Originally Posted by
NAT Zulu
Some points to bear in mind for context, and also to prevent many honourable trainers being tarred with the wrong brush in the court of public opinion :-
- There were many people involved in this chain of events - not only trainers.
- There are/were many excellent trainers at the airline.
- None of those individuals actually involved in the defining events were forwarded by the airline at the ET proceedings for cross examination, even though they could have done so, as noted by the Judge.
- BALPA did not ultimately support the claimant - but another union did.
- Officers of the "other" union were denied re-employment after their Covid redundancy. (Captain Lawson's case evntually came to court post Covid redundancies but prior to re-employment "interviews")
- BALPA officers now hold management/office positions at the airline.
1. As has been well put above, many more people were involved in the process in addition to the training department. However, I still don't quite understand their motivations for doing so. It seems plausible that the chain of events started with the "HK incident", as the claimant had hitherto been flying the line without incident. Would this incident have started a similar response at other carriers?
2. Has the judgement had any consequences for the training department and/or management at VS?
3. I interpret the lack of forwarding the appropriate witnesses as an admission of at least partial guilt by the company (as did the tribunal) and also, to avoid further embarrassment as it might have brought forward even more unsanitary details. Has the regulator stayed entirely mumm about what went on during the LPC/OPCs in question? Has the claimant subsequently lodged any complaints to the regulator as would be in his right?
4. Is the demise of the other union a (partial) result of discriminatory behaviour by the company during Covid redundancies? If so, has that been challenged legally?