Sacked For Being A Christian

[limerickman]

Now, just to prove there are other people out there who share my view, here are a few comments I found on website discussions of the topic. Please note, folks, many of the people who got annoyed aren't Christians.
P.S. I left out John Rambo who would no doubt have been told to take his medals off when flying with B.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)"Can you imagine an airline worker being removed from her job in an Arab country for wearing a Muslim symbol. Of course not. It’s time the “silent majority” of the great British public sent a strong message to this idiot, Willie Walsh (BA CEO). Reverse this insane decision or face a massive boycott."

(2)"Since we have opened up new markets for my company in the USA since April this year, I would say that myself and my staff are making on average, 5 return flights a month with BA. This will definitely no longer be happening and we will start using a new carrier. I was christened but I am not a practising Christian, but I feel it offends Christians in a Christian country. If other faiths are allowed to wear religious items, regardless of whether they
are impractical to hide, then a small cross should be no problem. I really do think that BA will come to regret this ridiculous decision in the long run."

(3)"This matter reflects the overall arrogance of BA: the unprovable claim to be the World’s Favourite Airline, World Traveller seats with minimum room, outrageous prices on tickets bought outside the UK and now a holier-than-thou and inconsistent attitude towards employees. They deserve to lose as many customers as possible to friendlier airlines."

(4)"I don’t expect much from this announcement. Their past form is that they will tough it out until the last minute.In the meantime I hope that people who feel strongly about this will contact BA."

You should post these transcripts to the lady's legal team - I'm sure they'll tell you that these "views" (that you posted above) carry no legal relevance
regarding this case.

 

[limerickman]

etc, etc.
Carrera, let's return to the basics:
Starting point - Carrera claims (as per this Thread) that a BA employee was "Sacked for being a Christian".
1) She was not sacked, she was stood down. There is a difference.
2) She was not stood down for being a Christian. BA, doubtless, have many 1,000's of Christians amongst their employees. She was stood down for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (against the rules for her position), and refusing to comply with her rules. Most employment positions have rules. If they are unfair, there are usually formal avenues for addressing this. She does not appear to have attempted to utilise these avenues. In most Companies, when the rules are not adhered to, the employee is informed of what the transgression is, and what he / she must do to comply with the rules. If the employee refuses to comply with the rules, then continuing, as such, in that position is untenable. Where I come from, people get sacked for that. She is fortunate in working for a Company that is willing (whether forced to, or not) to retain her in a stand-down position until resolution is achieved.
3) The rule relates to wearing exposed jewelry around the neck. It does not discriminate between Crosses, Stars, Crescents or Cheeseburgers. It distinguishes between exposed jewelry and unexposed jewelry. It would be discrimination if a person in the same position were allowed to wear an exposed Star of David, but not a Crucifix but, as you know, this is not the case.
You displayed more discrimination in referring to her as middle-aged (as if that had some kind of bearing on the case), than BA did in applying the rules that relate to the position. Are we supposed to view someone's actions differently because they are middle-aged?
We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she? That is just sensationalising an issue through dispersal of erroneous information, rather like the Daily Mail.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the employers group throughout the private/public sector in Britain, has endorsed BA's stance in this case.
"Our view is that BA's recruitment and HR policy is explicit with regard to dress code of employees throughout BA's 34,000 people workforce, worldwide"

Daily Mail probably didn't pick that one up.

 

[Carrera]

"We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she?"

I read the case recently and was pretty shocked by what had been going on.
I think all of this is splitting hairs and there's a whole load of excuses, ifs, buts and maybes.
Seeing as the so-called tribunal refused to take her case seriously, the implication was she would have eventually lost her job which is why I chose the current title.
Somewhere along the line the lawyer stepped in and then the public outcry and the boycott catapulted the case into the public eye.
Now even Blair has tactfully stated he thinks B.A. is in the wrong.
"It would be discrimination if a person in the same position were allowed to wear an exposed Star of David, but not a Crucifix but, as you know, this is not the case."
I found out stars of David were prohibited as well as crosses but ceremonial swords and daggers were in.
It's kind of odd that isn't it. I wonder why?
The latest I heard was this lady has been advised by her lawyer not to return to work. In a statement she said the support from the public had been absolutely overwhelming. Even the BBC has remarked it had been flooded by letters from an irate public and heavens knows how many letters B.A. got since the case became known in the U.S.
They (B.A.) have 2 choices. Either they end their discrimination by banning all veils, burkhas, daggers and crosses e.t.c. or they allow their employees to wear crosses as well as ceremonial daggers.
They can, however, choose to continue the discroiminatory line but if they take that decision they'll face massive boycotts in the U.S. and over here.
It will be the Mother of all boycotts.

etc, etc.
Carrera, let's return to the basics:
Starting point - Carrera claims (as per this Thread) that a BA employee was "Sacked for being a Christian".
1) She was not sacked, she was stood down. There is a difference.
2) She was not stood down for being a Christian. BA, doubtless, have many 1,000's of Christians amongst their employees. She was stood down for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (against the rules for her position), and refusing to comply with her rules. Most employment positions have rules. If they are unfair, there are usually formal avenues for addressing this. She does not appear to have attempted to utilise these avenues. In most Companies, when the rules are not adhered to, the employee is informed of what the transgression is, and what he / she must do to comply with the rules. If the employee refuses to comply with the rules, then continuing, as such, in that position is untenable. Where I come from, people get sacked for that. She is fortunate in working for a Company that is willing (whether forced to, or not) to retain her in a stand-down position until resolution is achieved.
3) The rule relates to wearing exposed jewelry around the neck. It does not discriminate between Crosses, Stars, Crescents or Cheeseburgers. It distinguishes between exposed jewelry and unexposed jewelry. It would be discrimination if a person in the same position were allowed to wear an exposed Star of David, but not a Crucifix but, as you know, this is not the case.
You displayed more discrimination in referring to her as middle-aged (as if that had some kind of bearing on the case), than BA did in applying the rules that relate to the position. Are we supposed to view someone's actions differently because they are middle-aged?
We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she? That is just sensationalising an issue through dispersal of erroneous information, rather like the Daily Mail.

 

[Carrera]

"We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she?"

The implication was her job was on the line. Had it not been for the boycott and adverse publicity, she'd be history.
Now, why don't you question Lim about what he stated to Wolfix at the beginning of my thread. Here it is:

"Wolf - this "story" doesn't feature anywhere to be honest.
Except if you're read the Dail Mail - like our BNP friend, Carrera."

So, the story doesn't feature anywhere?
Jack Straw made a statement, Blair just made a statement and the case was set to be discussed in Prague by the U.N. The story has made prime time T.V., over 50 M.P.'s joined the boycott and, according to Lim above, the story hardly made the news.
There's a question you could ask. I await your reasoned response.

etc, etc.
Carrera, let's return to the basics:
Starting point - Carrera claims (as per this Thread) that a BA employee was "Sacked for being a Christian".
1) She was not sacked, she was stood down. There is a difference.
2) She was not stood down for being a Christian. BA, doubtless, have many 1,000's of Christians amongst their employees. She was stood down for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (against the rules for her position), and refusing to comply with her rules. Most employment positions have rules. If they are unfair, there are usually formal avenues for addressing this. She does not appear to have attempted to utilise these avenues. In most Companies, when the rules are not adhered to, the employee is informed of what the transgression is, and what he / she must do to comply with the rules. If the employee refuses to comply with the rules, then continuing, as such, in that position is untenable. Where I come from, people get sacked for that. She is fortunate in working for a Company that is willing (whether forced to, or not) to retain her in a stand-down position until resolution is achieved.
3) The rule relates to wearing exposed jewelry around the neck. It does not discriminate between Crosses, Stars, Crescents or Cheeseburgers. It distinguishes between exposed jewelry and unexposed jewelry. It would be discrimination if a person in the same position were allowed to wear an exposed Star of David, but not a Crucifix but, as you know, this is not the case.
You displayed more discrimination in referring to her as middle-aged (as if that had some kind of bearing on the case), than BA did in applying the rules that relate to the position. Are we supposed to view someone's actions differently because they are middle-aged?
We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she? That is just sensationalising an issue through dispersal of erroneous information, rather like the Daily Mail.

 

[Carrera]

I think this has now become a case of making a public admission in my favour and giving us (the Pro Nadia team) the credit for having won the argument on this occasion.
It's Check Mate, I'm afraid.
You and Lim still maintain my thread was incorrectly titled?
Then how's about this:

"LONDON (AFP) - British Airways has suspended a Christian woman who wears a necklace with a cross to work, even though it allows Muslims and Sikhs to wear headscarves and turbans.
Nadia Eweida, 55, told the Daily Mail Saturday, that she decided to sue her employer for religious discrimination after having been suspended without pay for three weeks."

She lost pay due to her fight. That means, she's entitled to compensation for lost earnings and I'd say to the tune of 100 K minimum.

etc, etc.
Carrera, let's return to the basics:
Starting point - Carrera claims (as per this Thread) that a BA employee was "Sacked for being a Christian".
1) She was not sacked, she was stood down. There is a difference.
2) She was not stood down for being a Christian. BA, doubtless, have many 1,000's of Christians amongst their employees. She was stood down for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (against the rules for her position), and refusing to comply with her rules. Most employment positions have rules. If they are unfair, there are usually formal avenues for addressing this. She does not appear to have attempted to utilise these avenues. In most Companies, when the rules are not adhered to, the employee is informed of what the transgression is, and what he / she must do to comply with the rules. If the employee refuses to comply with the rules, then continuing, as such, in that position is untenable. Where I come from, people get sacked for that. She is fortunate in working for a Company that is willing (whether forced to, or not) to retain her in a stand-down position until resolution is achieved.
3) The rule relates to wearing exposed jewelry around the neck. It does not discriminate between Crosses, Stars, Crescents or Cheeseburgers. It distinguishes between exposed jewelry and unexposed jewelry. It would be discrimination if a person in the same position were allowed to wear an exposed Star of David, but not a Crucifix but, as you know, this is not the case.
You displayed more discrimination in referring to her as middle-aged (as if that had some kind of bearing on the case), than BA did in applying the rules that relate to the position. Are we supposed to view someone's actions differently because they are middle-aged?
We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she? That is just sensationalising an issue through dispersal of erroneous information, rather like the Daily Mail.

 

[Carrera]

P.S. lest I be accused of making it up, here's the link:
http://thefloridamasochist.com/category/knucklehead-of-the-day/org-corp-associations/

 

[limerickman]

I think this has now become a case of making a public admission in my favour and giving us (the Pro Nadia team) the credit for having won the argument on this occasion.
It's Check Mate, I'm afraid.
You and Lim still maintain my thread was incorrectly titled?
Then how's about this:

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).

She lost pay due to her fight. That means, she's entitled to compensation for lost earnings and I'd say to the tune of 100 K minimum.

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.

 

[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!

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[limerickman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[limerickman]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[limerickman]

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.

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.

 

[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. "

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.

 

[EoinC]

...I found out stars of David were prohibited as well as crosses but ceremonial swords and daggers were in...

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

 

[EoinC]

I found several websites devoted to the boycott...

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]

..."Wolf - this "story" doesn't feature anywhere to be honest.
Except if you're read the Dail Mail - like our BNP friend, Carrera."

So, the story doesn't feature anywhere?
Jack Straw made a statement, Blair just made a statement and the case was set to be discussed in Prague by the U.N. The story has made prime time T.V., over 50 M.P.'s joined the boycott and, according to Lim above, the story hardly made the news.
There's a question you could ask. I await your reasoned response.

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?

 

[Carrera]

Let's put it this way. Lim was wrong about the BNP for starters so it figures he slipped up over this idea of there not being any publicity apart from the Mail.
The BNP have stated they believed WW2 was exaggerated so, for obvious reasons, I'm hardly going to be a BNP supporter. I'm not even a football supporter.
What you have is a union of irate folks who are annoyed for different reasons.
The Christians are up in arms because they specifically have been kind of humiliated by a major airline.
The nationalists are upset because the cross features in the flag of St George and, these days, the flag of St George is widespread.
The general public is also up in arms for another reason. That reason is they're kind of tired of political correctness.

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