Air China staffer: I was sacked for refusing to smuggle cigarettes
Three of her colleagues were prosecuted for sneaking cigarettes into Auckland. She refused, and claims that’s why she was assaulted and lost her job. The airline who employed her disputes this. reports.
Aimee Wang was proud to work for Air China. ‘‘They are the national carrier. I was born in Beijing, so it was my dream job to work for Air China,’’ she explains.
‘‘I would not have done anything to humiliate my country and Air China. I was loyal to the company.’’
The airline did not return that loyalty: When she refused to join a cigarette-smuggling ring among senior airline staff at Auckland Airport, Wang claims she was bullied, harassed and even assaulted by a colleague.
Air China’s head office also sent out a note to staff wrongly accusing her of being the smuggler.
She won a defamation action against the Chinese parent company in a Beijing court, but shortly afterwards was dismissed.
Air China says the assault did not happen, she wasn’t harassed or bullied, and instead Wang was dismissed after a thorough process, including an independent investigation, which upheld some claims of poor performance.
The airline has refused to reinstate her or pay compensation. Wang has launched an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) case, and her advocate, May Moncur, says it is ‘‘an abuse of power wildly beyond a mere breach of good faith obligations’’.
On April 11, 2019, 44-year-old Air China engineer Hui Zhao walked across the tarmac to meet one of his airline’s planes which had just landed at Auckland airport.
As he returned to the company’s office on the mezzanine floor at the international terminal, he was intercepted by Customs officers. They found 1300 Chinese cigarettes in his backpack.
Operation Waxeye had their man – Zhao was considered the centre of a scam in which Air China staff sneaked cigarettes into the country using their airport access cards to evade Customs checks.
Zhao’s six cartons and five packets were worth $1445 in unpaid Customs duty, and a search warrant executed a week later at Air China’s airport office found 520 Marlboro-branded heat sticks in his desk, and 220 Lucky Strike-branded Chinese cigarettes in a locker marked with the initials ZH. That represented another $499 of tax avoided.
Waxeye had begun 11 months earlier in June 2018, and focused on three men – Zhao, fellow engineer Lu Xu, 46, and Air China’s station manager, Yang ‘Richard’ Yu, 59 – although in a statement of facts Customs said there were several others involved who were not prosecuted.
Customs produced logs of WeChat messaging between the men and others showing 11 occasions on which they had arranged to smuggle cigarettes in – sometimes by hiding them in overhead luggage compartments, or leaving them with senior staff on the plane, and once when they had a contingency plan to conceal them on a food trolley if Customs appeared.
On each occasion, one of the trio would use their access card to sneak the cigarettes past Customs. Zhao was involved on all 11 occasions, Xu and Yu three times each.
Zhao, Xu and Yu all refused to be interviewed by Customs. They were charged with defrauding Customs revenue (carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a $20,000 fine) and given a discharge without conviction when they appeared before judge David McNaughton at the Manukau District Court in November 2020, despite Customs arguing a serious breach of trust. An application by Air China for name suppression was allowed to lapse.
All three were on work visas. Immigration NZ said they were not deported, but could not comment further on their residency status. Customs said all three no longer worked at Auckland Airport. While Customs doesn’t issue access cards, chief customs officer Nigel Barnes said it had a view that staff ‘‘who don’t demonstrate high levels of integrity shouldn’t be working in that environment’’.
The amounts involved were small beer for Customs, whose fraud team investigates transnational smuggling of huge amounts of cigarettes (they have two sentencings due this month for illegal smuggling worth about
$6 million) but the principle was important.
‘‘The thing that really matters to us here in this case is the exploitation of their privileged position at the airport,’’ Barnes said.
‘‘While it was cigarettes on this occasion, they could have done the same thing with drugs, or other commodities.’’
But Aimee Wang was never a suspect in the case, Customs confirmed. Investigations manager
Cam Moore said in a statement: ‘‘Customs can confirm . . . we did not seek a witness statement from this individual, and she was not charged.’’
And yet, Air China put out a message in a WeChat group for 200 of its pilots and asked them to disseminate the message that Aimee had been investigated and penalised by Customs, and friends of hers might face similar sanctions.
Actually, says Wang, she refused to join the smuggling ring – and that’s when things went sour. Wang, a permanent resident who has lived in New Zealand for 11 years and is married to a Kiwi, began work as a customer service representative with Air China in May 2017.
She says after her trial period, branch manager Gang ‘‘Tony’’ Guo told her she was the best employee Air China had ever hired in Auckland.
‘‘He would say that all the time at the airport, and I was quite proud. Then I think they thought I was one of them, and they were ready to share some secrets.’’
It was about five months into the job that she learned of the cigarette smuggling. She says she was approached several times to become involved, and each time declined.
‘‘I told them it was illegal, I didn’t want to be involved, and if they wanted to do it, better that they did not let me know.’’
While the cigarette smuggling was happening, Wang claims cargo manager Lina Huang asked if she could find her a Kiwi husband so Huang could secure permanent residency.
She says Huang’s initial proposal was for her and her husband, Andrew – who wanted his surname withheld for fear of reprisals – to divorce so she could marry him; later it was that she could pay about $20,000 for a husband.
Wang provided messages and voice memos from the messaging service WeChat in which the two discussed how much a paid-for marriage would be.
In one comment, Huang says: ‘‘I never wanted to reach this point of commercial marriage. I wanted to find someone I truly love . . . [but now] I want to get the residency in a low-key manner, you know. I don’t want anyone to know.’’
Huang says that comment is out of context, and it was actually Wang’s idea to arrange a marriage for her. She says Wang was crazy, made up stories, and had threatened the Chinese resident staff that she would get them deported.
The two fell out, and Wang alleged Huang assaulted her in the office, leading to an investigation meeting. Her support person was a staff member supplied by Guo. She took in a recording device disguised as a pen, and says when management realised what it was, she was abused – called a prostitute, and not a true Chinese national – and kept locked in a room for four hours before the device was disabled.
Minutes supplied by Air China of the meeting record a finding that Wang was ‘‘blocked’’ by Huang from leaving the office after an argument, which ‘‘triggered the situation’’, but said no assault or detention occurred. By their admission, the
‘‘. . . [Airline branch manager Gang ‘‘Tony’’] Guo said if we were in China and under his hand, I would have already been fired a million times.’’ Aimee Wang Former Air China employee
meeting stretched past midnight, and Air China’s notes record that Wang was ‘‘sternly required’’ to delete her secret recording.
Part of the report’s conclusion reads that: ‘‘Wang Miao was asked to immediately adjust her emotions, control her extreme mentality and stop taking actions to intensify the situation.’’
Huang says the assault never happened, there were witnesses to show it didn’t, and it was Wang who started the argument: ‘‘She is a troublemaker.’’
Air China’s ERA defence includes two witness statements denying any assault.
The result of the meeting was that Air China withdrew all claims of poor performance against Wang and concluded the issue with Huang was a ‘‘personal matter’’.
They also agreed to look into issues raised by Wang of unauthorised payroll deductions.
Wang says there was a culture of obedience among the 15 staff, with the four senior Chinesehired managers bringing a hierarchic culture with them.
‘‘Mr Guo said if we were in China and under his hand, I would have already been fired a million times.’’
When Customs raided, Wang was off sick. Shortly afterwards, she was sent to Beijing on a dangerous-goods training course. When she returned, she said the atmosphere had soured further, with her colleagues suspecting she had blown the whistle to Customs.
In May 2019, a month after the raid, Richard Yu reported to Tony Guo that he suspected Wang might be smuggling, after he had watched security footage of Wang airside with a brown Air China paper bag. He’d also seen her leaving the terminal with a similar bag.
Air China’s ERA defence includes a statement
from Yu in which he said he was worried Wang’s actions might have an ‘‘adverse impact’’ on the airline. Wang says she was able to prove to the airline the bag in question contained her own possessions and was never on the plane. An investigator later dismissed the allegation.
Guo reported Yu’s suspicion to headquarters in Beijing, and from there it was broadcast to staff.
In its ERA defence, Air China says: ‘‘The HQ misconstrued the contents of the report and a certain staff member of the HQ issued a notice to certain Air China staff members via WeChat.’’
They argue this was not the New Zealand office’s fault – Yu’s report was intended to remain internal, based on ‘‘reasonable suspicions’’.
So when Richard Yu was stripped of his airside privileges by Customs, Wang also lost hers. She says that was to make it appear that she was also implicated in the Customs inquiry. Air China say it was a ‘‘reasonable’’ step based on Yu’s report and told Wang’s representatives ‘‘it was for reasons of public safety and Mrs Wang’s defiance’’.
Wang says she began deliberately wearing her name badge – against the normal culture – so people would know she had not been stood down, and refused requests to remove it.
In June 2019, Wang was sent a 67-page letter of suspension, and raised a personal grievance claim after receiving union advice.
The company hired an external investigator, but her report excluded the smuggling and its cover-up, with the terms of reference set by the company.
The investigator, Lynn Booker, found the four major allegations – that Wang mislaid money (about $220 of petty cash), had smuggled items from airside, had ‘‘abandoned her post’’ during a shift, and kept company documents – were all unsubstantiated. She did uphold 10 other complaints, but said in two of those cases, Wang’s actions were reasonable.
The remaining eight mainly involved refusing to sign off company documents, recording a conversation with Yu, and refusing to hand over a training certificate. Her husband, Andrew, says the paperwork issue was often because the company deliberately withheld papers. ‘‘If Aimee did a couple of things, none of them deserved dismissal.’’
Moncur writes in her ERA claim: ‘‘None of the allegations could constitute misconduct, let alone serious misconduct, which is possibly why the respondent sat on the initial report for more than half a year and asked the writer repeatedly to edit what had been written.’’
Wang was suspended on full pay for 13 months, and then, four months after Booker’s report was delivered, she was dismissed. Air China lawyer Tiffany Cai wrote that ‘‘the decision to terminate your client was not taken easily or swiftly’’ and Air China had shown Wang ‘‘indulgence’’. It cited the refusal to sign documents and repeated refusals to attend appraisal meetings.
By then, Air China had made a settlement offer: It would pay Wang $8,347, if she agreed to a deal that included standard confidentiality and nondisparagement clauses, but, more importantly, a promise not to add Air China New Zealand to her defamation action – as by now, Wang had begun action in China. She was dismissed after refusing.
In December 2020, Wang won her defamation claim, and Air China was ordered to pay RMB20,000 (NZ$4500) for hurt and humiliation and issue a public apology. Wang challenged the amount, but lost. She had to apply for a compliance order to force the company to pay up.
‘‘The personal and financial costs of litigation in China were immense, soul-destroying and deeply distressing,’’ Moncur writes.
Moncur says she deeply respects Wang’s courage and strength for pursuing the defamation claim under huge pressure. ‘‘Not many people would have been able or willing to do so much, given she is up against a state-owned airline company.’’
Wang says she has lost further job opportunities in the aviation sector because Air China refused a reference. She is now a civil servant.
Last week, Moncur filed the ERA claim after mediation failed. Wang has asked for wage arrears, costs, six weeks’ lost income and $50,000 compensation.
In its statement of defence, Air China says Wang provided no proof of being asked to join the smuggling ring, and denied any suggestion Guo was involved, but refuses to discuss other staff on privacy grounds.
It denies Wang was bullied or harassed, and denies covering up the assault, saying it was thoroughly investigated, and provides two witness statements saying it never happened.
The airline says her dismissal was a ‘‘fair process and [it] terminated [Wang] after a long process of internal investigation’’, including a stalled ERA claim, mediation, external investigation and settlement negotiations.
‘‘She is up against a stateowned airline company.’’ May Moncur Aimee Wang’s advocate
Calls to Guo for comment were not returned. Instead, a lawyer for Air China, Eva Ho, asked for written questions. The Sunday Star-Times sent a series of questions about Operation Waxeye, including what actions Air China had taken to prevent a repeat, and why they played any credence on Richard Yu’s report about Wang when he was already under investigation.
The Star-Times also asked extensive questions about Wang’s treatment. In response, Ho asked for ‘‘the context on why [the] information is sought’’ and ‘‘how you intend to use the information our client may provide’’.
She said the Star-Times’ ‘‘professional ethics would dictate that you act with caution on any information provided by one side’’.
Ho said Air China had privacy obligations to its other staff and ‘‘considers it inappropriate to be responding to your queries. As a responsible media, please ensure any reporting you may make will reflect our client’s sentiments above.’’
In a subsequent email Ho said Air China respected the ERA process, and ‘‘does not wish to be tried by the media’’.
In Moncur’s submission to the ERA, she says: ‘‘The corruption, abuse of power and all the coverup conducted by the respondent is wildly beyond mere breach of good faith obligations. More importantly the continued abuse of power not only shows total disregard for the employee’s rights but also lack of respect for wider New Zealand law.’’
Wang adds: ‘‘There is no justice or humanity in what they’ve done. I just want simple justice’’.