You are probably right, although with almost 20% of the current reps suspended or sacked, if yo believe what is stated elsewhere, then although the process followed may be 100%, the actual decisions and subsequent sanctions do appear to be dispropotionaly harsh. No doubt all will be made clear at some time in the future.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there ... the key issue is unlikely to be the process.
It will hinge around the sanction itself.
For anyone who has been part of such a process I think they will probably tell you that having been determined at a disciplinary to have breached company regulations etc .. the next stage is usually a recess.
This is the point at which the disciplining manager considers what an appropriate sanction might be.
Having this "break to consider and consult" is something that endears the process to tribunals ... it demonstrates that the process had not pre-determined the outcome.
The recess can be a few minutes or even days.
This is the point where the manager asks HR to provide information on how such breaches have been dealt with before, the implications of the various sanctions being considered and any other salient points.
This is to ensure that the sanction applied is consistent with past treatment of staff in a similar situation, consistent with the present policies of the company.
A manager might well express that they are minded to apply a particular sanction, but it would be a very foolish person who did not take good account of the HR advice at this point.
Also any manager conducting a disciplinary knows that there is an appeal process and eventually a potential industrial tribunal - no-one wants to find that their sanctions are regularly overruled at appeal.
After the recess the decision is presented to the staff member along with an explanation of the appeal process. This is followed up with something like "I shall write to you confirming this decision and an explanation of the appeal process within xx days"
If the treatment of those reps sacked is not consistent with how the company have treated staff (and their status as reps plays no part in this) in similar positions in the past then it is likely to weaken the company position - but BA know this and again I say I'll be surprised if they don't already have examples ready to prove it.
There is also another key message that BA employees would do well to note.
It means that for the quoted offences considered at disciplinary then you now know without doubt what the sanction is always likely to be in the future.