Police dob in drink driver to Air NZ

An Air New Zealand flight attendant has lost her job after police caught her drink-driving outside work time – and then dobbed her in to her employer.

Now her union has stepped in and is planning to lay a raft of complaints against police and the airline, citing serious privacy concerns.

The apparent cosy relationship between police and Air NZ has alarmed the union, which fears it could become more common between police and other employers.

The Auckland-based flight attendant was driving to work on a Sunday morning in May when she was breath-tested at a police checkpoint and found to have excess breath alcohol.

The 26-year-old, who declined to be identified, was shocked by the result and informed the airline she would not be reporting for work. She did not tell her employer about the incident and it appears she was not specifically required to do so.

Air NZ said only pilots were required to notify the airline if they received a conviction during their employment period. If an employee received a conviction that could materially impact their duties, such as a driver who lost their licence, they were also required to tell their manager.

Just under two weeks after the flight attendant was caught, and before she had appeared in court or been convicted, police contacted Air NZ, providing her breath-test reading (but not her name) and offering to discuss the matter and reveal further details if required. Without the flight attendant's knowledge, Air NZ then requested information about her under the Official Information Act (OIA) and police named her.

Five months later the woman, who had a previously clear employment record, was dismissed for issues arising from the drink-driving charge. The dismissal is being disputed.

The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union said the case raises serious privacy and police conduct issues, and said it was not an isolated incident. The union was aware of two other cases where similar information-sharing had taken place between police and the national carrier.

Air NZ has confirmed it used the OIA twice to get details about employees caught drink-driving on the way to work, saying it did so because the safety of passengers and staff was paramount.

The union is lodging complaints with the privacy commissioner, the Police Complaints Authority and the ombudsman.

Union president Andrew Little said there had to be a clear line on where police jurisdiction stops and starts. Although drink-driving was unacceptable, the flight attendant had been dealt with through the criminal justice system and the matter should have stopped there. He did not believe there were issues of public safety justifying police contact with Air NZ, and said the airline had robust and effective internal drug and alcohol policies. This included the right for employees to intervene if they noticed a colleague was under the influence.

"We need to put the flag up and say `hold on – in this case you've gone too far'," said Little.

He said he would not be surprised if police shared information with other employers.

Police would not comment on that but assistant commissioner, operations Vic Rickard said: "We do take steps and preventative action when issues of behaviour impact on wider public safety."

He said disclosure of the woman's details was made under the OIA and was not taken lightly. He said internal legal advice had confirmed there was no breach of privacy.

Auckland human rights lawyer Tim McBride said individual privacy – including a person's rights surrounding personal information relating to them – was an important aspect of human rights. In his opinion it appeared police could have breached the spirit, and possibly the letter, of the Privacy Act.

The flight attendant said she had enjoyed flying, had a good employment record and was disappointed to lose her job. She could understand police concerns but did not think their behaviour was appropriate and felt her privacy had been breached.

"It was an unintentional mistake and I paid for it by losing my licence."

She is now working in another field.

The night before being caught drink-driving she said she had five drinks with friends over five hours, stopping drinking at around 10pm and going to bed close to 11pm. She was due at work the following day at 8am, woke up feeling well and was shocked when police said she was over the limit.

Employment lawyer Kathryn Beck said the woman did the right thing by calling her employer and not reporting to work. Beck said whether an employee facing charges had an obligation to tell their employer depended on their contract and their job. For example, a truck driver may be required to inform their employer about a drink-driving charge. In some cases it could be argued that the criminal behaviour brought disrepute to the employer, but this usually applied to only high-profile jobs and high-profile offending.

- © Fairfax NZ News