Executive Briefing: Delict-Based Aviation Employment Matters

1 · Background

Allegations such as theft, embezzlement, fraud, manipulation, sabotage, serious compliance breaches, or abuse of trust are rarely “just HR” in aviation. Even an allegation—before any governmental investigation—can trigger reputational, operational, and licensing consequences.

In practice, many of these matters are addressed internally and resolved through employment action. This is where the intersection lies: the employment decision must be defensible under employment law, while the core factual and analytical work is often criminal-law-adjacent (facts, intent indicators, plausibility, documentation discipline, and narrative control).

2 · Aviation-Specific Characteristics

Aviation is a highly regulated ecosystem. In safety-, trust-, and license-critical functions (flight deck, cabin, maintenance/engineering, operations control, security, safety, compliance), employment measures can have consequences well beyond the individual employment relationship. Typical aviation-specific factors include:

• Licensing and medical implications (career-impacting effects of allegations and terminations)
• Safety culture and Just Culture boundaries (separating reportable error from delictual misconduct)
• Elevated integrity expectations in positions of trust and operational relevance
• Reputation and communications risk (internal and external; stakeholder-facing contexts)
• Operational continuity (crew availability, scheduling, disruption effects)

As a result, a “termination case” is frequently also a governance and crisis-management matter. The solution must be legally robust and operationally workable.

3 · Mandate Profile – Employers

I represent employers in matters where a misconduct-related termination must be prepared, executed, and—if necessary—defended in litigation. The core question is how to translate a serious allegation into a procedurally clean and substantively defensible employment-law architecture, while minimizing avoidable escalation and preventing unnecessary attack surfaces.

Typical workstreams include:

• Structuring the factual record (facts vs. inference, chronology, documentation discipline)
• Assessing defensibility (including “fact-based” vs. “suspicion-based” termination constructs where applicable)
• Preparing and supporting key interviews/hearings and other decision-critical touchpoints
• Designing litigation-ready termination and settlement strategies
• Coordinating interfaces with compliance, security, safety, and—where relevant—internal investigations

Guiding principle: legal robustness and system protection—not symbolism.

4 · Mandate Profile – Employees

I represent employees selectively where a misconduct-related termination is based on an allegation that is unsubstantiated, overstated, or not supportable on the record. In licensed professions, a false allegation can end a career—making a precise, criminal-law-adjacent analysis essential.

Representation on the employee side does not involve the defense of criminal conduct. It focuses on the structured assessment and rebuttal of flawed allegations and on protecting professional standing, including licensing perspectives where relevant.

Typical workstreams include:

• Testing the allegation chain and the evidence base (what is fact, what is interpretation?)
• Developing a rebuttal strategy for suspicion-based narratives
• Negotiating controlled resolutions (role retention where realistic, or a clean separation with references)
• Litigation when necessary and strategically justified

5 · Approach

These matters rarely turn on formulas; they turn on details, credibility, and process economics. A structured approach typically involves:

1. Early triage: allegation type, risk posture, timeline, stakeholders, communications risk
2. Facts first: documents, digital traces, witness accounts, plausibility checks, contradictions
3. Legal architecture: a defensible theory that anticipates the opposing side’s pressure points
4. Negotiation / settlement: controlled outcomes where appropriate, without unnecessary loss of face
5. Litigation: disciplined narrative, focus on the case drivers, no side battles

The value lies in combining criminal-law-adjacent analytical hygiene with employment-law robustness and an aviation-specific understanding of safety and operational realities.

6 · Scope and Delimitation

This mandate profile is intentionally narrow. I do not provide general employment-law advice and I do not take termination matters without a delictual/criminal-law-adjacent core.

• No redundancy/restructuring routine
• No collective labor topics (CBAs, works councils) as a standard service
• No HR policy consulting without a concrete, delict-adjacent trigger

A delictual allegation + aviation nexus is the entry ticket.

7 · Role and Working Style

My work focuses on matters where criminal-law-adjacent allegations and employment consequences become strategically sensitive— especially in roles with safety relevance, public exposure, or license implications. In such constellations, I lead the mandate personally and, where useful, work with a trusted network.

The emphasis is on clear situation assessment, precise communication, and controlled escalation. The objective is an outcome that holds legally while limiting collateral damage to the organization and to the individual.

Mandate Acceptance

I take this mandate spectrum selectively. The following criteria are typically required:

• Serious misconduct allegation with delictual elements or potential criminal-law implications as the core basis
• Aviation nexus (in particular a safety-, trust-, or license-critical role)
• Clear objective (enforcing separation / rebutting an unsubstantiated allegation / controlled settlement)

No general employment-law consulting; no redundancy matters; no collective labor topics as a standard service.

Contact

If you would like to discuss a matter in confidence, I am available for a discreet initial call (phone or video).

Email: martin@heynert.com
Phone: Office +49.391.5982-243 · Mobile +49.171.4135269

Note: This executive briefing provides orientation only and does not replace a case-specific review.