Mr S Quigley v West Atlantic UK Limited — 2023

Mr Quigley had worked for West Atlantic UK Ltd since 2013 on a self-employed basis and became an employee from 1 March 2021 as a B737 Captain. The tribunal recorded that a COT3 dated 22 November 2022 settled all claims before that date, so the live issues were confined to later events. It also found that the claimant was subject to an OML medical restriction, which meant he could not undertake base training, and that the respondent operated a safety reporting system and a complex rostering arrangement driven by operational need and flying priorities.

On the whistleblowing claim, the claimant relied on an email of 22 September 2022 and a discussion with Mr Little on 26 September 2022 about the Aberdeen incident. The tribunal held that the email did not amount to a qualifying disclosure because it referred to internal standard operating procedures rather than a legal obligation, and it was not satisfied that the claimant had a reasonable belief that health or safety had been endangered when the aircraft had landed safely. The tribunal also found no evidence that the named individuals who were accused of retaliatory rostering were responsible for the rosters, and no proper basis to infer that the claimant was subjected to detriment because he had made a protected disclosure. It noted that the incident had already been entered into the respondent's Safety Management System, investigated, and reported to the CAA.

The direct age discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010 failed on each pleaded allegation. The tribunal rejected the complaints about the response to the 5 December 2022 email, the amount of simulator time allocated, the removal of simulator duties in February 2023, the alleged failure to carry out a stress risk assessment, the removal from base training in March or April 2023, the alleged roster agreement, and the alleged comments said to have been made by Mr Heenan. It found no less favourable treatment compared with the proposed comparators and no evidence from which age discrimination could be inferred. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that rostering decisions reflected the needs of the business, including a shortage of pilots and the priority given to revenue flying.

The age-related harassment claim under s.26 EqA 2010 also failed. The tribunal found no evidence that the complained-of conduct violated the claimant's dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, and no evidence that any of the conduct was related to age. It accepted that the respondent investigated the grievance, contacted the CAA about base training, and did undertake a stress risk assessment, although it criticised the absence of a written record. Overall, all claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.