airrage
If we agree that she was legally in the right, then people here should aim their negative comments at the government who pass such laws, not question the integrity of the person who had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law. By all means question the legitimacy/economics of such laws, but that is not what is generally being commented on here.
Thank you for answering my question, and apologies for my delay in responding – work intervened.
With respect, I think it’s unrealistic to think there could possibly be a discussion of such a high profile case without comments being made (critical and supportive) of the actions of the person who brought the claim. Mrs Starmer’s claim was based entirely on her personal circumstances so IMHO it’s not unreasonable that people should express views on
all those circumstances and the person’s conduct.
eg You see her as someone who “had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law” and think her integrity shouldn’t be questioned. Others disagree. Even in these days of ‘all rights and no responsibility’, there are those who don’t respect people who won’t (in their view) 'give and take' – even when the law doesn’t require them to give anything. Others criticise her behaviour given how little she's actually flown in the years she's been employed by BA since they sponsored her training - regardless of what the law says. Surely they are respectable points of view - whether or not you agree with them?
Furthermore, let’s not forget it was Mrs Starmer who chose to play the ‘poor little me’ card in the public arena by involving the media. When people do that, they open up their character and motives to discussion, and run the risk of people pointing out that’s not the full picture. Those sickly photographs of her holding her ‘darling Beth’ which were published in the press were nothing to do with legal argument. She could simply have taken her claim to the Employment Tribunal and allowed it to decide if her claim was valid under the relevant law. It wasn’t by chance that representatives of the world’s press turned up at Watford on a Monday morning. The well-organised media campaign may have been on BALPA’s advice, but it was her choice to agree to it. She's clearly a determined and tough person who knows what she wants, and can’t be made or persuaded to do something she doesn’t want to do – as BA found out to its cost.
Frankly, I think those on her fleet who strongly disapprove of her behaviour (and there are, despite the impression her supporters here try to create) have been very restrained in not drawing attention to matters they consider cast doubt upon her claim to set such store by the importance of family life.
IMHO, just because someone is legally entitled to get what they want doesn’t mean doing so necessarily demonstrates integrity – and may even be regarded as lacking integrity when all the circumstances (including the consequences to others in general or to another person in particular) are taken into account.
In a professional context, I’ve used the law to win cases for people who, in my personal opinion, had little or no merit on their side and whose behaviour showed no integrity. I don’t choose my clients (any more than professional pilots choose their passengers) and it doesn’t necessarily mean I respect or admire them or the way they’ve behaved.
thegypsy
While many people (certainly the overwhelming majority on the two Starmer threads) would agree with you and regard it as entirely reasonable, BA would have handed her a cast iron claim if they’d said that. BA lost anyway, but they wouldn’t even have had an arguable defence.
great expectations
No-one so inexperienced had applied to work 50% before. As you say, there wasn’t a formal policy in place at the time of her application.
"So really on one single little cadet, they arent going to lose very much money in the grand scheme of things are they. All they need do is implement whatever policy suits them from here on in and be done with it all. Learn from this one case and move on."
I doubt if the first proposition is correct, but the second certainly isn’t. It’s not as simple as that. BA can’t just “implement whatever policy suits them from here on in.” If challenged, the policy will be subject to the same scrutiny before a tribunal as the refusal in the Starmer case.
ie BA would have to be able to justify the policy.
Of course, BA will be forewarned and so may be better armed to deal with the experience/recency issue than they appear to have been on this occasion. BA’s Personnel department (or ‘People’ as it was called when I last heard) will undoubtedly have learned a few harsh lessons, but I have some sympathy for those who have to avoid the pitfalls of a legal framework which few employment lawyers would claim is intuitive.