in person For the v Respondent — 2018

Ms F. Biglin, a British Airways cabin crew employee and customer service line trainer, brought complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and sex discrimination, together with a s.188 TULR(C)A 1992 complaint. The s.188 complaint was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal dismissed the remaining complaints and vacated the remedies hearing. It accepted that the claimant had anxiety, depression and low mood, and that by 26 February 2018 her GP had signed her fit for amended duties, while BAHS later said she was unfit to return to flying or phased return at that time but could do ground duties up to her normal hours, subject to management deciding whether the business could support that.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant proved she was not placed in training from mid-March 2018 until the end of her employment, was not sent on the 3-4 March training course, had her pay and sick pay stopped in March, and was not interviewed for the February recruitment secondment. It held, however, that the reasons were the lack of BAHS approval until 14 March, roster timing, the absence of an available training slot, and the skills sought for the recruitment post, not disability. On reasonable adjustments, the PCP requiring flying duties was conceded and the tribunal accepted that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but it found that the respondent offered ground and uniformed duties that avoided the disadvantage and that it was not reasonable to create or displace training work within the timescale available.

On sex discrimination, the tribunal held that Mr X was not a valid comparator because he had been in GLA since October 2017 and was expected to remain there long term, whereas the claimant was in GLA for just over two months before her contract ended. It found that the reason she was not rostered to deliver training was that she was not in GLA long enough for the pre-set rosters, not her sex, and noted evidence that women were used as trainers on the course. The unfair dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found no fundamental breach or breach of trust and confidence, held that the respondent needed medical guidance before identifying alternative duties, and found that the claimant had accepted voluntary redundancy before the BAHS consultation and did not resign in response to any alleged breach.