Female BA pilot wins legal battle for right to work part-time

[Dick Deadeye]

am I right in thinking that this lady has got BA to back down at BALPA's (ie. my) expense

Yes. That's one of the things you signed up for when you joined BALPA, supporting your colleagues when they need help.

BALPA doesn't exist just to support you. You are entitled to expect support from BALPA members, but you are also expected to lend support to BALPA members, a concept that appears to have escaped you.

Should you ever have the misfortune to need BALPA's help, they will support you, provided they think you have a good case.

How happy would you then feel, if BALPA members started discussing who paid for your training, how long you'd been flying, where were you on the seniority list or what your partner did; rather than discussing the merits of your case?

BALPA won, on behalf of this member, it sounds as if you would have prefered her to lose!

Am I being totally cynical?

No, something far worse!

Not quite sure I'll be paying my subs for much longer.

Frankly the union will be better off without people with your attitude.

[Heliport]

it sounds as if you would have prefered her to lose!

We've had 3 threads on this topic. The previous 2, at the time of the claim, were much longer.
The facts were posted, Balpa's view was posted, the merits of her claim were discussed extensively and, after the tribunal decision was announced, the merits of the decision were discussed extensively.
1st thread 513 posts.
2nd thread 360 posts.

Right or wrong, over all three threads, that is by far the majority view.

[FlapsOne]

fokker1000

If you ever need (or want!) Balpa help I'm certain you would not want the justification debated on the pages of PPrune (or anywhere else).

Everyone pays fees, and each case is taken on individual merits and chances of success (ie. you don't fight a lost cause because that IS a waste of members' money).

Under UK employment Law this pilot had a case and has won. The professional association supported her throughout all of that. Just what she paid her fees for.

[poorwanderingwun]

Does that mean that BALPA does not take into account the opinions of the majority of its members as to how their contributions are dispersed.. ? And is it an indication of the unions mind-set to hammer the employer without regard to the moral value of the claiment.. ?

Sounds very undemocratic for a Trade Union.... reminiscent of smokey rooms full of bitter and twisted individuals that oversaw the demise of many trades in the 70's.

[Carnage Matey!]

Aaaah the 'moral value' argument. So lets say due to some miscalculation on your part you somehow manage to fractionally infringe the blood alcohol limit somewhere downroute. It will of course, be entirely your fault, and using your moral argument you would presumably accept that BALPA should wash it's hands of you?

Edited to add that 'moral value' is highly subjective and I wonder who appointed you to make such a judgement?

[Airbrake]

Carnage, I suspect that if you were her employer your moral view point may be some what different.
Whether people are for or against this ruleing many female pilots will have a tougher time getting jobs because of it. That may be ilegal but many small operators out there would rather employ a male who is going to be the main earner in a family than a female who will be haveing kids in a few years.

Not very PC but a fact of life.

[Ancient Observer]

Trade Unions-BALPA

By and large, BALPA does its best. However, it is expensive to run, and does have a habit of taking on some daft cases. The detail of this case was very balanced, and could have gone either way.
However, they did win, and the victory will begin to undermine the whole "seniority" argument, which can only be a good thing, as "seniority" as practiced by BA and some others is ageism opf the worst sort.

[Flying Lawyer]

the victory will begin to undermine the whole "seniority" argument

There is no basis for that proposition in either the decision of the original tribunal or the review by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, .

Some of the assertions I've read about how the case will allegedly benefit pilots generally are very surprising, and IMHO wrong. They bear no relation whatsoever to what the case was about, or the tribunal's decision.
It was not about seniority, and it was not about applications for PTW contracts generally.
Mrs Starmer claimed that BA's practice in relation to part time work applications constituted sex discrimination against women.
The tribunal was persuaded that it did.

The decision, that there was sex discrimination against women, will benefit women pilots who wish to change to part-time contracts, whether or not they have children.
I can't help wonder if there's a PR effort somewhere to persuade BA pilots generally that Mrs Starmer's victory will in some way benefit all BA pilots.


FL

[JW411]

Well of course it will; CM will be more than happy to watch his seniority number keep pace with dozens of others who have won the right to sit at home for years on end until it suits them to come back when time comes to bid for a 744 command.

[xsbank]

I see this a little differently - we are a part of an aircraft no different than a fuel pump, except in one critical way - the price of a fuel pump is not negotiable. Your price is. Your cost to the operation is variable and management is very good at 'negotiating' the variability in their favour.

Because we are not generally very good at negotiation and better at flying, we have evolved unions to do that task for us. We let them run our lives in a sort of average way and we are happy to get on with the flying. Now we are confronted with a pilot who is a good negotiator and understands all the rules and is somewhat more interested in things not flying-related. She trumps management to 'win' the negotiation.

Really, she is playing the game by all the proper rules - her gender is a red herring.

Why are you lot so sure you have been hurt somehow? Is it because it is 'beyond' the average? I see her victory as an addition to our lives, one more concession/benefit/option that has been won on our behalf.

[overstress]

XSbank - I'm with you. As FL states, the employer will have to view applications more favourably. How is that bad for employees?

The old chestnut confidently trotted out: "This has set back the case of women" - do those posters really think that an airline is going to risk being taken to tribunal over alleged discrimination in the recruitment process?

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by JW411

CM will be more than happy to watch his seniority number keep pace with dozens of others who have won the right to sit at home for years on end until it suits them to come back when time comes to bid for a 744 command.

Whether I like it or not is neither here nor there. The law protects them from having their seniority held back. It would do just as much good to be unhappy about the sun rising in the morning or it raining on my days off.

[Wedge]

FL

A couple of questions:

Did the tribunal get the law right in your opinion? Clearly you have a view on the decision itself, but was it correct in law - however asinine the law may appear to be?

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'm assuming that the very last part of that constitutes the ratio decidendi for this judgment (the 'reason for decision' for the non-legal people reading this). I'm not quite sure I follow the reasoning. If it's a question of the proportion of men to women who apply for part time contracts, surely the mere fact that more women apply for them alone is not enough?

In other words - even if the ratio is 10 women for every one man who applies for a part-time contract, there can not be discrimination against women provided that the percentage total of those contracts awarded to men and women respectively is the same? Although as you say above, there was evidence that infact BA were more likely to award such a contract to a woman.

[Flying Lawyer]

overstess

As FL states, the employer will have to view applications more favourably.

Not me.
Mistaken ID?


If you'd said the employer will now have to view applications by women employees more favourably, I'd agree.

The tribunal's decision distinguished between women employees and men employees. That was the issue.
When forecasting the likely consequences of the tribunal's decision, it's necessary to make the same distinction.
To do otherwise is to misunderstand what the case was about or, in some instances I suspect, to actively misrepresent what the case was about and the likely consequences of Mrs Starmer's victory.


FL



Wedge
Just noticed your post.
Good questions, but they can't be answered in a few sentences.
Early early start tomorrow. I'll respond soon.

[overstress]

FL - sorry, yes, I meant women.

[interpreter]

FlyingLawyer

Your point sums it up succinctly. BA and other airlines MUST view female applicants as a potential financial burden beyond that of male crew. The sex discrimination acts are all very well but in the long run they will make it less and less attractive to hire females. In my view this employee has done a disservice to every other BA employee.
In small businesses it is already being reflected in a recognition that they simply cannot afford to hire women of child bearing age and sooner or later the larger companies are going to have to find a rational approach that reflects the completeness of the male career record and the lessened experience of the female. It is not a criticism of the female employee but just a pragmatic acknowledgement of the facts of life.

[Carnage Matey!]

BA is too big and too high profile to stop hiring women (not to mention too desperate for pilots). As to the idea of impeding female recruitment in aviation, well I don't think that I am a model for male recruitment so why should Mrs Starmer consider herself a model for female recruitment? We all do what is best for ourselves. Nobody should be held up as a 'gender model' and forced to make their choices accordingly.

[interpreter]

Carnage Matey

No one would suggest that you are a male "gender model" as you put it but business is business. Wealth creation which benefits all demands that businesses are run in the most efficient and cost effective way - especially with companies up against international problems in an internationally competitive arena. Does that company go down, does it cease to hire as many - or even just a few - female pilots or does it simply penalise all the others by lower staffing costs - i.e. reducing or not improving pay levels?
Carnage - it is not a perfect world and "carrying "relatively unproductive staff is a luxury no company can afford. If you believe that BA can then you are living in "cloud cuckoo" land. I would suggest that BA seriously appraises its female recruitment policy such that when there is an adequate supply of pilots female joiners are kept to an absolute minmum. BALPA would be foolish if it did not realise that this case they have taken up could well prejudice the living of every other member for the forseeable future.

[npasque]

ridiculous. just because she is of the other gender does not grant her special consideration. just shutup and earn the required hours like everyone else who works for BA.

i certainly hope her relationship with BA is NOT long and prosperous. there are PLENTY of pilots out there who want nothing more than to sit in the R/H seat of a jet and keep getting knocked back, and here are some wankers who do nothing but complain. i dont think i need to emphasize that if she doesnt like the conditions i and many others will be VERY HAPPY to take the problem off her hands!

sorry for being so blunt but seriously, this is all getting way out of hand....

[Carnage Matey!]

Blimey I've never seen such ignorance!

Originally Posted by interpreter

it is not a perfect world and "carrying "relatively unproductive staff is a luxury no company can afford. If you believe that BA can then you are living in "cloud cuckoo" land. I would suggest that BA seriously appraises its female recruitment policy such that when there is an adequate supply of pilots female joiners are kept to an absolute minmum

You should come and have a look at the money BA pees up the wall on hosing the cabin crew down with cash, running sexual diversity awareness campaigns and giving free tickets to illegal strikers. These costs are a drop in the ocean. Running some family friendly policies towards their most loyal workforce instead of grinding them into the dirt while splashing cash on everyone else might even pay dividends. If you think BA can somehow get the message to the scores of people involved in recruitment that they should look less favourably on female pilots and the news won't leak out (or that they'd even act upon it) then it is you who is living in "cloud cuckoo" land.

Originally Posted by npasque

ridiculous. just because she is of the other gender does not grant her special consideration. just shutup and earn the required hours like everyone else who works for BA.

Yes, you are ridiculous. She had plenty of hours, BA just upped the requirement for their own convenience.

i certainly hope her relationship with BA is NOT long and prosperous. there are PLENTY of pilots out there who want nothing more than to sit in the R/H seat of a jet and keep getting knocked back,

They got beaten to the job by a better candidate. Tough luck. It's these desperate types who drive the profession down with that sort of attitude.

"Take the job and work for nothing, don't ask for anything, I would do that". Well b******s to that! BA new what they were doing, they are willing to squeeze their pilots til the pips squeak, it's fair game to do the same back to them.

i dont think i need to emphasize that if she doesnt like the conditions i and many others will be VERY HAPPY to take the problem off her hands!

Except I doubt you'd get past the first stage of selection.