,
> inability to work well with his peers, but sufficiently smart to say and
> do the right things when training hurdles are created for him..." then
> they are in a postion to do something about the situation. NZ law is
> not dramatically different from Oz where dismissal for dangerous
> behaviour is clearly supported by the legislation. However, if as is
> likely there is little or no paperwork then the situation is more
> difficult. Duty of care and reasonable standards etc are all very well
> but they must be clearly evident and PROVEN. Thus whilst this captain
> does not sound like everyone's idea of the preferred driver he can only
> be removed of there is PROOF not supposition, conjecture, anecdotal
> evidence or just a 'bad feeling.
> Talk of 'wilful misconduct' etc is out of place with more information
> and supporting evidence.
>
> Stephen Phillips
> Edith Cowan University
> Perth
> Western Australia