AN aircraft engineer who claims he was sacked after raising safety concerns over procedures at British Airways is suing the airline for unfair dismissal.
John Higgins, who worked as an aircraft maintenance supervisor for the firm, claims he made protected disclosures to BA and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) over who was allowed to sign off on work carried out on aircraft.
Mr Higgins, from High Blantyre in South Lanarkshire, had a 27-year unblemished career with the airline. He was dismissed when he installed the wrong part on a plane at British Airways Maintenance Glasgow (BAMG) in March last year.
He claims he made the mistake because he was under extreme pressure due to staffing problems, an excessive workload and unreasonable timescales and said the error "did not compromise the safe operation of the aircraft".
However, BA found that it did and dismissed him before offering him a demoted post on appeal - a proposal which Mr Higgins rejected, leaving him to resign.
In a written statement submitted to an employment tribunal in Glasgow, Mr Higgins - who now works for Monarch Airlines - said: "I raised concerns during 2006 and 2007 that BA was not complying with full safety requirements in carrying out their aircraft maintenance.
"The disclosure I made was that at my workplace of British Airways, 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the aircraft maintenance work was not being performed in strict compliance with CAA and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) safety provisions.
"It was my belief that this was a serious safety lapse which could potentially result in fatalities."
Mr Higgins claimed he met with CAA officials to discuss his concerns, resulting in them issuing seven findings of failure against BA and an EASA working group being set up to look at the issue.
However lawyer Samantha Cooper, acting for BA, suggested that neither were directly linked to Mr Higgins's alleged disclosure.
Miss Cooper also suggested there was no basis for him to allege that the approach taken by BA was contrary to regulations.
Mr Higgins replied: "I saw flaws with it."
BA manager Stuart McMahon said he had checked with the CAA and they had no record of Mr Higgins's disclosures, however he accepted under cross-examination that this did not mean they had not been made.
The tribunal was told that BAMG was seriously short-staffed on March 1 and 2 last year when Mr Higgins was overseeing contractors working on an Airbus A321.
One of the contractors damaged a wire and Mr Higgins repaired it with a splice which turned out to be the wrong one.
When he returned to work later that week he was suspended and claims he was told by a manager: "I am so sorry. I can't have another Air Malaysian situation here and need to send you home."
BA argue that the repair Mr Higgins carried out was important to the safety of the plane. They also claim he did not properly record the repair and failed to pick up on poor wiring by a contractor.
Miss Cooper put it to the engineer that supervisors had told him to just do what he could on the days in question. He said he had tried to do that.
She accused Mr Higgins of being reckless and he replied: "I don't agree with that."
He added: "I did the best I could under the circumstances."
The tribunal also heard from BA manager Brian Queally who took the decision to dismiss Mr Higgins.
In a written statement, he said staff are never expected to "cut corners" due to time pressures, adding: "The potential impact of the claimant's use of the incorrect splice was huge. If the splice failed it could have affected the correct functioning of the landing gear, resulting in a potential catastrophic incident."
The manager also said he had no knowledge of Mr Higgins's disclosures about safety concerns prior to dismissing him.
The tribunal, before employment judge Susan Walker, continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article