Airport worker sacked botched screening of Julie Bishop

[Hvr]

The female worker who conducted the scan was found to have "not adhered to standard security screening procedures" but has since been reinstated after undergoing further procedural and customer service training.


But the male co-worker who instructed her to screen Ms Bishop has been sacked.
Melbourne Airport said in a statement: "A male ISS worker's employment was terminated as a result of not adhering to standard security screening as required at an Australian international airport."
It is understood that a third worker, a woman, at the same position was also stood down as the matter was investigated.


The sacked worker initially sought advice on an unfair dismissal action, but is believed to have reached a financial settlement with the airport that may have included a confidentiality agreement, a source close to the disciplinary process said.

​

Read more: Julie Bishop screening: government questioned airport before staff were suspended
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
​

Looks like there will be more to come with this story and maybe even political fall out.

 

[farstar]

We are always told if you don't yet anything to hide you shouldn't worry. May be we haven't heard the whole story but government ministers need to be treated the same as anyone else to show that airport security checks are fair. I am 100% sure she would not be a danger but what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

 

[TomVexille]

Ridiculous. Random should be random.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Ridiculous. Random should be random.

Exactly, and that was the problem here. The sacked person appears to have instructed that Julie Bishop get additional screening because of who she was. That's certainly not random.

 

[TomVexille]

Exactly, and that was the problem here. The sacked person appears to have instructed that Julie Bishop get additional screening because of who she was. That's certainly not random.

The problem is that we don't know the entire story here. I will remain sceptical as the airport has decided to settle out of court with the sacked employee.

 

[Hvr]

The problem is that we don't know the entire story here. I will remain sceptical as the airport has decided to settle out of court with the sacked employee.

I wonder if it was cheaper to pay them out than have the facts of the government intervention revealed?

 

[Moopere]

I don't really understand the issue and the linked site didn't help me understand it any better.

Its written that she was singled out, but its not clear at all how this was determined? A supervisor, or even a colleague, pointing out a passenger to a screening worker and having them get screened doesn't appear, on face value, to be any more or less singled out than anyone else who might try to walz through screening but ends up getting nabbed. Not saying that JB tried to avoid the screening, but how on earth did she (or her staff) determine she was singled out? This implies some sort of unfair treatment and would surely have to involve a pattern of behaviour by airport staff....

In any event, how on earth would this transform into a sacking offence? What did she get the latex glove and inappropriate 'touching' or something?

 

[NFF]

Is there a camera in the additional screening area ?

 

[TomVexille]

I wonder if it was cheaper to pay them out than have the facts of the government intervention revealed?

Probably likely

 

[RooFlyer]

We are always told if you don't yet anything to hide you shouldn't worry. May be we haven't heard the whole story but government ministers need to be treated the same as anyone else to show that airport security checks are fair. I am 100% sure she would not be a danger but what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

That's just the point. She wasn't treated like everyone else. She was selected, not a random choice.

I don't really understand the issue and the linked site didn't help me understand it any better.

Its written that she was singled out, but its not clear at all how this was determined? A supervisor, or even a colleague, pointing out a passenger to a screening worker and having them get screened doesn't appear, on face value, to be any more or less singled out than anyone else who might try to walz through screening but ends up getting nabbed. Not saying that JB tried to avoid the screening, but how on earth did she (or her staff) determine she was singled out? This implies some sort of unfair treatment and would surely have to involve a pattern of behaviour by airport staff....

In any event, how on earth would this transform into a sacking offence? What did she get the latex glove and inappropriate 'touching' or something?

From the original quoted text:

But the male co-worker who instructed her to screen Ms Bishop has been sacked.

(my bolding)

They aren't allowed to select people for screening;anybody; this implies that they might also 'de-select' people for screening. It has to be entirely random. I don't want anyone who pick-and-chooses in the security system. Yes, I know there are probably others who do choose one person over another, but when they can be identified, out they go!

One way that you could get suspicious that you have been 'selected' would be if, say, there was a significant gap in the people being tested in front of you and/or one of the security people pointed you out before you reached the selection point - you may surmise that they were 'waiting for you'. Julie Bishop I dare say was travelling with a small posse of people so any gap or 'selection' would have been more obvious.

 

[SeatBackForward]

How the heck to they randomly select people anyway...at some point someone makes a decision to target an individual for screening. We are not allowed to object of we are selected, let alone question whether it was random or not, so I don't see why a minister is any different.

 

[jgm]

If it "random" what is the point of it? Security screening is SUPPOSED to be to protect the public (at least that's what we are told) - if you can't select a suspicious individual because they are not randomly selected the whole thing should be dumped.

 

[RooFlyer]

If it "random" what is the point of it? Security screening is SUPPOSED to be to protect the public (at least that's what we are told) - if you can't select a suspicious individual because they are not randomly selected the whole thing should be dumped.

I don't know how it all really works, but if you were there, presumably you'd select that swarthy , nervous looking guy of a "certain appearance", rather than the sweet little old lady behind him?

Oops ..

There is an argument made that its all a bit of window-dressing, but unless they select everybody for individual treatment, random is probably the best method.

But say they were allowed to select 'victims', deliberately selecting Australia's Foreign Minister (knowing who she was) would I think demonstrate incompetence enough to get sacked anyway.

 

[Jousams]

Whilst lounging recently, I striked up a conversation with someone involved in the debacle.

All I will say is that We are definitely not hearing the whole story here...

EDIT: I changed this post to protect identities.

 

[Walter_Plinge]

If it "random" what is the point of it? Security screening is SUPPOSED to be to protect the public (at least that's what we are told) - if you can't select a suspicious individual because they are not randomly selected the whole thing should be dumped.

Well...exactly. I guess the point is to plant the idea in the heads of bearded, swarthy-looking males in their 20s that they might get picked out. Unlikely however...that wouldn't be PC. Racial profiling and all that.

And yet incoming queues for immigration are under continual surveillance with staff on the lookout for nervous, fidgety types who just got off a flight from Bangkok. No problems with profiling on that side.

 

[RooFlyer]

This may be what you are alluding to (may be behind the paywall).

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss’s office has admitted the government played a role in triggering an investigation into a *botched airport screening of Julie Bishop which resulted in a security guard losing his job and two workers being suspended.

The Foreign Minister was improperly singled out to be scanned on her way through Melbourne Airport to board a flight to New York on September 22.

and

Her spokeswoman last night said: “The Foreign Minister passes through hundreds of airport *security checkpoints each year and is more than happy to be treated on the same basis as other travellers.

“Neither the minister nor anyone from her office has made any official complaint regarding her transit through Melbourne *Airport at any time”.

It is believed the investigation by Melbourne Airport found the security screeners did not follow normal procedure and Ms Bishop was deliberately singled out, contrary to operating protocols.

 

[farstar]

That's just the point. She wasn't treated like everyone else. She was selected, not a random choice.

It is the dumbest argument that she wasn't random as it is still if you have nothing to hide don't worry and unless she was stripped searched who cares. I am explosive tested most times after x-ray and not great but who cares.

 

[Skyring]

I wonder if it was cheaper to pay them out than have the facts of the government intervention revealed?

I wouldn't be so sure they were paid out. A confidential settlement can be misrepresented by the loser. Craig Thomson originally settled with a media organisation over defamation and claimed that he was very happy with the result, when the truth was that he paid Fairfax's costs rather than have it go to court.

I think any security person that targets travellers based on personal political views needs to be sacked, whether they aim for government or opposition members. They are demonstrating that they are willing to evade procedures, and if they do that, they can be bought. They are also demonstrating a pile of stupid by aiming for Julie, who is no security threat, but quite capable of having someone closely scrutinised in fair return.

Having said that, TSA and similar workers aren't renowned for smarts or high wages. Dismiss the stupid, incompetent and corrupt, and you might as well close down the whole operation.

 

[Skyring]

Well...exactly. I guess the point is to plant the idea in the heads of bearded, swarthy-looking males in their 20s that they might get picked out. Unlikely however...that wouldn't be PC. Racial profiling and all that.

And yet incoming queues for immigration are under continual surveillance with staff on the lookout for nervous, fidgety types who just got off a flight from Bangkok. No problems with profiling on that side.

Picking someone out for investigation doesn't have to be (and in fact, shouldn't be) completely random. Going for anyone acting a little bit oddly, acting outside the pattern, displaying certain behaviour...

I once landed at Heathrow, was given a priority pass, but elected to go through the normal lane. I'd looked at the one person processing a line of priority pax, and the several dealing with a line of about the same length in the regular lane.

I took note of the priority passenger I would have been behind, and noted with some satisfaction that when I was through the screening, she was still waiting her turn. I smiled broadly as I jauntily headed for the exit.

And that's when I was pulled aside by a couple of immigration folk on the lookout for just that sort of thing.

They asked me a few questions, but I didn't care. I guess if I'd started to sweat or stammer they might have grilled me in some back room.

A good security officer will look at behaviour. Racial profiling would be a very minor consideration. After all any major airport would process a lot of bearded gents of Middle-Eastern appearance, the vast majority ordinary people going about their legitimate business. Can't select them all for strip searches, and if you did, the bad guys would just find someone who wasn't going to trigger a search.

 

[Skyring]

I don't know how it all really works, but if you were there, presumably you'd select that swarthy , nervous looking guy of a "certain appearance", rather than the sweet little old lady behind him?

Oops ..

There is an argument made that its all a bit of window-dressing, but unless they select everybody for individual treatment, random is probably the best method.

But say they were allowed to select 'victims', deliberately selecting Australia's Foreign Minister (knowing who she was) would I think demonstrate incompetence enough to get sacked anyway.

By selecting somebody a reasonable person would understand to be zero threat to security, they let someone more of a risk go through unchallenged.

It's not so much incompetence - which can have a random effect all its own - it's the deliberate and malicious evasion of security procedures that is the problem.