A High Court Judge has today ruled that BA crew have a legitimate claim against British Airways for breach of contract.
The evidence put forward in favour of the cabin crew has won them the right to a have their case heard in full on 1st Feb 2010.
Until then, cabin crew will, without prejudice, work to the imposed changes. Unite has effectively recorded their objection to such changes.
Should a permanent injunction be granted against British Airways at the trial, the cabin crew will return to current working agreements. They will also be entitled to compensation for work carried by them in the interim period of imposition.
The decision is such that British Airways were not awarded any costs today. During the hearing BA conceded that there are significant issues to be answered by them regarding the alleged breach of contract.
British Airways have today issued a statement to suggest that BA crew have lost their case. On the contrary, the court has decided that they would be best placed to pursue a permanent injunction in February.
BASSA and Amicus, both sections of Unite, are delighted with this decision.
The forthcoming ballot for industrial action is an entirely separate issue. The decision does not alter the ability of the unions to resolve matters industrially, and therefore will not detract from Unite’s ability to achieve an overwhelming ’yes’ vote in support.
Steve Turner
This statement simply makes no sense. The unions (through three representative claimants) have issued a claim and, since BA did not seek summary judgment, there was no question of the Judge deciding whether the union has a "legitimate case". Nor has their evidence "won them" their right to have their case heard: anyone who issues a claim form has a right to have their case heard. They would have had that right had they not issued an application for an interim injunction.
I notice that the words "dismiss", "reject" and "refuse" don't appear anywhere in the statement. But that is precisely what the Judge did: he refused the application for an interim injunction. The union is in no better position than it would have been in had it never made the application for an interim injunction.
Moreover, the Judge made it very clear that he would have dismissed the application had the unions not managed to agree with BA not to pursue it. That is a shot across the unions' bows; if they were advised that they would win this hearing, they ought to think twice about where they are getting their legal advice.
Nor did the Court decide that the union would be "best placed" to puruse their claim at any particular time. Having made their opening submissions, the union capitulated (presumably seeing the writing on the wall - and realising that even they could not re-write an adverse judgment as a "GREAT RESULT"). So the unions agreed with BA that no costs would be sought against the union if it agreed to drop its application. The Judge only ruled on the application before him, and he dismissed it because the union decided (in effect) to abandon their application.
But the fact that the union has had to walk away with its tail between its legs is no obstacle to another round of, frankly, lies. If they are "delighted" with the result, they have less sense than we thought.