[ad_1]
Executive Director Daniel Skjeldam and Commercial Director Asta Lassesen are accused by other managers at Hurtigruten of having contributed to the information about the infection at MS Roald Amundsen without reaching passengers or the public. They both reject this.
CEO Daniel Skjeldam and Chief Commercial Officer Asta Lassesen receive serious accusations against them from others at Hurtigruten.
Terje Pedersen / NTB scanpix
Published:,
– No wonder this has gone wrong, said lawyer Jan Fougner.
He has led outbreak investigation on Hurtigruten’s new cruise ship MS Roald Amundsen this summer.
But who in Hurtigruten who is responsible for what went so wrong? There seems to be a big disagreement between the management of the shipping company.
The allegations are being brought internally against Chief Executive Officer Daniel Skjeldam and Chief Commercial Officer Asta Lassesen. It appears in the investigation report.
Hurtigruten has received strong criticism for its handling of the outbreak in MS Roald Amundsen this summer.
Rune Stoltz Bertinussen / NTB scanpix
COO: I would avoid mentioning
A key question has been: What happened on July 29 of this year? Here, the disagreement within Hurtigruten is great.
At the time, management knew that a passenger on the first July cruise had been diagnosed with an infection.
July 29 was also the second cruise on the trail. In total, 71 cases of infection were finally detected.
If Hurtigruten’s management had done things correctly on July 29, perhaps many of the infection cases could have been avoided.
The report indicates that COO Bent Martini ordered an employee on July 29 to contact the head of infection control in Hadsel Township. This is where the first infected passenger lived.
“The purpose of the conversation was to prevent the municipality from mentioning Hurtigruten in its mention of the proven case of infection,” the report said.
This is admitted by Martini. At the time, he was the general manager of the Hurtigruten Cruise subsidiary, under which the cruise business is organized.
Martini “temporarily resigned” on August 9.
Bent Martini has told investigators that CEO Daniel Skjeldam instructed him to prevent Hurtigruten’s name from being publicly mentioned in connection with the first outbreak.
Hurtigruten
The complaining CEO instructed him
According to the report, Martini explained that CEO Skjeldam “instructed him” to “avoid mentioning Hurtigruten in the mention of the infection case.”
Skjeldam, for his part, has denied this accusation to investigators. Skjeldam also repeated the rejection at Thursday’s press conference.
If he didn’t turn it down, the accusation that he instructed Martini could probably have cost Skjeldam his job. So, the question is whether the two can work together in the future.
Skjeldam does not wish to comment on Aftenposten / E24.
Martini is still employed by Hurtigruten, but has not returned to work. Skjeldam does not want to comment on what will happen next with Martini.
Hurtigruten’s chairman of the board, Trygve Hegnar, expressed full confidence in its chief executive, Daniel Skjeldam, at Thursday’s press conference.
Terje Pedersen / NTB scanpix
Hegnar believes in Skjeldam
From the explanations of the two leaders, the Hurtigruten board has obviously chosen to believe in Skjeldams.
The Chairman of the Board, Trygve Hegnar, expresses full confidence in the CEO.
– CEO Daniel Skjeldam is an excellent man to implement the necessary measures to restore confidence in the company, Hegnar said at the press conference.
However, the disagreement in management does not stop with the CEO and the chief operating officer.
Just as Hegnar trusts Skjeldam, Skjeldam trusts Commercial Director Asta Lassesen at Hurtigruten.
He is now also interim CEO of the Hurtigruten Cruise subsidiary. That is, the position to which Martini has resigned “temporarily”.
In the report, Lassesen is accused by another leader of having suppressed information himself. This leader is not mentioned in the report.
also read
Board chairman Hegnar still trusts Hurtigrute manager Skjeldam
A Hurtigruten leader claims that commercial director Asta Lassesen was informed on July 29 that FHI had advised notifying all passengers of the first outbreak. Lassesen denies receiving such a message.
Terje Pedersen / NTB scanpix
Hevder Lassesen was briefed on FHI’s advice
According to the report, a doctor in Hurtigruten informed an anonymous leader of the shipping company that the National Institute of Public Health on July 29 “gave clear advice that Hurtigruten should notify passengers.”
This leader has further explained to the investigators that he conveyed this message to Lassesen.
In other words, Lassesen, who holds the top management of Hurtigruten, was informed on July 29 that FHI recommended notifying passengers.
But Lassesen denies this to investigators.
In the investigation report, all names have been removed. Only a few in the administration are listed as leaders with numbers behind them.
Leader 3 (Lassesen, editor’s note) has stated in his explanation that the person in question (also Lassesen, editor’s note) did not perceive such a message. Therefore, there is disagreement as to whether Leader 3 (Lassesen, editor’s note) received the information on FHI’s recommendation to notify passengers, ”the investigative report states.
Attorney Jan Fougner (left) has apparently not tried to find out who is telling the truth about CEO Daniel Skjeldam (right) and the “temporarily resigned” COO.
Terje Pedersen / NTB scanpix
also read
Hurtigruten postpones all expedition cruises throughout the year
– Those involved are explained differently
Researchers don’t delve into disagreements.
The experienced leader of the Fougner investigation is not trying to find out which of the Hurtigruten leaders is telling the truth, who remembers correctly, or what happened on the July 29 core date.
– It’s a bit difficult to be completely sure what happens next. This is because the people involved explain themselves differently about this, it’s all Fougner said about the disagreements.
Therefore, it will probably be up to the police to try to find out who is telling the truth.
