Sacked For Being A Christian

Carrera

P.S. lest I be accused of making it up, here's the link:
http://thefloridamasochist.com/cate...p-associations/

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

limerickman

Yep, the title of the thread was incorrect when you put it on this site.

And the title is still incorrect as of today.

You're lying when you said that you read the case.
You're also lying when you claimed that you understand the case.
It's obvious that you didn't read about the case nor do you understand HR policies.

When an employee breaches their contract of employment - as this lady did by refusing to comply with the dress code imposed throughout BA - the company suspend that employee.
Depending on the breach of contract - normally referred to as misconduct - there are several levels of misconduct.
Gross misconduct being the most serious breach of contract would entail instant dismissal of the employee without notice and without pay, as stipluated under employment legislation.

Lesser breaches of contract - misconduct - may result in an employee being suspended with or without pay (depending in the view taken by the company)
In this case BA suspended the lady with pay until the matter is adjudicated upon by a third party.
That was the situation when the misconduct arose and BA suspended the employee.

Normally where there is a employment contract dispute, the aggrieved party bring the case to an employment appeals tribunal.
Officers to that tribunal are appointed independently (normally they're solicitors/members of an employment body).
They adjudicate on the evidence presented and only on the evidence presented.
Parties to such hearings can (and normally are) represented by counsel.

Evidence presented to such tribunals encompass the employee contract, employee handbook, a copy of the rules/regulations governing the attendance/appearance/demeanour of employees during working hours, a record of the proceedures taken by the company to investigate the conduct of both the employee and the company representatives, verbal evidence from the aggrieved employee, verbal evidence from the employee - and any written evidence (such as written warnings etc) which might pertain to the case, from both the employee and the employee.

After reviewing all of the evidence - the tribunal will issue a verdict as delegated to the tribunal under employment legislation enacted by parliament.
The verdict given is binding and the verdict is final.
Either party can appeal the verdict - but until another verdict is given - the original verdict is binding and is a matter of record and is legally binding.

If the tribunals verdict finds in favour of the company - the company can terminate further salary payments to the employee, as the misconduct verdict has been established at law.
In this case it would appear that BA terminated further salary payments after the tribunal upheld the legality of their case of misconduct against that employee.
(the employee by refusing to comply with regulations remains suspended - without pay - until such time as the employee is willing to adhere to regulations).





Wrong again - she lost the pay that she was receiving while on suspension - because having received pay (while on suspension), the tribunal verdict validated BA's case that the lady was in breach of contract by her refusing to comply with BA employment regulations.
That's why her pay was stopped - the tribunal verdict ensured that BA could stop her pay.

Quite right too.

You really haven't got a clue.

I suggest that you should try reading a paper which is better informed and which doesn't print lies.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Carrera

"That's why her pay was stopped - the tribunal verdict ensured that BA could stop her pay."

Lim, I'm not a lawyer myself but what I do know is the lawyer who's representing Nadia as a client has advised her not to return to work at this point, despite B.A.'s latest offer.
Nadia herself has stated no way will she return to work till all her demands are met.
If I were the lawyer in this case (and I'm sure the lawyer proper knows more than I do) I'd be pushing for pay compensation for lost earnings as well as compensation for discrimination.
I'd be pushing for a minimum of 20 K.
I'd also be pushing for an admission by B.A. that the whole case had never had anything to do with health and safety.
However, I'm sure the current lawyer knows what he's doing and they have B.A. on the ropes.
Good for her, I say!

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

"Lesser breaches of contract - misconduct - may result in an employee being suspended with or without pay (depending in the view taken by the company)"

I think the entire globe knows exactly what the view of the company is. The company thought they'd get away with their current policy but public opinion is running pretty strong against B.A.
I think she's now in the position to take them for everything she can get. She has all the cards stacked in her favour but let's remember she didn't start this fight.
B.A. started the fight but picked the wrong opponent.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

limerickman

How many times do we have to explain this to you?

She lost her case.
Since losing her case - her salary has been stopped.

From now on - she only gets paid if she goes to work.
If she doesn't go to work - she's doesn't get paid.
Simple.

BA won the case - they're operating from a position of strength.





Compensation for what ? For refusing to adhere to her employers dress code.
You're in cuckooland.

If the tribunal had found in her favour - she would be entitled to compensation.
She lost her case - therefore compensation doesn't enter in to it.
She's entitled to nothing.





BA's not on any ropes : granted there may be a perception that the employee's taking a conscientious stance and that may influence some people to boycott BA.
But legally, she hasn't a leg to stand on and legally BA are home and dry as of now.

Her only chance is for her to try to appeal the verdict - if the appeal works she could get compo.
But I think you'll find that BA's legal position is watertight and unless she can divine some new evidence which can overturn the original verdict, she only has hersef to blame for having no pay since the verdict.

Nice move by BA to pay her while they suspended her - created the perception that the were giving her every opportunity - but once the veridct was passed, they (rightly) stopped paying her.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

limerickman

The company acted within their rights.
if the company hadn't acted within their rights - the tribunal would have found in her favour.
The tribunal didn't find in her favour - the tribunal found in BA's favour.

Nor was she sacked.
Nor was she sacked for wearing religious symbols either.

The lady was suspended - her case was heeard by an independent tribunal - who found that she was in breach of her employment contract.

The case has been adjudicated upon.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Carrera

".....and that may influence some people to boycott BA.
But legally, she hasn't a leg to stand on and legally BA are home and dry as of now."

They've been hit hard. Some groups started to sell shares in the airline. The boycott will probably spread to the U.S.
Last I heard some of the management are now themselves facing possible dismissal.
Believe me, B.A. has gotten itself a whole load of very bad publicity and airline competiton these days is stiff.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

limerickman

Legally BA's position is fireproof.

In terms of whether BA is being hit commercially - that's anyones guess.

Why would management be facing possible dismissal? On what grounds? Are they too breaking BA's dress code?

In terms of publicity - you can take it that BA won't be boycotted by the corporate traveller - the CBI backed BA in their stance on this issue so that tells you enough. (CBI = Confederation of British Industry = the employers group in the UK).
And the corporate clientele is the most lucrative in terms of business for airlines. So there'll be no change there for BA.

In terms of Joe Public boycotting BA - Joe Public will fly with the best carrier regardless.
If BA provides the best service, people will fly with them.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Carrera

I found several websites devoted to the boycott but it's still early days yet. The boycott hasn't yet spread to the U.S. although Fox News has featured this incident.
As for the Christianity issue, it's not so much to do with that. Seeing as the cross of St George has been adopted by football supporters, they're pretty upset too. One guy posted this:

"Dear B.A.
I have always been pleased with the excellent service provided by B.A.
I am using a temporary Yahoo account, as I prefer for you not to know my identity. As a C.E.O. of a large corporation in the UK, I will no longer be allowing my employees (some 350+) to use B.A. for any business related flights whatsoever."

"I think the website is a good idea. I'm not Christian myself but I think the way the woman was treated was very poor. If you want to show your support for BA, go buy a plane ticket somewhere, I frankly won't be using them. PC gone mad.... again!
English Expat"

"Have sold all my shares in BA yesterday in protest. Cannot believe that a large company can behave so unjustly and discriminatory."

"I am and always will be an atheist but this is a step too far by way of discrimination. Reverse this foolhardiness or I will never fly BA again."

"I’m in Australia, and have a Qantas card (and United, and KAL), but I’m willing to boycott any code share flight. How about that? E-mail Qantas if you want, and tell them if they carry BA passengers I’m not even going to get on their plane. Great site. Good job. "

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

EoinC

Worn as exposed jewelry around the neck? Please verify.

Carrera

"Neil Robertson, BA’s People Director, told staff in an email two weeks ago of his plans to leave BA at the end of January after a 30-year career.

Mr Robertson, 54, is part of BA’s senior management team under chief executive Willie Walsh, who has been forced to back down over a ban on workers wearing the cross outside their uniforms.

Mr Walsh ordered a review of the rule that barred 55-year-old check-in worker Nadia Eweida from wearing a tiny cross after her treatment was angrily condemned by Cabinet Ministers, 100 MPs, 20 Church of England bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, who threatened to sell the Church of England’s £6.6million worth of shares in the airline."
Full story : http://tinyurl.com/v3h4h

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

EoinC

And these anonymous people would, of course, have verified that the alternative airlines don't have similar requirements when it comes to wearing exposed jewelry around the neck?

EoinC

Aaaah, OK...
Lim, at the time you wrote the above statement, was it correct?

EoinC

"Sacked for being a Christian"
Aaaah, Carrera, at the time you wrote this statement, was it correct?