Originally Posted by
JayPee28bpr
If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court
That would take extreme loyalty to the cause. All that would happen for the affected party would, at best, be a compensatory payment as I doubt BA would abide by a re engagement order.
We all know that staff travel is not contractual, but being punished for participating in protected IA may be unlawful. In my opinion, the reason for the delay in action on this, will be that a precedent could be set and that punitive action against workers who take part in IA may be judged to be lawful.