Flying high
by Lee Hills, June 28th, 2011
The American airline, United Airlines, is facing a hefty fine for failing to carry out proper drug tests on some of its employees, alleges the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
This is not the first time that the airline has been warned about its insufficient drug testing procedures.
In this instance, it is alleged that United used a scientifically flawed method to make sure that members of the crew were equally likely to be selected for a random drug and alcohol test. In addition, the airline is accused of failing to carry out required pre-employment drug tests and receive verified negative test results before transferring 13 of its employees to safety sensitive positions.
The penalty faced by the airline is $584,375, although this is by no means the highest fine imposed by the FAA. Another American airline was fined by them in 2009 for $5.4 million when it became apparent that aircraft were in operation, where there had been a failure to carry out necessary maintenance and inspections.
It goes without saying that drug testing in this industry is necessary and critical to ensure that safety measures are reached satisfactorily. This will not be the case for all industry sectors and drug testing without justification will be an unnecessary intrusion upon employees. Where is is carried out it must be done in a safe and secure way without breaching confidentiality. The results should always be made available to the employee.
By Lee Hills
ASHES TO ASHES
by Lee Hills, June 28th, 2011
THE SKIES CLEAR FOR TRAVEL CLAIMS
The past 12 months have seen unprecedented disruption caused to travellers following the first eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in 2010.
The closure of UK airspace saw holidaymakers stranded across the globe despite the efforts of many tour operators to repatriate them using whatever means available.
Within a short space of time, the backlash began with some airlines declining to pay or contribute towards the unforeseen costs incurred by travellers in the form of hotel bills and expenses incurred in having to source alternative means of transport.
Almost 12 months later, following the eruption of the Grimsvotn volcano, in Iceland similar scenes were repeated with air passengers in Scotland being forced to spend uncomfortable nights on the floor of local airports as carriers such as British Airways, KLM, EasyJet and RyanAir cancelled dozens of flights which were due to depart from both Scottish and English airports.
It has not only been northern airspace which has been affected but also flights in Uruguay and Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, following volcanic activity within those regions and ash cloud from the Eritrean volcano causing disruption in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt.
With passengers having submitted claims on their travel insurance some 12 months ago, following the first period of disruption arising from “ash cloud 1”, a number of travel insurers declined these claims based upon the wording of, and exclusions within, the travel insurance policies. The central issue was whether or not delays or cancellations caused by the ash cloud fell within the definition of “weather”.
A number of disputes were referred to the UK’s Financial Ombudsman’s Service (FOS) for ruling. Insurers argued that “weather” related to atmospheric conditions included heat, wind and precipitation as opposed to the mere presence of a substance within the atmosphere. The preliminary ruling of the FOS in December 2010 provided a conclusion that the ash cloud did constitute poor weather conditions and as such, under the travel insurance policy in question, the customers claim should be paid.
This had ramifications for the travel industry as a whole and as a consequence the Ombudsman invited the insurer in question to make representations as to whether the matter should be decided by the Courts as a test case. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman is permitted to dismiss a claim if it raises an important or novel point of law which has important consequences for the industry and would be best dealt with by the Court and to make the appropriate referral.
Despite strong representations by the insurer to the Ombudsman, she did not agree that the matter should be referred to the Courts, having concluded that the movement of ash by the wind would not be stretching the literal meaning of the word for the circumstances to be caught by the policy wording. In response to the insurers representations that in such circumstances it would be necessary individually list every potential event that would need to be excluded, the Ombudsman pointed out that the risk to travel through volcanic eruptions had been identified as long ago as 1980 following the devastation caused by Mount St Helens.
In the absence of a referral to the Courts for a ruling it would seem that the path is clear for any outstanding claims to proceed under the terms of policies that were in place at the time of the initial eruption of Eyjafjallajokull and those where policies have not been specifically amended to include such events.
By Lee Hills