News Article of The Week
News that a Lufthansa operated aircraft crashed into the mountains in
France captured the hearts, minds and imagination of people around
the world. How could something like this happen? In the days that
followed CNN and others, used their resource might to dig deeper into
the story. When the news broke that the pilot of the aircraft had
suffered from depression and that the airline had some prior knowledge
of the pilot’s mental health state, the conversation dipped to the onus of
an employer to advise the public of risks associated with an employee’s
know performance and the risks associated with pilot unchecked mental
health issues.
Reports that the Airbus 320 crash was a deliberate act of a copilot
reportedly with mental health issues only served to sharpen demands
for a more stringent framework that better balances the screening for
mental health issues in workplaces where health and safety, particularly
when public safety is paramount.
Perhaps like many others, I found myself discussing the issue with a
colleague. Of course, I was interested in discussing the issue from a
workplace perspective. Though my colleague and I started at opposite
ends of the spectrum, I came around and accepted that perhaps there
are plenty of situations in which the public should have a limited right to
inquire and be provided answers about an employee’s known mental
health issue that gives rise to a massive public safety risk.
Arriving at that perspective is a massive departure from my usual
principles. Of course, my initial reaction was that the public delving into
an employee’s health history is rather invasive. Moreover, providing
anyone with such a broad set of rights simply leads us down a road
mired with opportunities to discriminate against persons with mental
health challenges. In other words, I started out with a very narrow
analysis of the workplace issues. With some reflection it is clear that
balance is key in any society. No right can be so absolute that it gives
rise to unconscionable and bizarre results. From my perspective while
no employee should be forced to disclose her or his mental health
issues in any carte blanche way, it is equally true that no employee
should be able to hide behind legal protections and public the public ad
serious risks in the face of non-disclosure.
The question then comes down to where to strike the balance. Firstly, in
my view, erring on the side of caution in some cases is the most prudent
course of action for an employer. The requirement for an employee to
disclose mental health issues that may pose public safety risk should be
a measured one. In other words, the extent of disclosure ought to be
proportional to the nature and scope of the public health risks involved.
While current laws my already provide a balanced approach between
the need for an employer to know about an employee’s mental health
condition and the requirement of an employee to disclose such private
and potentially stigmatizing information, there is a gap. What about the
public’s right to know. While, it is wrong to believe that all employers are
so motivated by the bottom line that they would holus bolus abdicate
their responsibility to protect public safety, the Lufthansa case points to
the contrary.
If it is true that Lufthansa knew or ought to have known about the
copilot’s mental health condition but still permitted him to fly, then there
is a huge problem. In either case there is a problem because the
mental health issue should have been caught. For the rest of the world,
this Lufthansa case is instructive because it draws into focus the need
for employers to be intrusive and demand medical proof to substantiate
an employee’s claims of good health.
Managing workplace mental health issues is not a new phenomenon.
However, given the number of deliberate commercial aircraft crashes
that has occurred in the past thirty years there is good reason to pause
and examine: 1. how continually to screen for mental health issues
amongst commercial pilots; 2. How to involve the flying public in
keeping organization’s accountable.
A pilot’s job is quite stressful with a high degree of responsibility. Given
the level of pilot stress, who knows the extent to which mental health
issues, is an occupational hazard among this classification group?
When a pilot deliberately crashes an aircraft the motive is always
suicide which crosses into the line of mental health issues.
A vigorous process ought to be adopted. As a condition of employment
all pilots ought to be forced to agree to undertake a mental health
examination at least every six months, if not quarterly. Of course, any
such examination ought to be done by a reputable mental health
organization and not a single practitioner, for obvious reasons. The
reviewing practitioners would have access by way of a consent signed
at the time of employment that remains effective through the pilot’s
tenure, to the pilot’s entire medical file, of course at the employer’s
expense. In between mental health assessments, pilots should be
encouraged to provide details of a copilot’s behavior that gives rise to
serious mental health concerns. While this latter suggestion may give
rise to bad blood within a particular pilot group, public health ought to
trump bad blood between pilots. In any event, any such bad blood is a
subject for management, and team building activities. The public’s
safety should never be compromised.
Finding the right approach and balance is much trickier for the second
question which pertains to passengers’ right to known. Passengers
board aircrafts daily without having a clue as to who is flying the aircraft,
let alone the pilot’s mental health history. Should passengers know a
pilot’s mental health history? There is a very strong argument for the
negative position. On the other hand, passengers currently have no way
of knowing whether, as a corporation, the airline has abdicated its
responsibility to ensure that workplace mental health issues do not
adversely affect pilots judgment, skills, competence, and sense of
balance. If employee privacy rights are to trump the right of the public
reasonably to know the nature of the risks assumed when flying on a
passenger aircraft, then it is incumbent on airlines to be ultra vigilant
about discovering and treating mental health issues that may plague an
individual pilot, or pilots as a group. But in the wake of this recent
Lufthansa case, should the public have an independent right to obtain
information about a pilot’s mental health state through a limited
procedure. And if so, what is an appropriate procedure to accomplish
this goal while at the same time protect a pilot’s protection of private
medical information. I suppose the question really is how private should
this information be? On thing in is for absolute certain, the public should
not be put at risk simply because of corporate neglect.
Passengers may be wise to start asking and even demanding
information about a pilot’s safety history before they board an aircraft.
Imagine the likely impact on the industry if passengers simply took this
small step. It would force the industry to take a step towards create
balance between the passengers desire to known and the airline’s
desire to protect the private information of an employee. Though this
idea may be far-fetched, passenger probes and demands for
information serve only to improve safety, not reduce it. An employee’s
right to the protection of private mental health information ought to be
subservient when it collides with and is oppositional to the greater public
good of public safety. Passengers can start by asking questions. When
passengers in the United States and Canada start asking questions the
appropriate corporate functionaries will necessarily translate
passengers actions into liability issues resulting in a race to the gate to
find the appropriate balance.