Mr Michael Osborne v British Airways plc — 2022

The claimant was a British Airways pilot and elected BALPA representative. After BALPA announced strike action in September 2019, the respondent reduced BALPA credit by about 50% and converted the claimant's union days into duty days. The tribunal found that the claimant became unfit to fly because of the stress and distraction he identified, and that he was properly unfit for work on 9 and 10 September 2019 rather than taking part in industrial action.

On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the respondent should have treated the claimant as on sick leave and that the £2,020.43 deduction for alleged industrial action was an unauthorised deduction. It also indicated that bank hours appeared capable of falling within the definition of wages, while the Flight Pay Supplement point might need further consideration at remedy.

On the trade union detriment claim, the tribunal found that the respondent's cancellation of union days and reassignment to operational work had the effect and main purpose of preventing or deterring the claimant from taking union days. It rejected the respondent's explanation that the relevant steps as applied to the claimant were justified by operational need.

On the Blacklists Regulations claim, the tribunal found that the list relied on contained BALPA representatives or people providing ancillary services and was compiled with a view to reallocating trade union facility time. It found that the claimant was subjected to detriments for a reason related to that prohibited list. The tribunal reserved compensation for a remedy hearing because the findings overlapped.