without giving Matthew an opportunity to make his case to the ultimate decision maker
Not meaning to make light of this but I cant help but feel this was the reason the employer chose the path they did.
Worth noting as well, that he was not dismissed out of hand but
offered an alternative role as Flight Safety Support Officer based in Exeter.
This was a fixed 12 month role with existing pay protections and hotel accommodation covered with potential for remote working (he was BHX based).
In subsequent correspondence the claimant was told that if he rejected this role his employment would end on 24 March 2017 with three months’ pay in lieu of notice.
Which he did.
The BALPA statement says that
The Tribunal concluded that no reasonable employer would have decided to dismiss Matthew in these circumstances.
Yet the Tribunal judgement finds that
..2. Had the respondent acted fairly there was a two thirds chance that it would have dismissed the claimant; and any compensatory award would be reduced accordingly.
Not quite the same in my view and therefore more about procedural fairness rather than a question of fitness to fly.