Originally Posted by Fume Event
As I have said before somewhere in this thread, it is very unusual for employees to take out an injunction against an employer, it is normally the employer asking the employees via an injunction NOT to do something.
Perhaps thats why the judge said he wasn't minded to grant Unite an injunction?
We have seen before over OpenSkies that BA are very willing to use injunctions to prevent IA. How will they use this weapon now when they themselves are under the cosh?
I can assure you that BAs lawyers do not consider themselves under the cosh, and with no injunction granted and a court hearing agreed by mutual consent why would they?
A friend of mine who attended the hearing on the 5th November gave some valuable insight into how the judge put off the full hearing until February.
You do make friends quickly! I seem to recall in a previous post (which you wrote from BOM and very quickly deleted) you claimed that you were talking to the FO on your trip who'd been to court. Now it's your 'friend'. Same guy? Or do you happen to know
two people who were in the court that day? As I recall the judge didn't put off the hearing. He said he was disinclined to grant Unite an injunction, then BA agreed to see Unite in court, at which point the judge said he would probably have imposed such a move had the parties not reached that conclusion by themselves. Or have you heard differently?
He said that BA's legal team were poorly briefed and unprepared, whereas QC John Hendy presented the case on behalf of UNITE "brilliantly" in his words.
If it's the same FO you quoted previously then no, he did not say that.
The problem for BA is that most of its management do not go back more than ten years due to the high turnover of personnel. Hendy was able to hark back to the 70's and refer to collective agreements laid in stone then, which the BA legal team were unaware of.
A remarkably positive spin on what was originally reported as John Hendy relying on some tattered old contracts from the 70s as the main thrust of Unites defence.
Although there are many here cheering on Willie Walsh, you will soon see that he is leading BA into a legal blind alley and a damaging strike.
A damaging strike? Perhaps. A necessary, radical change to the way BA operates? Definitely.
Unfortunately BA does not appear to be run for the benefit of its shareholders at the moment, just someone's personal agenda.
Yes. BASSAs.