Pilot fired for allegedly misusing staff travel while reporting fatigue, among other allegations
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has denied the interim reinstatement request of a former airline pilot who was dismissed following allegations of inappropriate use of staff travel.
The pilot, who had been working as a Junior First Officer, was terminated in October 2024 after an internal investigation by the airline substantiated claims that he misused concessionary staff travel while reporting fatigue, was uncontactable during standby periods, and posted semi-nude photos on social media alongside airline branding.
In one instance, the pilot flew to Sydney on a concessionary ticket the same day he reported being fatigued. On another occasion, he travelled to Honolulu shortly before scheduled duties and later submitted a medical certificate to explain his absence.
The employer also raised concerns about the pilot's online presence. The ERA noted his Instagram account featured images of him "scantily clad or in underwear… alongside other photographs of him in front of [company] branding."
While the pilot argued these posts predated his employment and were consistent with other staff conduct, the employer deemed them inappropriate and inconsistent with professional standards.
In its termination letter, the employer described the pilot’s actions as "destructive" of trust and expressed disappointment at what it perceived as a lack of credible remorse or acceptance of wrongdoing.
The pilot challenged his dismissal, filing for interim reinstatement while pursuing a broader unjustified dismissal claim.
He argued that the termination would severely impact his career progression, having accrued only 460 of the 500 multi-crew hours required for similar roles at other airlines.
He estimated it could take up to two years to reach that threshold with smaller operators. The pilot also cited significant financial hardship, including substantial student loan debt.
While the ERA acknowledged the claim of unjustified dismissal as "moderately arguable," it ultimately determined that reinstatement was not appropriate.
“[The employer] has lost trust and confidence in [the pilot] and have made clear that he cannot be relied upon," the decision stated.
"This comes at the end of a series of decisions… that appear to have been corrosive of [the employer's] ability to trust that he will be contactable during a designated standby duty and report for duty when required."
The pilot had proposed returning in a limited capacity as a non-operational third pilot or observer, but the ERA rejected the workaround, finding it inconsistent with the airline's safety policies.
"Such a safety conscious approach is in the public interest," the ERA noted. "The balance of convenience favours [the employer]. The overall justice does not favour interim reinstatement."
