A six-week Employment Tribunal hearing began this week into claims of age, sex, disability and race discrimination against British Airways by a group of 33 ex-cabin crew.
The claimants, who were dismissed by BA during the Covid-19 pandemic, claim unfair dismissal and discrimination by the airline, arguing it used the pandemic as cover to get rid of crew.
Law firm Kepler Wolf is representing 29 of the former crew in claims worth more than £514 million. The claims include discrimination against those looking after young children or elderly parents.
In the early weeks of the pandemic in 2020, BA embarked on a restructuring which included the merger of different cabin crew ‘fleets’ – at the time divided between ‘legacy’ worldwide (long haul) and eurofleet (short haul) crew and more recently recruited ‘mixed fleet’ crew.
It aimed to create a single ‘mixed fleet’ crew.
BA did so by a process of firing and rehiring crew on new contracts. For legacy crew this meant pay cuts of up to 50%, say their lawyers, and the loss of a ‘Scheduling Agreement’ which gave crew certainty about their days off – an important agreement for those with caring responsibilities.
The restructuring resulted in 3,887 crew leaving BA through voluntary or compulsory redundancy.
The claimants’ lawyers argue the restructuring was rushed and crew were not given sufficient time or information to make decisions.
They also claim the dismissals were opportunistic, due to BA wanting to get rid of legacy crew, quoting a leaked document headed ‘Project Columbus’ which outlined a BA plan to create a new ‘mixed fleet’ crew combining long haul and short haul staff on downgraded terms and conditions with less flexible working.
Lawyer Tara Grossman of Kepler Wolf said: “This case is about holding BA accountable for what we believe was calculated and opportunistic mistreatment of its most experienced cabin crew.
“Our claim is that the pandemic was used as cover to unlawfully remove longstanding employees, many of whom were older, parents, carers or had disabilities. Our clients were given impossible ‘choices’ and suffered devastating consequences.”
However, in a statement, BA said: “The Covid-19 pandemic was the single greatest crisis in BA’s history and it had a devastating impact on the business.
“Like many other airlines, we were forced to make redundancies and changes to avoid collapse and preserve thousands of jobs, with the situation so precarious that we had to take on billions of pounds of debt to survive.
“The proposals we had to make with cabin crew were supported by over 95% of crew in a consultative ballot.
“We reject the allegation that these changes were unlawful and that Covid was used as an excuse to carry out this essential restructure.”
BA has already had two employment tribunal verdicts go against it in the course of this claim.
An Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled against the airline in August last year after BA appealed against an earlier tribunal ruling which found the 2010 Equality Act allowed for claims of “indirect associative discrimination” – extending discrimination protections for female carers and mothers to male carers and fathers.
The two-day hearing in July last year saw the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and minister for women and equalities Bridget Phillipson argue against BA’s appeal.
The 2010 Equality Act made discrimination on the grounds of a “protected characteristic” unlawful – meaning discrimination on the grounds of “age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation”.
Lawyers for BA sought to challenge the interpretation of an amendment to the Act which added “indirect discrimination” against an individual without a ‘protected characteristic’.
The cabin crew were among 12,000 BA employees subject to ‘fire and rehire’ in 2020 when the airline forced many staff on to new contracts.
The airline’s actions drew widespread condemnation and subsequently saw BA’s then chief executive Alex Cruz replaced by current chief Sean Doyle.
An inquiry into BA’s treatment of staff by the Transport Select Committee of MPs concluded in June 2020 that it had engaged in “a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic”.