Jetstar response to Daily Telegraph article
Jetstar wishes to correct the record in respect to assertions made against the airline in an article which appeared in today’s
Daily Telegraph (Sydney) and in subsequent media coverage, over our reasons for the dismissal of a customer service representative at Sydney Airport.
Jetstar stands by its excellent labour and workplace relations record between the company and our existing 1300 strong workforce.
As part of the Qantas Group, Jetstar strongly adheres to equal opportunity and non-discriminatory principles in its employee relations, and we believe we are seen as an ‘employer of choice’ in the market place.
The dismissed Sydney based Jetstar employee, Miss Brooke Ogden, was on extended probation at the time of her dismissal from the customer service role.
Jetstar stands by its position last week to appropriately dismiss the employee for performance related issues.
Our airline respects the privacy of all our employees. However as this matter has been publicly aired by the former employee, and in defence of our position, appropriate reasons for her dismissal included:
- At least 10 documented incidents of non performance by the employee ranging from breaches in company policy, airport security and work related;
- Regular incidences of both non attendance for designated work shifts and lateness to work in her customer service role for Jetstar at Sydney Airport, including her final day of employment;
- Verbal counselling regarding failure to collect and display appropriate security accreditation as per the mandatory security requirements of the position;
- Failure to meet company grooming standards for customer service activities;
- Verbal counselling in respect to violation of company procedures in the handling of visually impaired passengers;
- Unsatisfactory performance with respect to following a number of company procedures.
Miss Ogden’s version of events is incorrect and she was not dismissed due to her appearance on the job.
Further, Jetstar had instigated an extended probation period with the former employee with her full understanding and consent.
Her subsequent dismissal was the result of not successfully meeting the airline’s requirements during her extended probation period.