Seems to me
Some folks set fire to their feet, to keep their hands warm.
Quote - (insydney) 'well you have to think that casa are ill advised by their briefs, as many of their actions leave them wide open to both question and ridicule'.
Careful reading of the transcript seems to indicate differently, quite the reverse. No expert, but IMHO, seems that the decision makers perhaps were given "duff gen". The system must rely on trust, and if a report is made, then it is only fit and proper that the prescribed protocol is followed.
If that 'gen' is flawed and an action is initiated, it becomes a legal nightmare. How micro is micro management?.
If, for example the C&T pilot and the CP decide to suspend a pilot: first the facts must be gleaned, then a consult with management and perhaps, in a serious matter, legal advice sought before action. If at the end of due and careful process a decision is made, that decision must then be able to be tested as legally safe.
It appears to me no such procedure was followed in this matter.
If it was my company, I would be looking very hard before making decisions which I may later have to defend. The mess the legal eagles have been left to sort out after the event, rather than before is mind blowing. Did the BK Field office seek legal advice before hand, I don't think so.
This must be of great embarrassment to the decision making pay grade.