Originally Posted by
SECsmachine
Apart from some who had suffered performance issues pre-covid, there were also a few characters who thought it was the right thing to do to tell their former employer in no uncertain terms what they thought of them, in public, in return interviews, and/or across social media, but who still then expected to be offered their jobs back. Whether or not anyone else agreed with them, most thought it more prudent not to burn bridges. Apart from these handful of cases, Virgin did follow through on their promise to reemploy everyone else.
Simply not true. Do you know how many unfair dismissal claims are currently being defended by the airline? Were you in those "interviews"? If so, then with respect you prob should not be casting aspersions here. If not, then you prob should not be casting aspersions here!
Anyone with any historic and documented performance or discipline "issues" were not even offered a place in the hold pool. Everyone in the pool was apparently pre-judged as being a suitable candidate, else you were not there in the first place. Many had decades of exemplary service and spotless training records. However, all were apparently still subject to a "robust" interview to get their old jobs back. Did any other airline implement a strict and scored interview process for employess to get their old jobs back?
Be careful of repeating narratives without facts. Are you seriously suggesting hundreds of crew, deemed suitable already to be in a hold pool, all walked into an interview and told their prospective employer exactly what they thought of them? Seriously? Why would these
hundreds of crew bother to do that?!
I note from your earlier responses in this thread that you say :
Originally Posted by
SECsmachine
What’s the *written* redundancy policy at EZY??? 😝
Are you aware of the "written" redundancy agreement that Virgin had and its pilots paid for via pay concessions that had been extant for a
very long time? That goes some way to explain the shock and upset suffered by pilots that were axed with decades of service. That shock and upset, I would respectfully argue, is not a "crime" to be punished, but rather a human reaction to be understood with compassion.
What actually transpired was that some interviews were more "robust" than others. The
real reasons why that was the case are at the heart of the court claims.
Until you see the evidence, then, your opinion is unfortunately just that. You are, of course, entitled to it, but unfortunately not your own facts. Please try and understand that there are individuals in severe distress due to these events, and such repetition of unsubstantiated naratives only serves to make their situations worse.