Det som fremkommer under har vært vanskelig å redigere for bloggen. Det er konvertert fra .pdf, og jeg har det signerte brevet. Det er ikke rart amerikanske flygere, ag andre som er utsatt for tilsvarende fremstøt, er særdeles bekymret. Saken er enda ikke avgjort i Department of Transportation vs. EU, og jeg er særdeles bekymret på vegne av de som kjemper mot Kjos` fremstøt. Jeg håper og tror at DoT skjønner at dette kan få implikasjoner for andre foretak i USA som har internasjonale forgreninger, og på annen måte kan sammenliknes med NAI.
Evidence to the US Department of Transport in the application of the
Norwegian Airline Group (Norwegian) for a Foreign Air Carrier
Permit
August 18, 2014
Dear Secretary Foxx,
I write as someone on
the blunt ‘receiving end’ of the Norwegian business model as it relates
to Article 17 of the
current EU-US Air Transport Agreement.
Please review items
1-26 of my attached declaration detailing the facts of my tenure as a
contract Captain with
the Norwegian regime.
Much has been proclaimed
by Norwegian in regard to its alleged compliance and promotion
of the human worth
values within Article 17 - “The opportunities created by the Agreement
are
not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and
principles
contained
in the parties respective laws”.
Unlike Norwegian,
Article 17 makes no distinction between employee and contract worker.
I received two agency
contracts with Norwegian. Each contract contained the stipulation I
could not hold the
lessee airline, Norwegian, responsible as the employer (ref item 4).
Several legal
jurisdictions were applicable to the working relationship (ref item 5).
In reference to
safety, discrepancy or whistle-blowing reports, European and local Member
State labor laws,
including aviation regulations, refer specifically to an employer/employee
relationship.
Therefore, any transgression by Norwegian against a contract crew member has
effective impunity
due to the complexity of applying employment law to the non-employer
relationship Norwegian
demands of its contract crew, notwithstanding, the legal issues of
jurisdiction and
forum (ref item 18).
EU Directive
2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 states: “Member States shall ensure that employees
who
report incidents of which they may have knowledge are not subjected to any
prejudice
by
their employer”.
A contract crew
member has neither protection nor redress from any punitive/discriminatory
action by Norwegian.
Consequently, contract crew members may not submit safety or other
reports management
may perceive as critical of the airline. It is implausible to suggest that
such a work
environment is conducive to a safety culture. It is conducive to a fear
culture.
The earlier safety
information is submitted, the earlier any threat to safety can be resolved.
Any business model
that would obstruct and deter such information is unprincipled.
Norwegian’s company
Code of Ethics states: “We place great importance on ensuring
compliance
with employees basic human rights as outlined in the International Labor
Organization’s
core conventions”.
My declaration
details a personal experience of Norwegian’s absolute disregard for labor
standards, rights and
principles, including the International Labor Organization core
convention number 158
– “A worker may not have his employment terminated unless there is
a
valid reason connected with the workers aptitude or behavior or based on the
operational
needs
of the enterprise, establishment or service” – (ref items 12, 13
and 14).
Every contract crew
member currently working for Norwegian is exposed to, potentially, the
same unethical
treatment detailed in my declaration. It is inconceivable that the Norwegian
business model
could comply with the spirit and intention of Article 17.
I respectfully
request that you not only deny Norwegian’s application for a Foreign Air
Carrier Permit, but also necessitate a review of their operations within the US
for any possible noncompliance
with FAR Part 129 –
(ref item 10).
Yours truly,
Captain S. Colman
BEFORE
THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON,
DC
Application
of
Docket No. OST-2013-0204
NORWEGIAN
AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
for
an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 and
a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to
49
U.S.C. § 41301 (US-EU Open Skies)
Declaration
of Captain Stephen Colman
1. My name is
Stephen Colman. I am a former contract pilot for Norwegian Air Shuttle, and
Norwegian Long
Haul. My declaration identifies the significant problems and regulatory
failures I faced
when attempting to seek redress from multiple European countries’
regulators for
adverse employment actions taken against me because of my safety
reporting. I cannot
conceive how the business model to which I was subjected could be
consistent with the
spirit and intent of Article 17 bis of the U.S-EU Air Transport
Agreement.
2. I have been
flying long-haul widebody and narrowbody airline transport category aircraft
for 29 years. I
hold several Airline Transport Pilot Licenses (ATPL) issued by various
authorities,
including by the United Kingdom.
3. I responded to a
Norwegian Air Shuttle (“Norwegian” or “NAS”) advertisement to join
the airline.
Norwegian arranged tickets to attend their interview. Norwegian informed me
I had been
successful and gave me a choice of three agencies with which to sign a
contract for a
three-year term.
4. I
was provided with two contracts. Each contract contained the specific clause
that the
crew member has no
claim he is or was an employee of the lessee airline (the Norwegian
Airline Group).
5. The employment
agency I selected was “ARPI Aviation Norway.” Despite its name, the
contract identified
ARPI Aviation Norway’s office address as being in Poland. In the
contract, ARPI
Aviation Norway chose Swedish law to govern the contract. My
operational base
with Norwegian was Helsinki, Finland. At the same time, my ATPL and
medical are issued
in the United Kingdom, while Norwegian has its corporate
headquarters/principal
place of business in Norway. As can be seen, several
legal
jurisdictions
potentially affected my working relationship with Norwegian.
6. Starting in May
2012, Norwegian provided all my training. I passed all exams and
probationary
period, including Norwegian’s CAA-Norway-approved, mandatory Crew
Resource Management
(CRM) course. I also passed all subsequent exams, tests and
checks.
7. Norwegian
provided me with an official crew member identification badge with the
abbreviation ‘Empl’
(employee) with number, and ‘Empl’ (employee) with date,
appearing on the
badge. However, the name of my employment agency, ARPI Aviation
Norway, did not
appear on the badge.
8. In October 2012,
Norwegian notified me that in addition to flying for NAS, I would also
be “hired out”
to fly for another airline with its own Air Operators Certificate (AOC),
called Norwegian
Long Haul (NLH). NLH would operate from my Helsinki base. I was
not given a choice,
and was neither consulted nor advised as to the terms and conditions
with NLH prior to
being notified, but was promised “great benefits” which did not
materialize.
9. Norwegian
company policy, as stated in both the NAS and NLH Operations Manual, Part
A (OMA) 1.4.1,
requires that the aircraft commander shall ensure all standard
procedures,
instructions and regulations as laid down by the Company and various civil
aviation
administrations, are adhered to by all members of his or her crew, in the air
and
on the ground, and “on
his [sic] own initiative make suggestions for improvements.”
Norwegian,
including its CEO, continually solicits safety information from its crew: “It
is
of
great importance to the company that you have confidence to share your
experiences
with
us.”
10. Encouraged by
these company policies that purported to solicit safety information, during
my tenure I submitted
six safety/operational discrepancy reports to both NAS and NLH
management. All
reports were supported with relevant company and/or EU OPS
regulations. One
report was classified under EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Annex 1 B (ii)
(a) and (f), as a
Mandatory Occurrence Report. The NAS Chief Pilot, the NLH Training
Manager, and the
Norwegian Airline Group Safety Manager all failed to reply to any of
my reports. A reply
from the Deputy Director of Flight Operations (DFO), demanded to
know if I had
contacted CAA Norway.
11. Following my
safety/operational discrepancy reports, the attitude of Norwegian’s
management toward
me became hostile. I cataloged the punitive and discriminatory
actions taken
against me and reported them to the Chief Pilot on November 30, 2012.
The Chief Pilot did
not reply. On December 20, 2012, I did hear from the Director of
Flight Operations
(DFO), who replied, “I am sorry to hear that you have experienced
punitive
actions against you.”
12. On December 31,
2012, Norwegian terminated my contract without giving any reason.
(ARPI Aviation
Norway’s notice to me stated: “Based on the decision of our client” -
Norwegian).
13. At the time
Norwegian terminated my contract, no other Captain was terminated and
Norwegian was
placing advertisements for, and actively recruiting pilots, most of who
were considerably
less experienced than me.
14. Only days
before my termination, on December 20, 2012, in fact, I received an above
average grade for ‘winter
operations’ on my last simulator check. The examiner made
the annotation; “nice
handling of aircraft”. Norwegian assigned and authorized me to
command its B737
aircraft full of its passengers on a daily basis, including up to one day
before termination.
No disciplinary action or investigation was ever taken against me by
Norwegian or ARPI
Aviation Norway.
15. In January
2013, I submitted a comprehensive report to CAA Norway regarding safety
and operational
discrepancies at Norwegian, including the punitive action and my
termination by
Norwegian. CAA Norway responded that NAS/NLH management had
addressed the
issues of my reports. However, the Director General of CAA Norway was
categorically
unwilling to consider any reason, connection or coincidence for my
treatment and
termination by Norwegian, stating; “Such issues were between employee
and
employer” and “Norwegian is free to hire the crew they would like to
hire.”
16. A prospective
employer submitted a U.S. Pilot Record Improvement Act (PRIA) request
to Norwegian’s
Director of Flight Operations and Norwegian’s Chief Pilot. Only the
respective airline
is responsible to generate and retain training records. Neither officer
responded to the
PRIA request.
17. I notified CAA
Norway of Norwegian’s refusal to comply with US Federal Law. CAA
Norway stated: “The
CAA cannot comment on the US Federal Government Pilot Record
Improvement
Act and whether Norwegian has acted in accordance with the Act”.
18. In addition to
CAA Norway (item 15), I submitted details of my safety/operational
discrepancy
reports, treatment and termination by Norwegian, to the following bodies:
(i) European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – February 25, 2013 - with reply:
“The
Norwegian CAA is the body responsible for collecting of safety related
information,
safety
oversight and law enforcement in the filed of flight operations and safety
management”
(ii) Finland
Transport Safety Agency (TraFi) - March 14, 2013 – with reply:
“CAA Norway is the
competent authority……..”
(iii) UK Civil
Aviation Authority – May 23, 2013 – with reply:
“The fact that
aircraft operate based in Helsinki or Gatwick does not alter the
responsibility
of the Norwegian authority for oversight. CAA Norway is the competent
authority”
(iv) European
Commission Flight Safety Department - July 4, 2013 – with reply:
"It
is not relevant where the aircraft operates or where the commander is based or
employed
but which state ensures safety oversight, i.e. where the operator has its
principle
place of business"
(v) European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – July 9, 2013 - with reply:
“Whether
or not there is non-compliance [with EU Ops] can only be made by the
Norwegian
CAA”
“We
do not agree that it is up to Finland (the state from which you operated) to
assess
such
non-compliance”
(vi) EU Ombudsman –
17 October, 2013 – with reply:
“The
responsibility to deal with these issue falls under the Norwegian CAA’s remit”
“Norway
is not an EU member State, the Commission could not engage in infringement
procedure
or take other action against Norway”
(vii) Finland
Occupational Safety and Discrimination Administration – June 3, 2014
– with reply:
“The
airline involved [Norwegian] is not Finnish and we cannot supervise them”
(Despite Norwegian
having aircraft and a large crew base in Helsinki, Finland)
(viii) Irish
Aviation Authority (IAA) Director of Safety - June 6, 2014 – NO REPLY.
19. However, as I
have described, CAA Norway refused to take any action concerning my
termination that I
believe occurred in retaliation for my safety reporting.
20. Recently, I was
made aware that the Norwegian Airline Group and ARPI Aviation
Norway disclosed my
personal data, including my bank details and account numbers, to
third parties without
my express permission. Those third parties then disclosed that
information to other
third parties without my consent. Such action is in violation of the
Norway Personal Data
Act.
21. The Norway
Personal Data Act provides that upon request to entities holding their
personal data, a
person shall receive information to whom and for what purpose their data
was disclosed. The
Act also provides that upon request, their data is removed and they
are notified of such.
Necessary requests were made to both Norwegian and ARPI
Aviation Norway Human
Resource managers. To date, neither has replied.
22. The
actions of Norwegian and ARPI Aviation Norway have placed me at risk of
potential
identity theft, and
violate Norway’s law.
23. The Norwegian
Airline Group, Code of Ethics states: “We place great importance on
ensuring
compliance with employee’s basic human rights as outlined in the International
Labor
Organization’s core conventions”. Norwegian has also
stated it “Applies the law of
the
country to where the employee is hired and based”.
Sadly, the facts clearly
demonstrate the
reality of Norwegian’s gross hypocrisy.
24. Norwegian’s
lawyers in Sweden have implied I may expect legal repercussions for
breach of contract
were I to file any claim for discriminatory action with reference to an
“employer/employee”
relationship – ref item 4. No other definition within safety related
legislation
currently exists - ref EU Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8.4: “Member
States
shall
ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are
not
subjected to any prejudice by their employer”.
25. From the
aforementioned documented facts, it is abundantly clear that a crewmember
who is not a direct
employee of the Norwegian Airline Group, and therefore is without
union and Norway
legal protections, has no redress if managers at Norwegian take
punitive and
discriminatory action against them, up to termination and even after. The
quagmire of
legislative jurisdictions makes such relief extremely difficult, if not
impossible. It
is implausible to suggest that such an abhorrent working environment
is
conducive to a culture that promotes safety. It is conducive
to a culture of fear.
26. Every contract
crew member of Norwegian is exposed to and potentially subject to the
same treatment
detailed above. I respectfully request that NAI’s applications be denied.
I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my belief.
Executed on August
18, 2014
___________________
_______________________________
Stephen Colman (The letter is signed)
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.