Originally Posted by
Abrahn
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).
Yet BALPA say:
"I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support."
Cost BALPA though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for your reply.
You are correct BALPA did indeed stay on their website "I am also pleased that BALPA helped fund ... legal battles, and provided substantial expert and staff support." Can you see anywhere where they state but not at the crucial point of the actual tribunal. There is more to come out about BALPA, a lot more. It will not only make for very uncomfortable reading for the union but will seriously raise questions with its members as to what is the point of being a member'.
I had personally done ALL the 'homework' that basically the BALPA appointed solicitors then used to complete an ET1 Form.
As for the rest of your reply can I suggest you wait for book two? It answers ALL of your comments. If you don[t want to read it, might I suggest you watch the news over the next few months. This will answer your questions. The point is...there are suppositions, thoughts, rumours and there are hard cold facts. I only dealt with facts and evidence. So do the police.