AV Flyer,
Using you experiences to return the thread on topic, Employment Tribunals are all about procedural fairness, not whether somebody deserves to be sacked (that is the law, not the views of individual tribunals), and this is exactly why BA is now being criticised by some non-strikers for not rewarding them, or them feeling unwanted. BA have to be very careful at the moment that they don't commit any low level procedural error that could be used by the strikers/union to BA's disadvantage. Your own unfortunate experience shows why it is more in the employers interests to rigorously follow procedures, and in some cases sack somebody rather than take a more conciliatory approach, and also leave well alone when a group of employees are being exceptionally helpful, because the risk is there that somebody will use this to bite back using Tribunal rules.
It is immoral that a thief can harness the power of the law and public funding to "rob" the employer again. However, it can work both ways - you can "fairly" sack individuals or groups for the most flimsiest or immoral reasons, but as long as it is procedurally "fair", a Tribunal has to find in the employers favour.
BA has initialy played it by the book in suspending CC who have been inculcated in any way with some of the bullying, harassment, repute, etc., etc. issues. They have also used process fairly to find some of the suspended "not guilty" without any change to their employement status (or perhaps then invoked lesser disciplinary action than dismissal if partially guilty). That all smacks of an employer who now recognises that they have to play by the book, even if some of the good guys think that they are being unreasonable.