A surprising ruling that will raise eyebrows.
An average person reading our contract to the best of his abilities would be expected to understand that he will receive BPP if not promoted while DEFO are hired. The intent of the contract is quite clear and playing with words and definitions or digging deep into documents to try to come up with a reason why the company doesn't have to pay BPP is just senseless.
If it takes months for a judge to come up with a reason why the company doesn't have to pay BPP, it's obviously a flawed reason. Otherwise, how could anyone expect an average pilot to understand his employment contract then?
If the judge is right, then there is a case to say that the contract is intentionally misleading, obscure and with illusions of benefits that the company has no intention to give. It's close to coercion.
The judge wrote in her judgment that the employment contract stated that the airline had a right to decide when it needed to promote a second officer, which the tribunal had failed to take into account.
The airline certainly always has the option of upgrading an officer or not. It has always been the case but isn't relevant to BPP. What is relevant however, is that should the airline decide not to upgrade an officer then they have to pay BPP. Sure, the airline has a right to decide when to promote, but they also have an obligation to pay BPP should they use that right against an officer.
Interests and politics probably played a role, by the looks of it.