I've had another look at the wording.
It seems to me that Mr Warburton has substituted his judgement for the judgement of the employer. This is not allowed.
The Tribunal must judge whether or not what BA did was within the range of what a reasonable employer would have done.
As to what was done, all us "experts" will tell you that the employer must find the "moral high ground" and find a means of dismissing awkward shop stewards that members of a Tribunal would understand.
Let's be clear - BA changed the habits of a lifetime by specifically refusing time off for Mr H. The trumped up excuse was the weather and the ensuing chaos. The background was "Operational requirements". They had never had those requirements before.........especially not when Mr H was running BA, with CC managers scared of his every action, so we experts will tell you that the "requirements" were found in order to fire Mr H.
The cock-up by Mr H was that he not only refused to turn up, he made it clear that he would not/never be bound by existing agreements.
That's the moral high ground that he gifted to BA.
As to his allegation that the HR bloke agreed it all (secretly) in advance with Unite................ He probably did, but even someone from BAe isn't daft enough to leave any evidence around.
Mr Warburton's "judgement" of what happened probably isn't wrong, but the rules don't let him put his judgement in place of BA's alleged judgement.
PS many years ago, the O & C Board gave me a grade "A" at A level. That does not mean that my grammar is any good as mine was/were the first year that did not need to know grammar to get an English A level.