Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shadows
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here already but if you have a child under 4 and can prove to your company that it would be beneficial for them and for you to give you part-time working. It has a specific name - can't remember it now, anyway it's some government scheme that shows employers are being considerate towards their employees.
Cabin crew I know have applied for it and got it. They had to present their case to a board but at the end of the day got P/T outside of established lists.
Did shetry this course of action first?
Again...sorry if this had already been mentioned.
Cabin crew I know have applied for it and got it. They had to present their case to a board but at the end of the day got P/T outside of established lists.
Did shetry this course of action first?
Again...sorry if this had already been mentioned.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,805
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airrage, you commented 'but safety was not a legitimate BA defense'. Safety would have been a very legitimate defense, what BA failed to do was convince the tribunal that putting JS on part time had a safety implication.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to Phoebe Buffet
With your name calling you have disqualified yourself from the discussion.
Answer this question for yourself in a quiet room: Are you really mature enough to drive an airliner?
With your name calling you have disqualified yourself from the discussion.
Answer this question for yourself in a quiet room: Are you really mature enough to drive an airliner?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what BA failed to do was convince the tribunal that putting JS on part time had a safety implication.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex
I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK.
airrage, you commented 'but safety was not a legitimate BA defense'. Safety would have been a very legitimate defense, what BA failed to do was convince the tribunal that putting JS on part time had a safety implication.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,805
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're missing the point. What I'm trying to say is that the tribunal would be unlikely to accept BA just saying 'Safety reasons', they would be asked to prove that safety was or would be prejudiced and it was in that proof that they failed. 'Safety reasons' is likely to still be a valid defense in some future tribunal if the circumstances turn out to be different.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see where you think we disagree ? My last post said quite clearly;
"I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK."
Safety reasons as provided by BA in the JS case failed. They failed wrt their "safety reasons" (ie. 2000 hr limit for 50% PTWK) defense.
"I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK."
Safety reasons as provided by BA in the JS case failed. They failed wrt their "safety reasons" (ie. 2000 hr limit for 50% PTWK) defense.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Wales UK.
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some time in the future.
A catastropic engine failure on a BA airbus, resulting in total loss.
The investigation finds that the First Officer, a Mrs Starmer, had been trained by BA but had not flown for more than two years. She had just completed a refresher course, but on the insistance of BALPA and the employment tribunal was flying only 50% of normal hours. !.......
If I was a relative of one of the dead pax, I might think that safety had been deliberately compromised.
MG
A catastropic engine failure on a BA airbus, resulting in total loss.
The investigation finds that the First Officer, a Mrs Starmer, had been trained by BA but had not flown for more than two years. She had just completed a refresher course, but on the insistance of BALPA and the employment tribunal was flying only 50% of normal hours. !.......
If I was a relative of one of the dead pax, I might think that safety had been deliberately compromised.
MG
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG, that was my point exactly. Safety could be compromised with this ridiculous case and JS should come out and accept that!
Currency is not something to be taken lightly. Even if some feel they are current. Feeling it is one thing. Putting it into practice is another thing entirely.
Let us hope it sinks in sooner rather than later.
Currency is not something to be taken lightly. Even if some feel they are current. Feeling it is one thing. Putting it into practice is another thing entirely.
Let us hope it sinks in sooner rather than later.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I do not doubt SAFETY might have been a legitimate defense, but this thread refers solely to the JS case, where safety reasons failed as a defense for BA's refusal to put JS on PTWK."
Right or Wrong, BA think she aint got enough experience to only work 50% time.
BA don't call enough evidence to show the court why they think that.
BA lose the case.
So now they gotta let someone they don't think, Right or Wrong, is safe to be flying only 50% fly only 50%.
I cant see how can they honorably do that.
They gotta fire her.
Its gonna cost them but they screwed up the case.
Last edited by Bronx; 28th Jul 2005 at 16:51.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of guidance on flexible working.
http://www.eoc-law.org.uk/cseng/fami...er_the_era.asp sets out details on how to approach such claims. There appears to be good grounds for believing that BA appraoched this problem in a rather ham fisted manner and falls foul of this guidance. It seems that BA only began to get its act together when it was already too late.
You may ask yourself what on earth the personnel staff at BA were doing when Jessica was storming or were they just being ignored.
The guidance includes
Grounds on which an employer can refuse
The employer can only refuse the application on one of a number of specified grounds, which are set out in 80G(b)(i) to (ix) ERA. They are:
• the burden of additional costs
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
• inability to re-organise work among existing staff
• inability to recruit additional staff
• detrimental impact on quality or performance
• insufficiency of work during periods the employee proposes to work
• planned structural changes
• other grounds as may be set out in regulations. (At the present time there are no other grounds).
The employer only has to give one reason for refusal. For example, an employer who states that the work cannot be re-organised among existing staff (80G(b)(iii) ERA) does not then have to consider whether to recruit additional staff (80G(b)(iv) ERA). However, in order to objectively justify an otherwise discriminatory refusal to allow flexible working under the SDA, the employer should consider recruiting another member of staff.
Obligation on employer to give reasons for refusal
If the employer refuses the application, it must provide in a written dated notice:
• which of the grounds for refusal apply
• a sufficient explanation as to why those grounds apply in relation to the application, and must
• set out the appeal procedure: Reg 5(b)(ii) Procedural Regs.
• The failure to comply with the obligations under Procedural Regs, Reg 4, 5 and 9 and 10 (which concern the employer's duty to notify the employee of their decision) a breach of the prescribed procedure entitling the employee to complain to an ET.
Thus, if the employer does not provide the necessary information, the employee can claim that he is in breach of the procedure and make a claim to the tribunal for compensation and for the employer to reconsider the application: Reg 6 Eligibility Regs.
The employer must give one of the prescribed grounds for refusal and an explanation as to why the grounds apply. There is no further clarification as to the extent of the explanation required and this will be for the ET to decide. The DTI guidance suggests that an explanation of around two paragraphs will usually be sufficient. If the employer does not give a prescribed ground and accompanying explanation, the employee can make a claim to the tribunal for compensation and for the employer to reconsider the application: Eligibility Regs, 6, Procedural Regs 4, 5(b)(ii).
In addition if the employer's reasons are based on incorrect facts, this will also provide the basis of a claim to the tribunal: s80H (1)(b). The DTI guidance says that facts must be accurate and although it is not a necessity for the employer to provide the detail in the explanation, they should ensure that they are able to back up any facts should they subsequently be disputed.
Examples of incorrect facts may be:
• that the employer could not provide cover from 9-9.30am for the telephones when other employees were willing and able to do this.
• That there was not enough work for the employee to do on the days suggested when this was not the case
• The employer had advertised for a job-share when it had not.
Provided that it follows the procedure and gives a prescribed reason and a sufficient explanation of the reason, the employer is not required to justify his decision objectively.
This leaves little scope for complaining to the tribunal in the event of a refusal. The employee's only option may be to bring a claim of sex discrimination under the SDA, if the necessary circumstances apply. If the claim is for direct discrimination (for example where a man is refused flexible working when it would be allowed to a woman) no justification defence is available to the employer. In indirect discrimination claims there is a higher burden on the employer, who has to objectively justify any refusal of flexible working –.
http://www.eoc-law.org.uk/cseng/fami...er_the_era.asp sets out details on how to approach such claims. There appears to be good grounds for believing that BA appraoched this problem in a rather ham fisted manner and falls foul of this guidance. It seems that BA only began to get its act together when it was already too late.
You may ask yourself what on earth the personnel staff at BA were doing when Jessica was storming or were they just being ignored.
The guidance includes
Grounds on which an employer can refuse
The employer can only refuse the application on one of a number of specified grounds, which are set out in 80G(b)(i) to (ix) ERA. They are:
• the burden of additional costs
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
• inability to re-organise work among existing staff
• inability to recruit additional staff
• detrimental impact on quality or performance
• insufficiency of work during periods the employee proposes to work
• planned structural changes
• other grounds as may be set out in regulations. (At the present time there are no other grounds).
The employer only has to give one reason for refusal. For example, an employer who states that the work cannot be re-organised among existing staff (80G(b)(iii) ERA) does not then have to consider whether to recruit additional staff (80G(b)(iv) ERA). However, in order to objectively justify an otherwise discriminatory refusal to allow flexible working under the SDA, the employer should consider recruiting another member of staff.
Obligation on employer to give reasons for refusal
If the employer refuses the application, it must provide in a written dated notice:
• which of the grounds for refusal apply
• a sufficient explanation as to why those grounds apply in relation to the application, and must
• set out the appeal procedure: Reg 5(b)(ii) Procedural Regs.
• The failure to comply with the obligations under Procedural Regs, Reg 4, 5 and 9 and 10 (which concern the employer's duty to notify the employee of their decision) a breach of the prescribed procedure entitling the employee to complain to an ET.
Thus, if the employer does not provide the necessary information, the employee can claim that he is in breach of the procedure and make a claim to the tribunal for compensation and for the employer to reconsider the application: Reg 6 Eligibility Regs.
The employer must give one of the prescribed grounds for refusal and an explanation as to why the grounds apply. There is no further clarification as to the extent of the explanation required and this will be for the ET to decide. The DTI guidance suggests that an explanation of around two paragraphs will usually be sufficient. If the employer does not give a prescribed ground and accompanying explanation, the employee can make a claim to the tribunal for compensation and for the employer to reconsider the application: Eligibility Regs, 6, Procedural Regs 4, 5(b)(ii).
In addition if the employer's reasons are based on incorrect facts, this will also provide the basis of a claim to the tribunal: s80H (1)(b). The DTI guidance says that facts must be accurate and although it is not a necessity for the employer to provide the detail in the explanation, they should ensure that they are able to back up any facts should they subsequently be disputed.
Examples of incorrect facts may be:
• that the employer could not provide cover from 9-9.30am for the telephones when other employees were willing and able to do this.
• That there was not enough work for the employee to do on the days suggested when this was not the case
• The employer had advertised for a job-share when it had not.
Provided that it follows the procedure and gives a prescribed reason and a sufficient explanation of the reason, the employer is not required to justify his decision objectively.
This leaves little scope for complaining to the tribunal in the event of a refusal. The employee's only option may be to bring a claim of sex discrimination under the SDA, if the necessary circumstances apply. If the claim is for direct discrimination (for example where a man is refused flexible working when it would be allowed to a woman) no justification defence is available to the employer. In indirect discrimination claims there is a higher burden on the employer, who has to objectively justify any refusal of flexible working –.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northern England, United Kingdom
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the benefits of Jesica’s case is that it is now helping to force less enlightened companies to review their part time policies as applied to pilots.
Some companies still try to define a part time roster for a pilot as extra days off, but full time flying. i.e. for a company working pilots to the same levels as Jessica’s fleet, for a 75% part time agreement they would give her the extra days off, but would try to roster in more work to the available days to try and maintain a 100% flying rate i.e. 80-90 or more hrs per month. Lots of 4 sector 12 hr duties. This happens on a regular basis.
To put this into perspective, if an office worker were to take 60% part time contract on a similar basis and agree to work 3 days per week (for 60% pay), using this principle, the company would expect them to come in at 06.00 in the morning and leave at 21.00 at night.
This part time days off and full time hours principle still exists in my company, however, thanks partly to cases like this, it is now under review. Jessica and her colleagues are lucky in that they have some protection from this sort of thing, however, beware, the mangers who fought so hard to maintain this principle in one particular company might now be working for BA and could just possibly be on Jessica’s fleet.
Good on you Jess, whatever people might be saying, your action is helping to drag the industry standard for part time pilots up to the same basic level as other workers.
I do hope you win the appeal.
Some companies still try to define a part time roster for a pilot as extra days off, but full time flying. i.e. for a company working pilots to the same levels as Jessica’s fleet, for a 75% part time agreement they would give her the extra days off, but would try to roster in more work to the available days to try and maintain a 100% flying rate i.e. 80-90 or more hrs per month. Lots of 4 sector 12 hr duties. This happens on a regular basis.
To put this into perspective, if an office worker were to take 60% part time contract on a similar basis and agree to work 3 days per week (for 60% pay), using this principle, the company would expect them to come in at 06.00 in the morning and leave at 21.00 at night.
This part time days off and full time hours principle still exists in my company, however, thanks partly to cases like this, it is now under review. Jessica and her colleagues are lucky in that they have some protection from this sort of thing, however, beware, the mangers who fought so hard to maintain this principle in one particular company might now be working for BA and could just possibly be on Jessica’s fleet.
Good on you Jess, whatever people might be saying, your action is helping to drag the industry standard for part time pilots up to the same basic level as other workers.
I do hope you win the appeal.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't get it.
You don't want the girl to be able to work part time because you say it's unsafe.
Do you lot realise that a freshly qualified cadet with barely 200 hours is flying the line?
Ok, I am a pax on some line flight: I would like to be informed of the composition of my flight crew. My preference would be a training Captain and another Captain.
Not a 3000hr captain (let's face it: 3000 is not really that much experience) with a 190hr Fo coming straight from his little Seneca and his little Jet Appreciation course.
So when your relative is dead, are you gonna moan about that, too?
Phoebe, read your post again. I took offence in your name calling of Jessica.
The whole case fell flat on its face because BA introduced the 2000hr rule after the grievance procedure was under way.
They should have let it go through and afterwards quietly introduce it, so no-one could take advantage of it in future.
They moved the goal posts during the game, and that's what the judge didn't like.
You don't want the girl to be able to work part time because you say it's unsafe.
Do you lot realise that a freshly qualified cadet with barely 200 hours is flying the line?
Ok, I am a pax on some line flight: I would like to be informed of the composition of my flight crew. My preference would be a training Captain and another Captain.
Not a 3000hr captain (let's face it: 3000 is not really that much experience) with a 190hr Fo coming straight from his little Seneca and his little Jet Appreciation course.
So when your relative is dead, are you gonna moan about that, too?
Phoebe, read your post again. I took offence in your name calling of Jessica.
The whole case fell flat on its face because BA introduced the 2000hr rule after the grievance procedure was under way.
They should have let it go through and afterwards quietly introduce it, so no-one could take advantage of it in future.
They moved the goal posts during the game, and that's what the judge didn't like.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LONDON
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAFETY
If anyone wants to talk about safety and part time, lets be very honest. Compare a pilot working a full time roster, with tours, three and four sector days, moving from early's to late's and vice versa. A fifty percent part time pilot is far safer from where I sit. Well rested, looks forward to their days flying and has a real quality of life.
Most airlines now have a problem, many Captains are requesting part time work and are not interested in the financial reward, they want their lives back. Lemons, pips and squeezing come to mind...... you will reap the seed that you sow.
The successful airlines will be the one's who recognise that part time working will attract and retain high quality professional's. Those Airlines that don't put agreements in place could struggle to crew aircraft.
Well done Jess, Dave and BALPA.
Most airlines now have a problem, many Captains are requesting part time work and are not interested in the financial reward, they want their lives back. Lemons, pips and squeezing come to mind...... you will reap the seed that you sow.
The successful airlines will be the one's who recognise that part time working will attract and retain high quality professional's. Those Airlines that don't put agreements in place could struggle to crew aircraft.
Well done Jess, Dave and BALPA.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Above Sea Level
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unsafe my 
. 50% of 900 hours is 450 per year. Have you all forgotten so quickly that totals per year in and around this amount was the norm with flag-carriers pre 9/11? It wasn't unsafe then and it ain't now.
The only problem with all this is that BA are forced to carry the extra costs of such practices while the likes of Ryanair reject all forms of life-style improvements and can thus further undercut the better carriers.
You all should be focussing your ire on those airlines that don't allow such rosters rather than those who do and those who take advantage.
. 50% of 900 hours is 450 per year. Have you all forgotten so quickly that totals per year in and around this amount was the norm with flag-carriers pre 9/11? It wasn't unsafe then and it ain't now. The only problem with all this is that BA are forced to carry the extra costs of such practices while the likes of Ryanair reject all forms of life-style improvements and can thus further undercut the better carriers.
You all should be focussing your ire on those airlines that don't allow such rosters rather than those who do and those who take advantage.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see how they can Heliport, not without a massive climbdown and loss of face.
I also wonder how Mrs Starmer is going to feel going back to flying, knowing that her employer believes (or believed) that she will be operating in an unsafe situation. Wonder how long it will be before 'safety' issues start arising?
I also wonder how Mrs Starmer is going to feel going back to flying, knowing that her employer believes (or believed) that she will be operating in an unsafe situation. Wonder how long it will be before 'safety' issues start arising?
