Originally Posted by
Abrahn
Congratulations on your win, but I'd be reluctant to recommend drawing too many conclusions from one case. Particularly one that was not about aviation regulations but about English employment law (the CAA were correct), and was decided by a court of first instance (an Employment Tribunal) with claimant friendly rules, cost limits and a relatively junior judge.
Thank you for the congratulations although you seem a little confused about the 'conclusions from one case' The conclusion could not have been any clearer. Senior management, HR and in house legal team, in an attempt to conceal what was going on, withheld and destroyed documents. That is in the judgement. I raised protected disclosures and they took action against me for doing so. Its really basic 'employment law stuff'. As you correctly say this was an "Employment Case". I was always very clear about that. Indeed thats why I won.
"Claimant friendly rules"...you think?...Is that why only 5% of claimants win at tribunal and that includes those represented?
It was indeed decided by an Employment Tribunal, and then found as sound by an appeal judge. "Relatively Junior Judge". I assume you are implying someone who didn't know what they were doing. Now where have I heard that before, Oh I remember now
Finally, although you state that The CAA were correct that it was an employment matter that was decided at tribunal, the entire reason for the situation was the airlines falsification of the FDP and planning a fatiguing run of duties that I refused to operate. So unless you are saying The CAA should ignore such abuse and let airline continue to pay scant regard to legislation that now results in it being common for pilots to fall asleep, Im not sure what point you are trying to make.