PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Old 14th May 2020, 17:39
  #515 (permalink)  
Andy D
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ILS27LEFT
This is exactly why redundancies whilst CJRS will still be available are "illegal" as I explained many times before.
The intention of the legislator will influence a Judge final decision. The intention of the legislator re. CJRS is clearly and undoubtedly "to avoid redundancies".
In this respect unfair dismissal would be the outcome.
The biggest challenge is not only the legal one for BA but the moral significance vs employees & tax payers/Gov: no employer should make redundancies if CJRS is available as this is free money with nil cost to the employer.
BA can legally announce redundancies however BA cannot proceed if CJRS still in place by date of 1st redundancy.
If BA will decide to proceed will clearly be "unfair dismissal". This will cause immense damage to the brand and workforce at a much higher cost than the 12K salaries combined.
Suicidal business approach by BA if they will proceed with the 12K redundancies whilst CJRS still in place at nil cost to BA.

"Darryl Hutcheon, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, argues that while each case will ultimately turn on its facts, employees who are dismissed without being given the option of furlough would likely have a “powerful argument” for unfair dismissal. "

The CJRS has been extended until end of October and very likely the Aviation sector will be covered until then under the existing conditions.
BA therefore will be "unfairly dismissing" employees if redundancies are confirmed whilst CJRS scheme is still available.

BA can action redundancies from 01 Nov but only if CJRS will not be extended again for the sector.
Next extensions will very likely be sectorised.
From the legal opinion linked above, it's not clear that BA making redundancies is a case of unfair dismissal - the barrister's view is far more nuanced than that.

BA's already made use of CJRS, the opinion focuses on use of CJRS rather than it's continued use when it becomes clear that the business won't recover, or will take a long time to recover post Covid and so need less staff

"Relevant factors would naturally include the size and resources of the employer, the employee’s responses to the consultation and to any proposed “furlough agreement”, and the suddenness and seriousness of the downturn which Coronavirus has caused for the business"

Airlines / travel sector have suffered a catastrophic collapse in demand that's going to continue for quite a while post lockdowns and so are going to need less staff.



Andy D is offline