Editorial: A warning to all flight crew

OPINION: The case of an Air New Zealand flight attendant who was sacked after being caught drink-driving on her way to work has pitted the principle of public safety against an individual's right to privacy.

The 26-year-old was on her way to work as a flight attendant on a Sunday morning when she was breathalysed at a checkpoint. After failing the breath test the attendant called in sick but did not let the airline know what had happened.

According to the union she had not had a drink for 10 hours prior to the test and was at the low end of the scale when it comes to intoxication.

Two weeks later, the union says, a senior police officer contacted the airline and let the human resources department know that a flight crew member had been caught, but did not supply her name. The airline then put in an Official Information Act request to police to find out the offender's name, which was supplied. Five months later, after being convicted of drink-driving in court, the woman was sacked by the airline.

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), not surprisingly, has taken up the cudgels on her behalf and complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, Privacy Commissioner and the Ombudsman.

The woman has a strong claim for a breach of privacy. Clearly, the police officer involved overstepped the mark by contacting the airline, although it is easy to see why.

Police are employed to protect the public and the idea that a flight attendant drank so much the night before that she was still intoxicated on her way to work – and presumably would still be woozy while flying – is alarming.

Flight attendants have crucial safety roles and cannot show up to work with hangovers so ferocious that they are still legally drunk. Like millions in any number of occupations, they have a responsibility to take it easy the night before they work.

The union will argue that, because she called in sick and did not attempt to work, public safety was not compromised. This misses the point. Presumably if she was not picked up she would have been happy to work and public safety would have been put at risk.

The union argues that the matter should have been dealt with by the courts, and stopped there. It was not, it contends, up to police to report her to the airline.

The union has a strong case but that does not mean it is correct in terms of natural justice. The police officer was right to dob her in: The public safety argument should outweigh her right to keep her offending secret.

Whatever the outcome the case should send a clear message to all flight crew that flying under the influence is unacceptable. Air New Zealand's stance makes it clear the airline takes the issue seriously, and so it should.

- © Fairfax NZ News