Deflecting the blame for accident doesn’t save aviation worker’s job

Worker tried to blame other operator for loose brake, but brakes weren’t really loose

An adjudicator has upheld the dismissal of a British Columbia aviation worker who failed to follow safety procedures and caused a potentially dangerous incident, then tried to deflect the blame.

Stephen Komarnisky was a senior ground service lead for Strategic Aviation Services (SAS), a ground handling and passenger care provider for airlines based in Kelowna, B.C. Komarnisky was hired in May 2008 and was responsible for co-ordinating and directing activities while ensuring a safe environment for employees and maintaining fast and efficient services.

SAS stressed the importance of maintaining a “professional and positive image” and leading by example. Komarnisky had performance reviews in 2010 and 2011 that indicated he was performing above a satisfactory level and was a “great worker.” He received a bonus cheque in 2012 for his performance and recognition the year before. In 2013, SAS issued him a corrective action for violating a company policy — the incident was caused by a misinterpreted signal and, while SAS though he might be mildy intoxicated, Komarnisky claimed he only had the smell of alcohol on his clothes from a dart tournament at his home the night before.

SAS also had clear policies on safety, prohibiting “short cuts” in particular and stipulating that parking brakes must be engaged and engines shut off when vehicles were parked and left unattended.

On Nov. 28, 2014, Komarnisky was working with four other people. The weather was icy and they received a call to de-ice an aircraft. Komarnisky was responsible for operating the de-icing truck, which was a five-ton vehicle with drive and neutral positions but no park on the transmission. As a result, the parking brake with an adjustable tension was used.

Komarnisky parked the de-icing truck near the aircraft the same way he had done more than one thousand times before. He left the truck with the engine running and proceeded to help with baggage handling and other matters. A few minutes later, the truck began to roll and it hit the aircraft between an engine and a ramp being used by passengers to board the aircraft, damaging the propeller. Komarnisky ran to the truck, checked the parking brake, and backed the truck up. He continued to work after the incident.

SAS investigated and Komarnisky said he had put the parking brake on as usual, but someone had loosened the tension, suggesting the previous driver had done it. He said he checked the brake because he thought he might have left it off, but he claimed it was on and just loose.

SAS re-enacted the incident and found the truck would not have moved if it had been placed in neutral and the parking brake applied. A review of video clips showed passengers were boarding and several ground staff were walking nearby, creating a dangerous situation.

Its investigation concluded, SAS terminated Komarnisky’s employment for actions that were “in disregard to safety and was consistent with serious and wilful misconduct and a breach of our company rules and regulations.”

The adjudicator had difficulty believing Komarnisky’s claim that the problem was primarily the parking brake’s tension. SAS’s re-enactment and tests of the de-icing truck’s braking system didn’t support Komarnisky’s explanation.

“While (Komarnisky) may sincerely believe that the cause of the incident was the failure of the parking brake, the evidence obtained both before and after the incident does not support his belief,” said the adjudicator. “It appears to be a last minute attempt by (Komarnisky) to shift responsibility for the incident to (SAS).”

The adjudicator found SAS conducted a “full and fair investigation” and the conclusion it reached was not unreasonable. Komarnisky violated the company’s safety policies and placed passengers and ground crew members in danger as a result, as well as causing damage to an aircraft that had to be taken out of service.

Given Komarnisky had previous discipline — though he disagreed with the reason for it — and the seriousness of his breach of safety policy, the adjudicator agreed that dismissal was appropriate.

“The potential for harm through his conduct that demonstrates not only an unwillingness to accept responsibility for his errors but also a failure to adhere to established policies and procedures is sufficient reason to terminate his employment,” said the adjudicator. “The employer has lost trust that (Komarnisky) will follow established policies and procedures. His behaviours present a risk to the employer that does not have to be tolerated.”

See Komarnisky and Strategic Aviation Systems Inc., Re, 2015 CarswellNat 7396 (Can. Labour Code Adj.).

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!