An arbitrator has upheld the termination of a pilot by Jazz Aviation LP, finding that he engaged in serious misconduct by making unsubstantiated allegations of bribery and corruption against the company and union officials, thereby creating a toxic workplace environment.
Arbitrator William Kaplan dismissed the grievance filed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) on behalf of Captain G.K., who was terminated on May 23, 2019, after nearly 29 years of service. The employer asserted just cause for dismissal, citing G.K.’s on- and off-duty conduct, which included circulating an email to at least 100 pilots alleging improper conduct by company and union officials.
“The evidence is clear, categorical and compelling,” Kaplan wrote. “Without a shred of proof, the grievor alleged major misconduct on the part of the company and the MEC [Master Executive Council]. Both directly and indirectly, the grievor made bald allegations of major misconduct, or he insinuated it.”
Allegations and investigation
G.K.’s allegations centred on claims that Jazz Aviation was bribing union officials to secure favourable collective bargaining outcomes and grievance settlements. He also suggested that a union-run charity, Jazz Pilots for Kids (JPFK), was being used for money laundering.
Key witnesses for the employer included Captain G.R., the MEC Grievance Chair, who testified about the impact of G.K.’s allegations. “The email asserted that money had been stolen and that the MEC should be viewed as not being trustworthy,” G.R. stated.
Flight attendant S.R. recounted a conversation with G.K. during a station stop in Washington, D.C., where G.K. allegedly said that “the union guys are all crooks” and compared the union to the mafia.
The company conducted an investigation led by labour relations manager R.R., during which G.K. denied the allegations. However, Kaplan found G.K.’s denials to be evasive and not credible. “I cannot conclude that the grievor was truthful in his investigatory meetings with management,” Kaplan noted.
Breach of company policies
The arbitrator found that G.K.’s actions breached the company’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, which requires employees to report concerns about unethical behaviour through specified internal channels. G.K. failed to do so, instead disseminating his allegations among colleagues and external agencies without providing evidence.
“Bringing forward concerns with no evidence is inconsistent with that obligation,” Kaplan wrote. “Moreover, as an employee his primary duty was first and foremost to bring them forward to the company in accordance with his obligations and responsibilities under the Code.”
G.K. argued that he was a whistleblower acting in good faith and that his actions were protected under the company’s policies and various statutes. However, the arbitrator rejected this defence, stating that G.K. did not act in good faith because his allegations were baseless and he did not follow proper reporting procedures.
“The grievor’s claim that he was a whistleblower and that his comments were, therefore, protected is not correct,” Kaplan stated. “I do not accept that the grievor acted in good faith in bringing his concerns forward and making his complaints because there was absolutely no basis to any of them.”
Impact on workplace and trust
The decision emphasized the negative impact of G.K.’s actions on the workplace environment and the essential trust required in a safety-sensitive industry. Captain H.G. testified about concerns regarding G.K.’s behaviour affecting cockpit dynamics and flight safety.
“A pilot must have the trust and confidence of their employer and of their co-pilots. The safety of passengers and crew depend on this. The grievor’s behaviour has irreparably destroyed that trust,” Kaplan wrote.
The arbitrator found that G.K.’s conduct created a toxic workplace and damaged the reputations of both the company and the union. “By repeatedly making these false allegations the grievor has made reinstatement impossible,” he concluded.
No mitigation of penalty
Despite G.K.’s nearly 29 years of service, the arbitrator determined that termination was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and G.K.’s lack of accountability. “The grievor’s decision to deny his misconduct—and to take no accountability for any of it—makes his reinstatement impossible even if it were determined that termination was unjust,” Kaplan stated.
The union argued that G.K.’s actions were related to internal union affairs and did not warrant disciplinary action by the employer. However, the arbitrator disagreed, noting that the nature of the allegations directly engaged the employer’s interests.
“Whether on or off duty, the grievor’s conduct attracts discipline,” Kaplan wrote. “Reiterating allegations without any basis whatsoever that his colleagues were engaged in criminal conduct was many things, but consistency with the requirements of that policy was not one of them.”
In dismissing the grievance, the arbitrator affirmed the employer’s decision to terminate G.K. for just cause. “Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed,” Kaplan concluded.
For more information, see Jazz Aviation LP v ALPA, 2024 CanLII 99705 (CA LA).
