More from KR treatment of Citation Air pilots:
But even getting to that point would be a long shot. Remember what would have to happen:
a. Citation Air Pilots would have to find representation to sue.
b. They would have to fund a lawsuit with a very uncertain outcome.
c. They would have the Teamsters, Flight Options Management and Flight
Options pilots opposed to their claim. Our unified defense would be that putting 85 people to work was the right thing to do as opposed to the inevitable loss of all the jobs.
d. They would have to be successful in their very unlikely claim that McCaskill Bond applies.
e. They would have to be willing to come back to employment to claim their positions.
- - - Updated - - -
That is why a union is necessary
- - - Updated - - -
More from KR:
The following Q & A are from Kenn’s sworn deposition taken in 2003 during the federal litigation
that Thomas Bowden, William Brunet, Thomas Jeter, Eric Miller, William Tumlin and David Yeager
filed against Flight Options over their illegal termination during that merger. These are Kenn’s
recorded answers to the Teamster attorney that was examining him:
Q. What do you recall—did you speak with Mr. Brunet in the indoc?
Kenn. Probably.
Q. Do you have a specific recollection of speaking to him?
Kenn. I don’t have a specific recollection of what he asked or didn’t ask at indoc.
Q. What do you recall about Mr. Brunet in indoc?
Kenn. Body language.
Q. What body language?
Kenn. Well, it’s body language because it’s hard to describe, but I think after doing as many
indoc classes as I’ve done and, you know, clearly they number in the hundreds, I would
often—you could often tell, from looking at someone, whether they were engaged, whether
they were a doubting Thomas, you know, or whether they were still trying to decide what
they really believed. Mr. Brunet was one of those people that you could just tell from his
body language, didn’t believe anything that was being said.
- - - Updated - - -
Q. And how did you respond to your interpretation of his body language?
Kenn. Well, this would happen often at indocs, there were many indoc classes I would leave and
I would tell Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Herzberg or Mr. Salata, that I don’t think this person
should be here. And I can tell you that probably there were ten or twelve people a year
who I would pick out of indoc who I’d say, you know, rescind their employment.
Q. Based on body language?
Kenn. Absolutely.
Kenn had Brunet fired for “bad body language.” BAD BODY LANGUAGE!!!
Q. Do you recall anything regarding the termination of Mr. Tumlin?
Kenn. No.
Q. Mr. Jeter?
Kenn. I remember a discussion about Mr. Jeter’s attitude.
Q. With whom?
Kenn. Well, it was either with—I don’t remember with whom it was, probably Mr. Sullivan and
Mr. Salata.
Q. Do you recall what was said regarding Mr. Jeter?
Kenn. My conversation with Mr. Jeter on the first of January was the first kind of indication I
had that perhaps he wasn’t someone who was going to embrace the culture.
A bit later in the questioning, Kenn continued on about Jeter:
Q. This is a termination letter from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Jeter.
Kenn. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
Kenn. Yes.
Q. And can you identify for me the ground for his termination that’s identified in this letter?
Kenn. Not following the fundamental principles of the company, specifically that employees are
the foundation of a service company.
Q. And that’s one of the four—
Kenn. Three.
Q. Sorry. Three fundamental principles. Any other reason that you recall for Mr. Jeter’s
termination other than what’s identified in this letter?
Kenn. No.
Jeter was allegedly let go because “he wasn’t someone who was going to embrace the culture.”
That’s the exact same reason Kenn’s management team used against at least two of our illegally fired
FJ-POC “hostages”—they were accused of not being “happy” employees and not fitting in. Jeter was
also guilty of not following the “fundamental principles of the company,” whatever that means—
management most certainly ignores those principles.
The questioning continued:
Q. What was the reason that [Bowden] was terminated?
Kenn. That was indicative of the fact that this was a man that was never going to embrace the
culture wherein there’s open communication, wherein you’re trying to create a trusted
environment. He was never going to embrace that. That was my assessment. I have to
make that judgment call, and I made it. And I make that call several times a year. I make
it in indoc classes from watching people’s body language, but that’s what I get paid to do.
- - - Updated - - -
Bowden apparently committed the double sin of “never going to embrace the culture” and also
having bad body language. Just as was discovered in the case of the three illegally terminated FJ-
POC “hostages,” attached are a couple of revealing emails between Kenn and Bob Sullivan that
shows the extent to which the senior executives conspired to get their story straight about why they
were firing the Fab Five. They had to change their justification for firing Tom Bowden. Sullivan
stated in his email, “he has not yet visited HQ.” That’s where indoc took place so, HE WASN’T
EVEN THERE WHEN KENN SAID HE OBSERVED HIM!!!
- - - Updated - - -
And so you find that his video is more trustworthy?