Disciplinary Procedures Framework

Transcription

1 AIM OF THE RAAUS DISCIPLINARY PROCESS Disciplinary Procedures Framework The RAAus disciplinary procedures framework has been designed with the RAAus vision in mind Safe, Accessible, Fun and Enjoyable (SAFE aviation). This framework and the procedures within it aim to enhance the operation of organisation by providing a flexible and capable system which has the capacity to effectively manage breaches of rules, standards and codes of conduct, while maintaining a focus on the values of safety, education, transparency and integrity. Because the disciplinary process is administrative in nature, every effort has been made to ensure the language used in this framework is appropriate and reflects the aims, roles and responsibilities of RAAus. Deliberately, there is no reference to findings of guilt or innocence but instead terms which better articulate the nature and role of the process. This framework has been designed for use by all levels of the organisation from members through to management. It describes administrative concepts such as the balance of probabilities and administrative decision making, and provides guidance on the conduct of disciplinary inquiries, resolution options and appeal procedures. This framework should be referred to by members and management during all disciplinary proceedings. UNDERPINNING PRINCIPLES Adherence to the following principles ensures the disciplinary process is timely, fair, accountable and transparent. 1. A Just and Fair Safety Culture. The concept of just and fair culture is based on significant research in to aviation human factors which suggests that a non-punitive attitude toward human error is likely the most effective way to undertake aviation management, particularly in the area of aviation safety. Professor James Reason, a pioneer and arguably the authority in the field defined just culture as an atmosphere of trust in which those who provide essential safety-related information are encouraged and even rewarded, but in which people are clear about where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Despite the non-punitive aims however, as described by Prof Reason just culture includes the principle that voluntary transgressions must be appropriately dealt with. The environment and culture in an aviation organisation must be such that deliberately non-conforming, unsafe or rogue behaviours are targeted in a fair, predictable and authoritative manner in the name of safety. Just culture though does not punish honest mistakes and is designed to be a deliberate but flexible, proportionate and accommodating way of managing the aviation system. In an organization such as RAAus, a just culture is essential for the continued growth, maturity and evolution of the organization in to the future. The principles of just culture require the organisation to establish robust procedures and

2 techniques for practically applying the cultural aims of the organization. 2. Administrative Decision Making. The disciplinary process used by RAAus is designed to adhere to the principles of administrative decision making, such as procedural fairness and the hearing rule. a. Procedural Fairness. Procedural fairness is a commonly used expression which is concerned with the procedures used by a decision maker rather than the actual outcome of the decision. The following procedural fairness principles must be considered by persons involved in disciplinary proceedings in RAAus; Keeping people informed People whose interests may be adversely affected or who are the subject of an inquiry, including grounds for the inquiry. Providing respondents appropriate opportunity to respond to allegations of suspected breaches at the right time and based on all appropriate information (see the hearing rule) Considering all appropriate material related to inquiries, including those of respondents Make reasonable attempts to gather evidence which explains the facts of a situation Act in a fair, reasonable and unbiased manner at all times. This includes declaring potential conflicts of interest Conduct inquiries and all associated tasks in a timely manner Keep appropriate records b. The Hearing Rule. The hearing rule requires a decision maker to make sure they inform a person of the case against them or their interests and give them a fair opportunity to be heard. What is considered a fair opportunity varies according to the circumstances and requires consideration of what is reasonable in any given situation. 3. Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest is where an interest or activity of a party could be reasonably seen to influence the ability of that person to exercise their responsibility with objectivity. The three types of conflict of interest are actual, potential and perceived. The person nominated to conduct investigatory duties is to ensure they do not have a conflict of interest which may jeopardise the impartiality of the Inquiry. Examples of conflicts of interest include; personal relationship with witnesses, complainant or respondent; having been a complainant against a respondent etc. 4. Bias. Bias occurs when information is incorrectly interpreted because of a tendency to look for information that conforms to the individual s hypothesis or beliefs. Inquiry conductors should approach any Inquiry with an open mind and take all actions as appropriate to avoid bias of thinking. It is essential for an investigator to remember that the aim of a disciplinary Inquiry is to gather facts, not establish guilt or innocence.

3 5. The Reasonable Person Test. Reasonableness involves taking relevant factors in to account when making decisions. It also includes being honest, acting in good faith, having regard for all relevant rules and regulations, and generally being balanced (ie. recognising obvious risks, being prudent and thoughtful of self and others) and using insight when making decisions. 6. Reasonable Person. The reasonable person standard is to be interpreted as being a person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. 7. Balance of Probabilities. A fact is determined by the balance of probabilities if the evidence available suggests it is more probable than not. In the context of disciplinary proceedings, inquirers and decision makers must assess the evidence and make a value judgement about the likelihood of the truth behind certain facts. DEFINITIONS 8. The following terms apply when using this document; Reporter A member or non-member who submits a report of a disciplinary breach Respondent A member who is the alleged perpetrator of a disciplinary breach Rules of RAAus Includes Operations Framework, Constitution, Member Certification etc. TIPSA Temporary Immediate Preventative Safety Action Complaints Officer the person appointed by the CEO to undertake an initial investigation. Prejudicial Conduct can best be described as acting in a way which would be reasonably seen to bring the organisation into disrepute. TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY BREACHES The following list details types of disciplinary breaches covered by this framework. 9. Breaches of Discipline Related to Rules of Flight or RAAus Rules. Breaches of these rules can significantly erode the safety margins inherent in the aviation system, leading to an unmeasured but increased risk of a safety incident or accident. The effect of flight rules breaches can also extend further than individuals concerned, by causing damage to the public image of recreational aviation (or aviation in general), or creating a perception amongst other pilots that deliberate rule breaches are acceptable or will go unnoticed. The manner in which a breach occurs is of significance to how a breach is handled. In some cases, breaches of flight rules may occur because of stress of weather, or some other emergency. Successive breaches can also be complicated to resolve; while a breach which has been preceded by another breach could be said to still leave the individual culpable for all instances, it is not necessarily proper or beneficial to take that approach. The principles of a just culture must be considered with respect to

4 breaches of rules and this will inevitably require discretion on the part of decision makers when it comes to determining how to proceed with any particular matter. Irrespective of cause, flight rules breaches must be reported as a safety or disciplinary matter. Persons who are inquiring in to a breach of flight rules must keep two points in mind. Firstly, no pilot is exempt from the frailties of humanity (such as the complexities of decision making) and secondly, disciplinary action must not only be seen to, but must actually enhance safety, uphold the values and responsibilities of RAAus and be educational for the member. 10. Disreputable Behaviour. Firstly the act must be associated with RAAus when viewed by an impartial, reasonable observer. Secondly the act must be one which a reasonable person would consider is contrary to the rules, regulations or interests of RAAus. Prejudicial conduct can include acts against other members (bullying, harassment) or making inappropriate comments while representing the organisation (such as at a flying school or online e.g. social media). Prejudicial conduct is an important element of any disciplinary process as it ensures that behaviour upholds the values and standards of RAAus. A test of whether behaviour is prejudicial conduct is not designed to be a means of enforcing political ideology, social aims or agendas, which is why the reasonable person standard is to be applied when a testing conduct in this category. Assessment of potential breaches must be strictly apolitical and non-sectarian. 11. Illegal Activity. Illegal activity is beyond the scope of RAAus to deal with. Any suspected criminal activity is to be referred to the appropriate police agency. Where a member is being investigated for an illegal act which also has a related suspected prejudicial conduct or breach of rules, RAAus management may undertake disciplinary proceedings in accordance with this framework. For example, a member uses an RAAus aircraft to transport illegal materials and is witnessed undertaking unauthorised low flying on such a flight the member can be subject to RAAus proceedings related to the low flying but not the illegal activity. RIGHT OF APPEAL AND APPEAL PROCEDURES Members have the right to appeal the findings and resolutions of a DBI. A request to appeal is made in writing to the CEO, stating the reasons for the appeal. Valid reasons for appeal will vary from case to case, but members who are not satisfied with a decision are encouraged to identify deficiencies in a decision in accordance with the topics in this framework, for example, bias, hearing rule etc. Upon receiving an appeal, the CEO RAAus is responsible for determining whether there is merit in allowing a review of the decision by the Complaints Manager. The Complaints Manager will assist the CEO with accessing all relevant information to make this determination.

5 If the CEO allows an appeal, the member and Complaints Manager are notified. The CEO will then oversee formation of an appeal panel, which is to consist of three RAAus members. Secondary appeals may be accepted by the Board. A secondary appeal will be a review by a suitable person nominated by the Board. The review will consider all appropriate matters as directed by the Board and will report back to the Board with recommendations to resolve the appeal. The decision by the Board following a secondary appeal is final. There is no tertiary avenue of appeal.