This is not about being against medical or psychological assessments. It is about how they are used in practice. When an employer can decide when an assessment is needed, who organizes it, and what happens if an employee refuses, the process stops being purely medical and starts carrying employment consequences. That is where trust breaks down.
When safety reporting becomes risky
Ana is a cabin crew and one of our members. Over the course of several months, she reported multiple fume events on board aircraft she was operating. These events were confirmed by the company and later investigated by the Romanian labor inspection. Reporting safety issues in aviation is not optional, it is a very strict professional obligation.
Read more: Investigating Health and Safety Oversight at Wizz Air
Following these reports, Ana was suspended and later dismissed. This happened after the company required her to undergo a psychological assessment organized and controlled by the employer, despite her already holding valid medical and psychological certificates issued by authorized, independent medical institutions in Romania.
Instead of being referred to through the established aeromedical (AME) or occupational health system, the assessment was presented as a work obligation and marked in her schedule as ground school. When Ana declined to attend a company-controlled psychological evaluation and chose to undergo an independent assessment through official medical channels, she was ruled fit to fly. The employer did not consider the valid medical certification provided and continued to insist on repeating the assessment with a company-designated psychologist.
This sequence of events is what raises serious concern. An employee reports confirmed safety events. Independent medical professionals confirm fitness for duty. And yet, continued pressure is applied through employer-controlled psychological assessments, with direct consequences for employment.
“This is exactly where safety culture can start to break down,” says Ana. “If the crew feels that psychological assessments can be used against them, they will think twice before speaking up. I reported safety events because that is what we are trained to do.”
Why this matters beyond one person
If psychological assessments can be imposed in this way, outside clear and independent medical channels, then any employee who reports safety concerns is left completely exposed.
For us, this made it clear that the issue could not be handled only in court. What is happening right now has wider consequences for how safe pilots and cabin crew feel to speak up and how safety culture works in practice. When those things are affected, the conversation has to move beyond one case and one country.
That is why we brought the issue to our European partners. We raised it with the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and the European Cockpit Association (ECA), and we also flagged it with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the authority responsible for aviation safety oversight.
As a result, ETF has taken formal action and sent a letter to the Romanian authorities, including the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transport, and relevant parliamentary committees. The letter asks a simple but essential question: what safeguards are in place to ensure that psychological assessments are not misused and that workers are properly protected?
As Josef Maurer, Head of Aviation, said, “This case raises serious questions about oversight. ETF has called on Romanian authorities to step in and ensure that employees are properly protected and that safety tools are not misused.”
When independent medical certification can be overridden without clear rules or transparency, the balance between employer authority and worker protection starts to shift in the wrong direction. Medical assessments must remain independent, and crews must be free to report safety issues without fear.
That is the principle we are defending together.
Note: To protect the individual involved, the name used in this article has been changed. The facts described are based on documented events.
