News
SriLankan HR division had no guideline manual; bosses wielded unbridled powers
SriLankan Airlines’ Human Resources chiefs were allowed to act freely and as they saw fit due to the absence of an HR manual until 2016 and this enabled them to wield unbridled decision-making powers.
Controversial former HR Chief Pradeepa Kekulawala made this admission in his defence, while giving evidence before the Commission that investigates corruption charges against SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering and Mihin Lanka.
He was questioned over the evidence and testimonies the commission had gathered from witnesses. According to these witnesses, Mr. Kekulawala overstepped the company manuals’ guidelines and limits even after it was introduced in 2016. It is alleged he had recruited employees, granted and held back promotions and dismissed employees without following due process.
When Senior State Counsel Fazly Razik, who led the evidence, insisted that, any recruitment to the airline’s cadre ought to be made through a recruitment process, including interviews, Mr. Kekulawala responded firmly; “Since there was no manual it was up to the heads of departments to do as they saw fit for the company.”
This meant the HR division was following policies that didn’t carry formal board approval, as the manual was only approved in 2016, Mr. Razik retorted.
The HR manual has to be followed by employees attached to other departments, too. According to Mr. Kekulawala, there were only bundles of paper detailing different HR policies coming down from Emirates’ management period, which were supposed to be compiled into a manual, when he joined in 2011.
“One of my main tasks when I joined the company was to finish the company manual and this wasn’t easy to formulate in a month or two or even a year with so many stakeholders involved,” the witness said.
The Senior State Counsel then drew specific attention to an audit report prepared by the airline’s Group Assurance and Advisory Services Division. It exposed the HR department’s head hunting operations without interviews and recruitment of employees for positions different to the ones advertised.
Mr. Kekulawala claimed he was not aware of the internal audit arm’s report and that the audit division’s head Mahesh Nanayakkara might have informed him, but he couldn’t recall precisely when.
The commission was told that, in one instance, a 42-year-old candidate who had applied for the post of Learning Development Executive, which had a specific age limit of 35 years, was taken in as a Talent Recruitment Officer.
“On interviewing her we realised she wasn’t suitable for the position advertised, but we saw she possessed the skills needed for the other position and there was a vacancy to be filled, Mr. Kekulawala explained. “The age wasn’t an issue because we took her on a contract basis.”
He added that head hunting could not be restricted by strict and rigid procedures, as companies often sourced potential employees from universities and other companies for specialist positions, even if the candidate may not have initially wanted to apply for a job.
| Business plan cost US$ 635,000, but had not won board approval: Witness With a definitive ‘no’, SriLankan Airline’s former company secretary dispelled contradictory and vague testimonies about whether the controversial business plan followed since 2013 had received board approval. Company Secretary Mildred Peiris told the commission she had clearly written, “presented” in the board minutes where the business plan was discussed. She said that if it had been approved, she would have written “approved” instead. Senior State Counsel Fazly Razik noted that this meant SriLankan had procured six A 330-200 and four A 350-900 aircraft as recommended by the business plan, without formal board approval and the airline had carried out activities without a sanctioned business plan. SriLankan had initially called upon Seabury Consulting LLC to re-evaluate the business plan prepared by Via Capital, a US based firm, but, instead, Seabury produced one of its own. The airline paid US $635,000 to Seabury for this. | |
| The issue of pregnant flight hostesses SriLankan has temporarily transferred or granted 18 months paid leave to around 80 pregnant flight hostesses after the airline had to amend a company rule clause that would have hostesses fired if they became pregnant within the first three years of employment. The airline’s former Human Resources Division Chief Pradeepa Kekulawala said they had to amend the relevant clause on humanitarian grounds, but they soon found the new process was adding to the financial burden of the company. “We didn’t allow pregnant air hostesses to continue work because of health reasons, and because the profession doesn’t have crews with tummies,” Mr. Kekulawala remarked snidely. “But we changed this due to humane reasons and now grant them 18 months paid leave or temporary transfers.” Senior State Counsel Fazly Razik pointed out that the company changed this clause after it was threatened with strike action by the Flight Attendant’s Union (FAU). Refuting his point, Mr. Kekulawala said, “I was instrumental in the change. Yes, Siddharth Dedigama, the then president of the union, met me and discussed it, but we didn’t readily agree. In any collective agreement, there is a give and take, and union threats are nothing new.” Mr. Kekulawala denied allegations made by senior flight stewardess Yasanga de Alwis who appeared before the commission last month. Ms de Alwis told the commission that when she became pregnant, she was forced to resign by Mr. Kekulawala who was imposing his personal views claiming they were company policy (Sunday Times report April 21). She also claimed that some air hostesses were forced to undergo abortions for fear of losing their jobs. To this, Mr. Kekulawala retorted, “If that is the case why did she not disclose the employees’ names, at least on camera to the commission? She can’t make unfounded claims! To my knowledge, nothing of that sort happened.” Mr. Razik asked the witness how he would know this and if flight attendants told him every time they underwent abortions. The Commission Chairman, retired Supreme Court Justice Anil Gooneratne, intervened to state that the commission was in possession of the facts as well as both sides of the story and that it would make a judgment of what was true. Pregnant female pilots were never fired or asked to resign, said Mr. Kekulawala reasoning this was “because historically there were only a few female pilots employed”. |