Let's be absolutely clear about this before the Union, yet again, takes its emotionally-charged, morally-outraged, high-ground position - which it will anyway.
BA had to suspend the employee because another employee complained.
BA is obliged to take this action under the Union-agreed terms of its disciplinary procedure otherwise it would be in default of those terms. Further, while the Union can shoot its mouth off with gay abandon as usual, BA is bound, and as such maintains its professional pose and continues to adhere, to the terms in not disclosing the details of the complaint and thus its reasons for the suspension.
If the Union doesn't want its members being suspended for non work-related activitites in the work place then it should make absolutely sure those activites do not cause anyone to be offended and complain.
Does anyone know if the employee who complained is a Union member? If they were this situation would be even more breathtakingly hypocritical and it would be far more appropriate for Tony Woodley to direct his moral outrage at asking his offended member to withdraw their complaint than to accuse BA of B & H. Indeed, if BA played with the same lack of maturity as the Union it would be shouting its mouth off by now claiming that the whole matter was a deliberate set-up by the Union to gain public sympathy.
It is now becoming so irrationally and emotionally charged that people are losing what little common sense they had at the outset - if they ever had any.
BA has no choice but to take significant and decisive action to bring this small minority (in terms of total BA) of disruptive staff under control and very soon.
AVF
P.S. Perhaps the Union has finally found a reason to ballot its members and the Union leadership will now find out what it has been trying to avoid for the last few months - just exactly how much support it still has left among its rank and file members.
Last edited by AV Flyer; 24th Nov 2010 at 10:13.