Dnata

When I first heard about Dnata I made a guess as to what the letters stood for and was quite pleased with myself when I looked at the company information and discovered that my guess was spot on.  But, several years later, I may have discovered the real meaning.

Perhaps Dnata stands for “Do not attempt to argue”?

As I explained earlier, I had no desire to resign but, before I totally rejected the suggestion, I wanted to talk it over with my wife first.  The plan concocted by Patrick Naef (and supported by HR) was as unprofessional as it was distasteful and I wanted no part of it.  If they wanted to behave in this way then that was their choice, but I had no desire to do anything to support them. 

Had I resigned, I would have had to lie to my colleagues.  I had never lied to any of them before, so why should I do so now?  But an extra three months would have given us more time to pack our bags and put together plans for the future and that would have been very welcome.  Also, as everyone is aware, there were so many improvements needed in EG-IT and I could have laid more foundations for the initiatives I had planned in the most pressing areas during that extra time.  In particular, at long last I had got my head round exactly what was needed in the Outstations, an area that had so long been neglected.  In normal circumstances, my plans for the Outstations would have taken a year to implement but as, for some reason I no longer had a job, I would have had the time (i.e. not having to waste it on Patrick Naef’s endless and pointless reports and meetings) to wrap it all up in a few months. 

But, most importantly, I had real concerns about what Patrick Naef was going to do to certain people once I was out of the way.  Specifically, he had his sights on a number of individuals and I was fully aware of his proposed solution for them.  As I have stated before, the only tool that Patrick Naef employs for managers who are not meeting the performance that he needs from them (in most cases to cover his own significant shortcomings), is an axe.  He has no concept that individuals have different skills and that the whole purpose of a team is to use that mix of attributes constructively.  He seems to think that everyone should be able to do everything perfectly.  If Patrick Naef were to manage a football team, he would sack the goalkeeper for not scoring any goals.

Earlier, when I was suddenly informed by Patrick Naef that he wanted to remove me from my post, I had voiced my concerns to Sophia Panayiotou that, once I was out of the way, Patrick’s would ‘go for’ certain individuals.  Sophia told me not to worry and said that “HR will protect them”.  I just laughed at her and rhetorically asked “What, just like the way you are protecting me?”  So, had I resigned, at least the extra three months would have allowed me time to help support my colleagues.  (I later gained an assurance from Malini Johnson that she would set up a meeting that I requested - with her and Sophia Panayiotou - to allow me to present the true picture of the issues in EG-IT, go through the attributes - both positive and not so positive -  of individuals and to put Patrick Naef’s seemingly blind assessments of people into context.  Malini Johnson promised me three times that she would set that meeting up, but she never did.)  And, I must be honest, the thought of an additional three months’ salary was also very attractive. 

When my wife and I discussed the option of resigning that evening, we realised that there was another very significant parameter.  My termination date and therefore the date by which we had to leave our accommodation, was 26 December - Boxing Day, the day after Christmas Day.  This was incredibly inconvenient as we had planned to split our festive season between the UK and Dubai to involve as many of the family as possible.  Our plans included my wife and daughter flying out to Dubai in the early hours of Christmas Day so we were facing a very short celebration, most likely without any furniture!  This situation weighed heavily towards us accepting the ‘offer’ of resignation, but it also surprised me.  During the EG-IT redundancy exercise in 2009, HR (rightly) paid great attention to ensuring that the painful results on individuals were never exacerbated by inappropriate timing of exit dates.  HR checked on relevant festive holidays, birthdays and also booked travel plans.  I know Malini Johnson was very much part of this process and was very committed to it.  Had she carried out this task in my case she would have noticed that we were being kicked out during our most important festival and also that my wife and daughter were booked on flights to Dubai just hours before we had to leave town.  Now a cynic might suggest that this very difficult situation was a convenient lever to help us take the option preferred by the company, but I really do not know if this was the case.  I have to assume that, just for this occasion only, Malini Johnson simply forgot to carry out this very simple and basic HR task.  After all, the Emirates Group prides itself on looking after its people and, of course, EG-IT had ‘caring’ as one of its core values at the time. 

(For completeness and fairness . . . some days after my sacking I asked for some flexibility in terms of leaving our accommodation, but this was refused.  But, when I asked again some time later, the request was approved.  We were allowed to stay in our accommodation for an extra week or so and this allowed us to enjoy the Christmas that we had planned and we were grateful for this.)

But the inconvenient departure date did not sway us.  We were both disgusted with what Patrick Naef was doing and wanted no part of it.   If my management and HR genuinely felt that sacking me was the right thing to do, both morally and for the company, then I felt that I should let them stand up and tell everyone what they had done and why they had done it.  They should not be allowed to hide their actions and let me pretend that I had elected to move on, just like they had done with others in the past.  Of course I knew that Patrick Naef would add further lies to the story but I also knew that, by not resigning, I would be able to put the record straight in due course.  I was told that they were “really surprised” that I had not taken the resignation option.  This not only underlines their insularity and arrogance, it also explains their ‘headless chicken’ antics once they realised that I was not going to.  I do not know who was making the decisions on that day but whoever made the one to despatch security guards and escorts to my office should get the prize for the most laughable one. 

Please do not think I am being pious about this topic.  There are many situations when an individual ‘resigning’ instead of being fired is the best option for all concerned.  As a manager, I have been involved in such situations.  In my opinion, a sacking looks just as bad on a manager’s CV, as it does on the individual’s.  But such a solution is only justifiable when both parties agree that termination is the right and only option available.  In other words, if you cannot properly fire someone, then you should not be firing them.  In my case, and I assume in the case of previous victims of Patrick Naef, there was absolutely no basis for a termination.  He would never have got away with these activities in an environment with any meaningful employment protection laws.

Although the following day I was barred from the company’s offices, I did find the avenues to tell a number of people what had really happened.  I knew it would take time for the full truth to emerge.  By me not resigning, Patrick was forced to tell people that he had fired me and could not hide behind his usual cloak of secrecy.  He did his best to malign me in subsequent days, but that tactic was never going to have any sustained impact.

Of course, there is a formal appeal process in the Emirates Group so I went through the charade of submitting an appeal to Gary Chapman.  And a charade it certainly turned out to be.  I am sure you can imagine my frustration that Gary Chapman had believed everything that Patrick Naef had told him.  I was told that Gary Chapman “fully approved” the removal of me from my post, but I was certain that he was not aware that Nigel Hopkins had provided his own “full support” without ever talking to me.  So, I was pleased to be invited to meet with Gary Chapman and was cherishing the prospect of having a meaningful discussion with him as part of the appeal process.  I will cover this process in more detail at a later date but the meeting that I was expecting ended within a few seconds with Gary telling me that he had the result of my appeal on his desk - “Your appeal has been rejected.  Everyone, including HR, believes this is the right course of action and I have no intention of discussing the detail - who said what and when - we have gone well past that point”.   Mmmm.  It was a bit like walking into the start of a court case, fully armed with a defence, with the jury waiting, only to be told by the judge that you are guilty before you had even got through the door. 

But Gary Chapman told me that he still wanted us to “part amicably” and asked me to reconsider signing an agreement in exchange for some additional benefits.  “We want to part amicably” is Dnata speak for ‘We acknowledge that we have screwed you, but we don’t want you to tell anyone’. 

But one has to be pragmatic about things, so I said I would consider it.  After all, the benefits I outlined above would still be relevant and by now everyone knew I had been fired and that fact was important to me.  If I signed an agreement, I would not have been able to divulge any further details (no blog!) but I would have been able to drop enough subtle comments to help complete a jigsaw that most people had started to put together themselves.  I asked Gary about any deadlines to take this forward (as we were shortly to go away for a while) but he said there was no immediate rush and asked me to contact Malini to take it forward when I returned, if I wished to do so.

This decision was easier to take than the first one, but with a different outcome.  We decided to accept the offer.  We even delayed our trip away to get things moving, so I met Malini earlier than I had intimated to Gary Chapman.  At the meeting, Malini outlined the financial benefits which would be made available to me, produced a document for me to take away and also promised me that, once I had signed the agreement, she would arrange the meeting I had requested to brief her and Sophia Panayiotou about EG-IT staff and issues.  I cannot say I was happy about the latter.  I would have thought that the welfare of company staff would have been a priority for a VP in HR.  Malini Johnson should have been chasing me for the details, not using the matter as a negotiating tool to get me to be compliant in yet another Dnata cover up.

I will not bore you with the full details of the document but, as you can imagine, it was incredibly one sided.  I had to do this, do that and not do a million other things.  In return, the company would provide me with the benefits outlined in annexure 2 . . . which was not attached!  This was no error, this was the process.  I had to sign the agreement first and then I would receive written confirmation of what Malini Johnson has outlined to me earlier.  After all that had happened to me, I was expected to trust these people!

As an indication as to how Dnata conducts its business, I will refer to just a few items in the document.  At the very top were the words [Discussion Draft Only] but, as I found out later, this was Dnata speak for [. . .the draft document provided is standard and not open for negotiation or amendment].  Then there is a claim that I had actually resigned which I clearly had not and had no intention of doing so.  Even Gary Chapman acknowledged this fact at our meeting.  Further on there is the (smug, I believe) assertion that the agreement should in no way be construed that I [. . .have any rights whatsoever against the company].  They can say that again!  I just wish Dnata would be more open about this fact and include the phrase in their employment offer letters.  And there was also the demand that I would not discuss the existence, let alone the detail, of the agreement with anyone other than my attorney.

I asked Malini for a copy of annexure 2 and also a soft copy of the agreement so that I could send it to my attorney.  The answer was no to both requests.  I asked Malini what the problem was with me having a soft copy and she did not even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it.  I explained that if I was limited to exchanging documents by airmail, an unnecessary delay to the process would be introduced.  The answer was still no.  Fair enough, I thought, after all Gary Chapman had said that there was no urgency.  I also asked Malini Johnson, in the absence of annexure 2, to confirm in an email a high level summary of the benefits I would receive.  This request was also not acknowledged.  And then, while we were still away on our delayed break (and without regular access to email) the matter suddenly became urgent and I was given a deadline by which to sign the document.  In an email, Malini Johnson stated:  [To be clear, the draft document provided is standard and not open for negotiation or amendment.  In view of your continuing delay in attending the office to execute it, I must now advise that the document will only be available to you for execution until close of business (3:30 pm) on Monday, 1st November.] 

I sat back and perused all the documents in front of me.  Despite what had already been done to me, I still had to pinch myself and ask if these people were really behaving like this.  They had sacked me without offering a shred of evidence.  They sent me a document clearly marked up as draft and for discussion and told me that I could consult with an attorney.  But the truth was that the document was never for negotiation and could never be amended.  They also frustrated my attempts to share it with an attorney.  They refused to answer the simplest of questions.  They told me that the matter was not urgent and then, without reference to me, without engaging with me to understand my concerns and being fully aware that I was out of the country, they complained that I had not attended the office and gave me a deadline which was impossible to meet. In the Dnata world you have to either do it their way, or their way.  You cannot even dream of disagreeing with them, as discussion of any kind is not entertained.  I concluded that these people are not only liars and lack integrity, they are also incompetent.  I then asked myself what on earth was I doing even contemplating signing this agreement and reinforcing their shady and shabby practices.  So I allowed the deadline to pass.

I doubt if Malini Johnson would have driven the aggressive and unreasonable approach herself.  As usual, she was probably dancing to someone else’s tune, but I am not sure whose.  Patrick Naef clearly had a close interest in the outcome, but he would have distanced himself from the messy episode much sooner than this.  In any event, it is difficult to gauge which result he would have preferred.  If I signed up, he would have been safe from the full story coming out but, on the other hand, he would have had to endure my local presence for an extra three months.  Patrick Naef was living uncomfortably close to us and would have passed our place at least twice a day during our last three months in Dubai.  But this spineless man sneaked past every time, as he could not muster up the courage to come and say farewell to me.  He could not look me in the eye ever again and he knew exactly why.  So he would not have been happy to have had to spend yet another three months maintaining such a low profile in the neighbourhood and would not have been at all comfortable with me visiting the office again.


I was convinced at the time that it was the right decision not to sign that wretched agreement.  Not once, have we regretted it.  We left Dubai with our heads held high and, on the journey home, I started to gather my thoughts on the content of my first blog . . .