Im not sure what point you are trying to make.
The point is that people shouldn't put their life savings and house on the line on the basis of the recommendations in this thread, because it presents a misleading version of the legal position and mixes aviation regs with employment law, and English employment law and procedure with EU law and English criminal law.
I am not trying to defend any airline or criticise any person or company. I'm about to fly Whizz Air and I really would rather the crew aren't fatigued. Same for doctors, Police and Ambulance who suffer the same problems with their employers stretching the regulations past breaking point (and in the case of Police with the legal and press decks stacked against them).
BALPA refused to support the case
Yet BALPA say:
"I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support."
Legal fees you mean?...cost me zero...
Cost BALPA though.
I represented my self with no lawyer to advise or present my case
The judge says:
"Although the claimant was unrepresented at the final hearing, he had been represented by solicitors at the time he presented his claim, at the Case Management Preliminary Hearing and during some of the preparation for the case."
And a good job too, because they framed your case around s44 and not aviation regulations and that allowed you to win.
Its in the Judgement of my case.
It's not. The judge says:
"the Tribunal does
not consider it necessary to determine whether the view argued for by the claimant or that taken by the respondent is a correct interpretation of the relevant regulations and guidance"
The tribunal never addressed whether your understanding of the rules is correct or not, because it wasn't necessary. All that was necessary was to prove that you had a reasonable belief that safety would be impaired.
The precedent is set.
Again, the judge says:
"Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] JCR 1026, the Court of Appeal
held that an employee .. could rely on the
protection of the whistleblowing provisions to argue that his dismissal was automatically unfair, even though his belief was mistaken. The Court held that a
belief may be reasonably held and yet be wrong."
The precedent was set in the Court of Appeal. Not in your case. A superior Court with superior judges, hence my comment about the Employment Judge being a junior judge. The precedent is about employment legislation. There is absolutely no precedent set about aviation regulations
in this case.
"Claimant friendly rules"...you think?
Yes. Absolutely. Allowed you to take the case to court without risk of having to pay the other side's costs. Something which is not available in other juristications. And only available to you because you'd been an employee longer than 2 years. Would not be an option for crew recently rehired after COVID However much paperwork and stress you thought there was in the ET, it's much less than the Civil Procedure Rules.
and then found as sound by an appeal judge
After the initial ruling the employer indicated their acceptance of the findings, so I'm surprised that they appealed. I haven't been able to find an appeal ruling so apologies if I'm missing something important.