Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time
Solar
First time post so go easy.
I know of a young lady who has recently achieved the ATPL status and of course is currently looking for a job. I just wonder how this ruling will help her search. My son and I were discussing her dilemma recently and one of the things he said was that if he were a potential employer he would be very conscious of the possibilty her becoming involved and pregnant. Whether this is right or wrong is neither here nor there it is a fact.
I know of a young lady who has recently achieved the ATPL status and of course is currently looking for a job. I just wonder how this ruling will help her search. My son and I were discussing her dilemma recently and one of the things he said was that if he were a potential employer he would be very conscious of the possibilty her becoming involved and pregnant. Whether this is right or wrong is neither here nor there it is a fact.
Está servira para distraerle.
Tennis anyone?
At Caesar's Palace, on September 26th, 1992, Jimmy Connors beat Martina Navratilova in straight sets, 7-5, 6-2. He was handicapped, being only allowed one serve and having to make use of the full (doubles) court area.
The match was a challenge attempt by Navratilova to establish the fact that women were as good as men on the tennis court and that they provided equal value for spectators and should thus be paid the same.
The industrial tribunal in the Starmer affair has behaved with predictable consistency as befits the illogical bias in keeping with a long tradition. In ignoring common sense and rational arguement it has made life so difficult for BA that the company has, one suspects more from exasperation than anything else, decided to let sleeping dogs lie.
In the absolutely hypothetical case that there were to be an incident in the future in which the safety of a flight were prejudiced because young Jessica were not as current as she perhaps should or could have been; it will be interesting to read the conclusion of any board of inquiry. One might, perhaps with some small justification, look to a condemnation of BALPA, as opposed to a censure of BA, for having taken this matter beyond what might be considered the normal boundaries of common sense and passenger welfare?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving the predjudice aside, a lot of the arguments against Mrs Starmer appear to centre around the costs to BA. Does anyone have any figures to illustrate this? Presumably she will only receive 50% of salary for working 50% of the time, and only the flight pay etc for flights she actually undertakes, so on that side of things BA pays less. Given her age I find the argument about payback of costs of training irrelevant, as I don't see any great difference between someone spending several years longer clocking up hours due to part time working, and someone who flies full time for 5 years (say) and then leaves for another airline - just one of the risks of business. Are there any numbers around the basic cost of employing a pilot before they start receiving anything in their paypacket?
How does part time work for a BA pilot? On the Flybe thread elsewhere there was discussion of part time working for them, and on the face of it it seemed to be of benefit to the company, as the 900 hours problem didn't kick in, so a 75% time pilot would likely work >75% of 900 hours.
How does part time work for a BA pilot? On the Flybe thread elsewhere there was discussion of part time working for them, and on the face of it it seemed to be of benefit to the company, as the 900 hours problem didn't kick in, so a 75% time pilot would likely work >75% of 900 hours.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: u.k.
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument that 350 hours a year is not enough flying experience is spurious,night freight & corporate pilots regularly fly this amount without any problem.As stated BA management brought this argument in late in the dispute,because they knew they were losing.BA management WAKE UP you are in the 21st century.Also the argument that this pilot is less productive is wrong;she is doing half the work for half the pay;same productivity.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hautes Pyrenees,France
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the seniority position of this female pilot, now she has 'earned' the right to 'work' at home childminding as opposed to fulfilling the contract she initially signed with BA?
Does she maintain a position in her joining order? or does she slip back in proportion to the time actually spent in working as a pilot?
Having read Flying Lawyer's excellent historical background to the case I am in agreement with the frustration expressed by employers and others alike to this blatant manipulation of employment rights.
As one, who for many years, was envolved in the minefield of seniority issues, I would be interested in the view of those pilots whose full time service is calculated in the same way as this partimer.
Does she maintain a position in her joining order? or does she slip back in proportion to the time actually spent in working as a pilot?
Having read Flying Lawyer's excellent historical background to the case I am in agreement with the frustration expressed by employers and others alike to this blatant manipulation of employment rights.
As one, who for many years, was envolved in the minefield of seniority issues, I would be interested in the view of those pilots whose full time service is calculated in the same way as this partimer.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wrong...
Measuring productivity is quite complex but by even the most basic equation of
PI = (Output x Quality) / Input [purchase cost, wages]
clearly shows that BA aren't getting what they intended to pay for. It would be like BA buying a plane that they can only use for 2 flights per week.
So given the option they would never have done it in the first place, they would just buy one that can fly as much as possible, right?
I think this pilot has done the right thing for herself. Only herself.
PI = (Output x Quality) / Input [purchase cost, wages]
clearly shows that BA aren't getting what they intended to pay for. It would be like BA buying a plane that they can only use for 2 flights per week.
So given the option they would never have done it in the first place, they would just buy one that can fly as much as possible, right?
I think this pilot has done the right thing for herself. Only herself.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So... Here I am, not a humble pilot in the nether regions of the world but ( in my dreams )... The CEO of a striving company.
My strategy fo the next five years is to expand the companies products by moving into Eastern Europe.... I've sold the idea to the board.. Huge investment agreed to... long term strategy in place... Next move.. Find Key personnel to implement the stratergy..
Sales Team... headed by commited individual who will identify the markets...set up outlets... form close associations with client customers while making optimum use of the budget... Much depends on the success of this individual and the sales team and today I'm interviewing the short listed applicants... I'm conscious that any major disruption to this project over the next couple of years can lead to a failure of the stratergy..maybe even the company and that many jobs depend on the success of the individual heading the team...
The short list is made up of 2 men, one woman all more or less equally qualified and each of the applicants in their mid to late twenties...
Yes... by now you all know where this is going... with this and similar cases nawing away at the back of my mind, what are the chances for the lady ?
Something a lot less than Zero. ( she has to have made it this far so as to avoid any accusations of my being anit-feminine )
Ladies.. if you want responsible positions whether in the cockpit or in the wider world, you have to BE responsible. This case and others have done your gender no good whatsoever.
My strategy fo the next five years is to expand the companies products by moving into Eastern Europe.... I've sold the idea to the board.. Huge investment agreed to... long term strategy in place... Next move.. Find Key personnel to implement the stratergy..
Sales Team... headed by commited individual who will identify the markets...set up outlets... form close associations with client customers while making optimum use of the budget... Much depends on the success of this individual and the sales team and today I'm interviewing the short listed applicants... I'm conscious that any major disruption to this project over the next couple of years can lead to a failure of the stratergy..maybe even the company and that many jobs depend on the success of the individual heading the team...
The short list is made up of 2 men, one woman all more or less equally qualified and each of the applicants in their mid to late twenties...
Yes... by now you all know where this is going... with this and similar cases nawing away at the back of my mind, what are the chances for the lady ?
Something a lot less than Zero. ( she has to have made it this far so as to avoid any accusations of my being anit-feminine )
Ladies.. if you want responsible positions whether in the cockpit or in the wider world, you have to BE responsible. This case and others have done your gender no good whatsoever.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
Note: Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004. Man applied for 75%: Refused. Four women applied for 50%: One granted 50%; other three (incl Starmer) offered 75%. Starmer declined the offer and claimed she was the victim of sex discrimination
2) Was that ‘PCP’ to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men?
Held: Yes.
Of the relatively small number of BA pilots who'd applied to work part-time, there were more applications by women than men.
So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied
I might be missing something, but looking at your figures above, looks like 0% of women who applied during the period were refused part time contracts and 100% of men were refused.
I would think the gentlemen concerned, if he so chose, would have a case for sexual discrimination and not the women.
Note: Five pilots on the LHR Airbus fleet applied to work part-time in Feb/March 2004. Man applied for 75%: Refused. Four women applied for 50%: One granted 50%; other three (incl Starmer) offered 75%. Starmer declined the offer and claimed she was the victim of sex discrimination
2) Was that ‘PCP’ to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of women than men?
Held: Yes.
Of the relatively small number of BA pilots who'd applied to work part-time, there were more applications by women than men.
So, although there was evidence that BA was in fact more likely to grant an application by a woman, it could still be proved by statistics that the proportion of women refused part-time contracts under BA's criterion was larger than the proportion of men - because more women applied
I might be missing something, but looking at your figures above, looks like 0% of women who applied during the period were refused part time contracts and 100% of men were refused.
I would think the gentlemen concerned, if he so chose, would have a case for sexual discrimination and not the women.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tristar2
Employment/discrimination law is a legal minefield.
BA appears to have made some procedural and tactical errors when dealing with Ms Starmer's application. IMHO the errors were entirely understandable.
cavortingcheetah
Overturning a decision on appeal is very difficult.
But for errors at the very early stages, the outcome may have been very different.
Curious Pax
"Leaving the predjudice aside"
Threads concerning BA always bring prejudice out of the woodwork, sometimes from outside, sometimes from employees disgruntled (justifiably or otherwise) with the management.
Contrary to what some allege, BA has actively recruited women pilots.
Cost was only one of BA’s arguments at the tribunal, and there was far more to it than your simplistic 'work 50%/paid 50%' suggestion.
Apart from the obvious costs which apply regardless of whether an employee works full or part-time, there are additional costs of recruiting, training, conversion courses etc and of employing more than one pilot to carry out a full-time role.
The Tribunal accepted part-time contracts meant appreciable additional cost to BA, but then used BA’s offer of a compromise to help Ms Starmer with child-care arrangements against it, saying BA had already agreed to bear those increased costs by offering her a 75% contract.
There are other considerations:
eg Part-time pilots aren’t available for reserve cover.
The Tribunal accepted there would be an impact on the reserve, but said approving a 75% contract removed her from the pool of pilots able to work in that capacity.
Again, the offer of a compromise was used against BA.
eg Pilot resource difficulties: F/O’s were already flying at or near the maximum annual hours agreed with BALPA, and sometimes over.
Tribunal: “BA had a recruitment freeze - we do not doubt for other than proper business reasons – (but it is) a self-imposed constraint.”
ie Employ more pilots to cover for part-timers.
eg Reducing the scope for allowing pilots to transfer between fleets.
Tribunal: “BA has a practice of allowing pilots to transfer to other fleets when possible. This …. is a matter within BA’s control.”
ie BA does not have to allow transfers.
Pilots waiting to transfer or hoping to do so in the future may well find Ms Starmer's gain to be their loss.
eg Pilots already flying maximum agreed flying hours.
Tribunal: ”This was a voluntary agreement between BA and the relevant trade union and no more.”
Those aware of, and concerned about, fatigue issues might not be quite so dismissive about the voluntary agreement.
Remote
You’re not missing anything.
It's one of several factors which shows some of the criticisms of BA here to be (IMHO) uninformed and unfair.
saffron
That wasn’t the argument.
It’s been stated, but it's not true. Both sides submitted in advance the points they intended to argue at the tribunal. (SOP) The Starmer side tried to prevent BA arguing the safety point. The tribunal ruled it was entitled to do so. (Although it ultimately ruled that the safety argument was not proved.)
___________
Re he ‘threshold’ argument:
”BA’s view was that the number of hours flown was a necessary and realistic threshold which had to be achieved in a relatively concentrated period before a pilot could have a safe reduction in duties below 75% of full time.”
I’m not an airline pilot so I’m not qualified to express a view on whether such a threshold is sensible/a wise precaution, but wonder if even the personal opinions of professionals matter in this context.
its about time BA started playing by the rules
BA appears to have made some procedural and tactical errors when dealing with Ms Starmer's application. IMHO the errors were entirely understandable.
cavortingcheetah
BA ..... has, one suspects more from exasperation than anything else, decided to let sleeping dogs lie.
But for errors at the very early stages, the outcome may have been very different.
Curious Pax
"Leaving the predjudice aside"
Threads concerning BA always bring prejudice out of the woodwork, sometimes from outside, sometimes from employees disgruntled (justifiably or otherwise) with the management.
Contrary to what some allege, BA has actively recruited women pilots.
a lot of the arguments against Mrs Starmer appear to centre around the costs to BA.
Apart from the obvious costs which apply regardless of whether an employee works full or part-time, there are additional costs of recruiting, training, conversion courses etc and of employing more than one pilot to carry out a full-time role.
The Tribunal accepted part-time contracts meant appreciable additional cost to BA, but then used BA’s offer of a compromise to help Ms Starmer with child-care arrangements against it, saying BA had already agreed to bear those increased costs by offering her a 75% contract.
There are other considerations:
eg Part-time pilots aren’t available for reserve cover.
The Tribunal accepted there would be an impact on the reserve, but said approving a 75% contract removed her from the pool of pilots able to work in that capacity.
Again, the offer of a compromise was used against BA.
eg Pilot resource difficulties: F/O’s were already flying at or near the maximum annual hours agreed with BALPA, and sometimes over.
Tribunal: “BA had a recruitment freeze - we do not doubt for other than proper business reasons – (but it is) a self-imposed constraint.”
ie Employ more pilots to cover for part-timers.
eg Reducing the scope for allowing pilots to transfer between fleets.
Tribunal: “BA has a practice of allowing pilots to transfer to other fleets when possible. This …. is a matter within BA’s control.”
ie BA does not have to allow transfers.
Pilots waiting to transfer or hoping to do so in the future may well find Ms Starmer's gain to be their loss.
eg Pilots already flying maximum agreed flying hours.
Tribunal: ”This was a voluntary agreement between BA and the relevant trade union and no more.”
Those aware of, and concerned about, fatigue issues might not be quite so dismissive about the voluntary agreement.
Remote
I might be missing something, but looking at your figures above, looks like 0% of women who applied during the period were refused part time contracts and 100% of men were refused.
It's one of several factors which shows some of the criticisms of BA here to be (IMHO) uninformed and unfair.
saffron
The argument that 350 hours a year is not enough flying experience is spurious.
As stated BA management brought this argument in late in the dispute,because they knew they were losing.
___________
Re he ‘threshold’ argument:
”BA’s view was that the number of hours flown was a necessary and realistic threshold which had to be achieved in a relatively concentrated period before a pilot could have a safe reduction in duties below 75% of full time.”
I’m not an airline pilot so I’m not qualified to express a view on whether such a threshold is sensible/a wise precaution, but wonder if even the personal opinions of professionals matter in this context.
- Should an airline have the right to impose such a threshold if it considers it to be in the interests of flight safety? (Whether or not individual airline pilots or other airlines consider it a sensible precaution.)
- Airlines commonly require pilots to have far more hours than the legal minimum for a CPL/frozen ATPL. Should they have the right to impose requirements which are more stringent than the minimum required by law?
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 10th Mar 2007 at 11:57.
...the thin end thereof
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
The thread title was composed before the press story was online - just a 'byline' on the BBC news website (although I think they used the words 'legal campaign').
I'm not sure why you've inferred that the thread title necessarily implies that there has been a recent court victory - it was not meant to imply that and the fact that BA have dropped their appeal means that the 'legal battle' is now over and therefore it doesn't appear misleading to me to say that Ms Starmer has won her 'legal battle'.
Had I been fully seized of the facts and legal issues from the start, which you have eloquently related above, I could have named the thread "BA decide to drop their legal appeal against last year's employment tribunal which found in favour of a female airline pilot allowing her to work 50% of her contracted hours instead of the 75% that they had offered"..... but somehow I don't think that would have been quite so punchy.
The thread title is misleading
I'm not sure why you've inferred that the thread title necessarily implies that there has been a recent court victory - it was not meant to imply that and the fact that BA have dropped their appeal means that the 'legal battle' is now over and therefore it doesn't appear misleading to me to say that Ms Starmer has won her 'legal battle'.
Had I been fully seized of the facts and legal issues from the start, which you have eloquently related above, I could have named the thread "BA decide to drop their legal appeal against last year's employment tribunal which found in favour of a female airline pilot allowing her to work 50% of her contracted hours instead of the 75% that they had offered"..... but somehow I don't think that would have been quite so punchy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough. I assumed you'd read the press report/knew the background before you started the thread.
You're right - headline writers tend to go for punchy lines.
'BA abandons Starmer appeal' would have worked here where the case is well known. (The previous two threads attracted more than 128,000 views and 800+ posts.)
Or even ..... 'The Law is an Ass'
FL
You're right - headline writers tend to go for punchy lines.
'BA abandons Starmer appeal' would have worked here where the case is well known. (The previous two threads attracted more than 128,000 views and 800+ posts.)
Or even ..... 'The Law is an Ass'
FL
Está servira para distraerle.
Not quite sure of absolutely all the facts here but was there ever a legal battle over this matter at all?
Surely an industrial tribunal, whilst perhaps being a legal entity, is not a courtroom per se? Rather it is usually a convention of rather narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced and left wing orientated labour party - or worse, employees with an over rated concept of self importance and sense of worth?
(
Better stop here! Some of this descriptive prose might boomerang home to hit the fur between the eyeballs.)Is it not obvious that any tribunal will do its damndest to find in favour of the poor oppressed worker, thereby vindicating its French revolutionary antecedents? Stalin was quite fond of tribunals as well, if one casts memory back that long ago, a bourgeois tool suborned to the ill determined uses of the proletariate.
As usual, one thoroughly enjoyed the careful and well reasoned synopsis and arguements provided by Flying Lawyer. Most excellent!
May one infer therefrom that there exists a body of opinion which holds that, but for administrative and legal errors of one sort or another, the tribunal might well have had to find in favour of BA? Rather reminds one of the emminent judge this week who, in advocating that life for murder should not mean life, made a comment to the effect that in a hundred years' time people would look back on 'life meaning life' with the same abhorrence as we regard flogging today. One cannot but say that his historical phantasy was ill thought through - which is not a good recommendation for a rather senior member of the judiciary. There are many today who, far from looking back on flogging with disgust, would welcome its reintroduction and extension of application. In saying this one is in no manner suggesting that either Jessica Starmer or her very supportive spouse deserve a flogging or even, in her case, the ducking stool. In terms of punishments of the past, the scold's bridle might have been altogether more appropriate as well as perhaps being deeply gratifying for BA?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure she thought long and hard before embarking on her case. She would have known she would come up against just the sort of criticism on this forum. It is a tough one. Women of her age used to be called the "have it all generation" til it was realised that they were in fact the "do it all generation". I'm told 1% of pilots are female - so not sure how much of an issue this one the one hand - on the other hand it might just help everyone with kids or dependants who maybe don't want to work 100% of the time. It's a cliche - but it's not just women who are looking at the work-life balance. Men want to spend time with their children too. The fact is - she probably will be with the industry for a long time and I am sure will more than make up for the short time in her career where she needed to work part-time in order to be there for her child.
Guest
Posts: n/a
All I can say is....I would hate to be in her shoes when she does her LPC/OPC,not because of any implied lack of currency, but it would be an ideal way to get her out.
we all know full well that the TRE can make you fail if they so desire,or am I being overly cynical ?
we all know full well that the TRE can make you fail if they so desire,or am I being overly cynical ?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
we all know full well that the TRE can make you fail if they so desire,or am I being overly cynical ?
mayby its the food at the Lungi
Personally I think the law is an ass on this one...but then again BA stuffed up early on.
So what if shes a girl and has kids....go on maternity leave like every bloody one else
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to be doing a lot of naive posting lately... but here goes.
What the hell happened to the idea of accepting your terms and conditions of employment and then abiding by them? If you don't like it, resign. That would appear to be the common sense solution, regardless of the legal-babble. This woman has got a bloody cheek - I would have given my right arm to be on the BA cadetship scheme. To then turn around and start making ludicrous demands of your employer in the critical early flying years where the learning curve is very steep, strikes me as utterly barking. Yes, sometimes people need time off, for example if a parent dies. But generally speaking that is unpredictable and people do not set out to ensure that happens generally!
Yes, having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden. Literally. Better planning on her part might have avoided a rather unsatisfactory situation and outcome.
I wonder what it will be like when she goes back to work....?
What the hell happened to the idea of accepting your terms and conditions of employment and then abiding by them? If you don't like it, resign. That would appear to be the common sense solution, regardless of the legal-babble. This woman has got a bloody cheek - I would have given my right arm to be on the BA cadetship scheme. To then turn around and start making ludicrous demands of your employer in the critical early flying years where the learning curve is very steep, strikes me as utterly barking. Yes, sometimes people need time off, for example if a parent dies. But generally speaking that is unpredictable and people do not set out to ensure that happens generally!
Yes, having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden. Literally. Better planning on her part might have avoided a rather unsatisfactory situation and outcome.
I wonder what it will be like when she goes back to work....?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wannabee1974
I seem to be doing a lot of naive posting lately
What the hell happened to the idea of accepting your terms and conditions of employment and then abiding by them?
If you don't like it, resign. That would appear to be the common sense solution, regardless of the legal-babble.
I would have given my right arm to be on the BA cadetship scheme
To then turn around and start making ludicrous demands of your employer in the critical early flying years where the learning curve is very steep, strikes me as utterly barking.
Yes, having babies is important (so I'm told), and we need the little blighters. But until someone comes up with a better idea, women unfortunately have to bear the burden.
I wonder what it will be like when she goes back to work....?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage matey - blood pressure/stroke alarm!
I'll ignore the valid points made in your post as one or two seem vaguely sensible. But to question my career history seems somewhat irrelevant and childish. However if you really want to know, I was in the armed forces for some years and quite happy there until recently. That's why I wasn't on the BA scheme. Which neatly links to my decision to leave, which was based on the fact that I didn't like it much anymore, which addresses one of your other points I suppose. Whilst I accept that people should fight for what they think is right within an organisation, I fundamentally disagree that you should be fighting against what you signed up for on day one.
I'll ignore the valid points made in your post as one or two seem vaguely sensible. But to question my career history seems somewhat irrelevant and childish. However if you really want to know, I was in the armed forces for some years and quite happy there until recently. That's why I wasn't on the BA scheme. Which neatly links to my decision to leave, which was based on the fact that I didn't like it much anymore, which addresses one of your other points I suppose. Whilst I accept that people should fight for what they think is right within an organisation, I fundamentally disagree that you should be fighting against what you signed up for on day one.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The words 'pushy' and 'jump' 'queue' 'the' come to mind.
It seems extraordinary to hold your employer to ransom , in a highly skilled job, within virtual months of joining.
I would imagine her (possible) 102 MILE Dorset-LHR daily (each way) commute may have been a factor too.
Would be very tiring on earlies/doubles doing that up to 20 times a month,204 miles a day.
It also seems a tad precious, given they are both in very highly paid jobs, with many child care options available on two high salaries.
Not the kind of job, where you should be able to just pick and choose ' how much you want to do ' at any given moment.
There are hundreds of people in BA who have waited in excess of 5-10 years for ANY part time contract - Ms S was 75% already.
There appear to be many at BA who are aggrieved by her actions, the cost to BA , and the fact that a bit of hard graft had not come before her recourse to the courts.
There are many at BA in much harder circumstances than this lady too, but who still respect the work/balance mix in the earlier years of their careers.
I don't know if it was up to BA in this instance to 'pick up the pieces' (in a costly way too), but it's certainly an industry where you have to get your priorities right.
Sounds like she started a great and prized illustrious career, and then the wonderment of a family blurred the illusion...........
It seems extraordinary to hold your employer to ransom , in a highly skilled job, within virtual months of joining.
I would imagine her (possible) 102 MILE Dorset-LHR daily (each way) commute may have been a factor too.
Would be very tiring on earlies/doubles doing that up to 20 times a month,204 miles a day.
It also seems a tad precious, given they are both in very highly paid jobs, with many child care options available on two high salaries.
Not the kind of job, where you should be able to just pick and choose ' how much you want to do ' at any given moment.
There are hundreds of people in BA who have waited in excess of 5-10 years for ANY part time contract - Ms S was 75% already.
There appear to be many at BA who are aggrieved by her actions, the cost to BA , and the fact that a bit of hard graft had not come before her recourse to the courts.
There are many at BA in much harder circumstances than this lady too, but who still respect the work/balance mix in the earlier years of their careers.
I don't know if it was up to BA in this instance to 'pick up the pieces' (in a costly way too), but it's certainly an industry where you have to get your priorities right.
Sounds like she started a great and prized illustrious career, and then the wonderment of a family blurred the illusion...........