Originally Posted by
nononsense frank
Exactly my point Litebulbs. When the affected individual has to seek damages through the court system, won't the court require the individual to provide proof that he/she was genuinely sick? Wouldn't it have been easier to just provide the same proof at the time when BA requested it? This way the individual concerned will avoid further unnecessary lost time and expenses that a court case would entail?
I do not believe that they would. They will have a contractual position on sickness, which will probably relate to a policy, which it appears on the face of it, has not been followed. The burden of proof should lay with the employer, as that who is making the accusation.
The point in question being made by the employer, is not that they are in breach of the sickness policy by not attending work when fit to do so, but that they were on strike. No investigation was carried out as far as I know; they were just found guilty by association.