Resources: Blog

Flight attendant’s claim that excessive drinking was not his fault rejected by FWC in unfair dismissal case

Blog
|

Flight of fancy

Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered whether a flight attendant was unfairly dismissed after he failed to attend for work following a night out in New York.

In Urso v QF Cabin Crew Australia Pty Limited T/A QCCA [2018] FWC 4436 the Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered whether a flight attendant was unfairly dismissed after he failed to attend for work following a night out in New York.

The flight attendant was scheduled to operate a seven-day flight pattern of Brisbane-Los Angeles-New York-Los Angeles-Brisbane.

After arriving in New York, the flight attendant visited a bar with another employee. The flight attendant claimed to have had five drinks in the course of the evening but, at about 11.40pm, he was discovered by his colleague collapsed on the floor of the toilets in the bar and was subsequently taken to hospital where his blood alcohol concentration was tested and found to be 0.205%.

The flight attendant was discharged from hospital at about 6.00am the following morning and was due to operate a flight to Los Angeles departing at 5.10pm that afternoon. The flight attendant contacted his manager to advise that he was still feeling unwell and would not attend for work.

The flight attendant later flew to Los Angeles as a passenger and returned to Brisbane four days after his discharge from hospital.

Upon arrival in Brisbane, the flight attendant was met by the employer’s Service and Performance Manager who advised him that he would not be permitted to operate a flight until he was medically cleared to do so.

The employer then commenced an investigation into the flight attendant’s conduct and the events in New York. The employer’s investigation found that the flight attendant had consumed in excess of five standard drinks and he had breached the employer’s policies and procedures. In particular, the flight attendant had:

  • failed to ensure that while on slip (time off duty between flights) he was adequately rested and able to perform his next operational duty;
  • failed to be ready, willing and able to perform his next operational duty;
  • failed to abstain from activity that would increase the risk of illness that would prevent him from performing his next operational duty; and
  • engaged in excessive use of intoxicating liquor while on slip.

Ultimately, the employer found that the flight attendant had failed to live up to the standards expected of him as their employee.

The employer subsequently commenced a disciplinary process with the flight attendant and invited him to respond to the allegations against him and show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated.

The flight attendant claimed that he had not intentionally placed himself into the situation that eventuated in New York and argued that he would normally be fine after five drinks, but the bartenders at the bar in question did not measure the shots they poured into mixed drinks, but rather “free poured”. The flight attendant claimed that this resulted in the drinks he consumed being stronger than anticipated. The flight attendant also said that he believed his drinks were spiked.

The flight attendant expressed remorse for the totality of the circumstances but denied that his conduct was intentional.

The employer dismissed the flight attendant on the basis of misconduct, and the flight attendant lodged an unfair dismissal application with the FWC.

In the proceedings before the FWC, the flight attendant claimed that there was no valid reason for his dismissal because his conduct had not been intentional, his alcohol consumption was incorrectly characterised by the employer as “excessive” and his drinks were “free-poured” and spiked.

Having considered the evidence presented by the parties, the FWC rejected the flight attendant’s arguments. The FWC considered the evidence of two medical experts regarding the flight attendant’s intoxication and whilst they were unable to agree on the exact number of drinks the flight attendant had consumed, they did agree that it was likely he consumed around 14 standard drinks at the bar in New York during over a 1.5-hour period. The FWC considered this to be an excessive amount of alcohol.

Significantly, the FWC noted that it was the flight attendant’s responsibility to ascertain the content and quality of the drinks he consumed and there was no evidence that his drinks had been spiked. The FWC considered it “implausible” that the flight attendant did not feel intoxicated whilst at the bar such that he would not adjust his intake of alcohol accordingly,

“In the end, it is Mr Urso who is responsible for putting himself in a situation where his consumption of alcohol caused him to fail in his duty to join his scheduled flight as crew member on 23 July 2017.”

Further arguments made by the flight attendant about the harshness of his dismissal were also rejected by the FWC and it was held that the employer had followed a reasonable disciplinary and termination process.

The flight attendant’s unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

Lesson for employers

This case demonstrates the manner in which the conduct of an employee outside of working hours can impact on their ability to perform their duties and the steps an employer can take in response.

Employers should maintain clear policies setting out expectations for employee conduct and the consequences for failing to live up to those standards. Employers should also follow consistent and fair investigation and disciplinary processes to ensure that procedural fairness obligations are met.

Finally, this case reinforces that employees are also responsible for their own conduct.

 

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.

Read more...

Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.

Read more...

FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.

Read more...

Court penalises accountant for involvement in employer’s failure to keep employee records

Put your records on

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.

Read more...

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.