scambo1

What it appears to mean is that airlines are exempt from the "hostile work environment" rules that individuals within the organization are at risk for - IF the reason for hostility is "security" related.

I don't really see the land-mark-ness of the ruling though as the OP intimates.

rickair7777

No. They're not exempt from rules about a hostile work environment.

But if a pilot (particularly an FFDO) has an angry outburst they can report you to TSA, the FAA, or even law enforcement and get away with it. Unless the pretty much fabricate the whole thing, if you give them a grain of truth to work with they can run with the ball.

Keep your cool and this is a non-issue. Guess what? It's not acceptable in 2014 to explode in a fit of anger. Managers will get sued, employees will get fired, or apparently dimed out to the smurfs.

80ktsClamp

That's my take from it. That's why I guess I'm not seeing the huge concern here.

boxer6

Sure it does. As Rick points out, it gives license to a company to fabricate a whole heck of a lot if they want to. It has the POTENTIAL to be a huge concern. Do you really think that Air W. gentleman was a "threat" to anything? What happened there probably happens somewhere everyday. We've all witnessed and/or heard of disparate treatment...especially in the subjective realm of the training environment. Human emotion is a natural entity but I guess that is not allowed anymore...unless you really trust the powers that be where you work. Do YOU? In reality, what if they unscrupulously fabricate an entire exchange. Wouldn't it be up to YOU to prove them wrong(or reckless, in the words of Sotomayor)? I don't think your word against theirs will suffice.
I was told of a situation/disagreement between a gate agent and a Captain whereby the gate agent falsely stated the facts that happened between them. Capt. was arrested and a trial ensued. I believe the video tape that happened to be trained on the area cleared him. Lucky.

Do not be fooled that this new tool won't attempted be used by "some" company to get around union protections. Every company has "their list" of undesirables, and what each one does (if anything)with this ruling is anybody's guess. The point is, now there is a new precedent. If nothing else, it reinforces the idea of having a third witness to anything other than pleasant conversation while at work.

Three of the Justices saw the forest through the trees.

captjns

Perfect example why some children need adult supervision whilst surfing the Internet,

fosters

Delete 10 char

swamp

Just tell toomanyrjs his post sounds racist, and he will whimper and cry like a Paula Dean apology video.

Imapilot2

NO.....its sounds like he is yelling a rude outburst! His airline should label him as a threat to the TSA for his outburst here and be removed from any flights.

block30

Yep, I'm with you and Rickair here. I'm curious how badly this guy freaked out. Maybe his behavior really was a legitimate concern. ???

Justdoinmyjob

It could also depend on what he said in a fit of anger. People make all kinds of threats when mad, even though they may not have any intention of following through, but are merely intending to "scare" their target.

Or, conversly, the other employee may have decided, "I'm gonna show that SOB," and called higher ups with a more dramatized version than what went on. Sure would be nice to have a transcript of said argument.