I was going to Fisk that parranoia inducing post from Duncan (or one of his little helpers), but it's been a long week, it's still only Thursday.
With the exception of not providing an opportunity for witnesses to be questioned (if Rob.Bedcrew is to be believed - but of course really we don't know the ins and outs of the disciplinary interview, do we?), every single thing that has been described points to an organisation that really does know it stuff. I would go so far as to say BA have dealt with this in an expemplary way - that said, that judgement can only be made in the basis of what 'Robby' has told us
.
When an organisation is faced with a large number disciplinary cases, it is highly probable that it will need to modify its processes to ensure that cases (and appeals) are heard in within prescribed timescales. What Rob has described is entirely legitimate, fair and reasonable, as are the logistic that have been put in place. This sounds identical to the process that, with ACAS's help, I put in place when faced with 35 breaches of IT protocols (or to put it another way, staff sending very, very mucky photos to each other, as well as customers).
And, it is absolutely right that BA will want to establish a framework, or a range of reasonable responses to the cases. Every case will be different, have varing degrees of aggravation / mitigation, and as long as the managers hearing the case hear it fairly - there is absolutely nothing wrong for them to turn to that framework to ensure that the penalty, should one be imposed, is reasonable and consistent.
No conspiracy here, therefore, just a company doing what is required of it.
Of course if Dunc can't accept that - he can always march his people to an ET. Good luck with that, I think he'll need it and so will his followers, especially if they persist with an application without merit. An award of costs against them could well follow.