Originally Posted by Heckybaby
Well, I think you misunderstand it.
If I'm wrong I apologise, but I don't think I am after a quick re-read of the previous thread and the Bassa/CF forums from Nov time.
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
The original ballot was cast because BASSA said the BA had breached the contracts by imposing changes that were contractual.
The original ballot was over the imposition of changes
not whether the changes were contractual or not.
The court action was started for the alleged breach of contract from your quote.
Originally Posted by Lalalady
Unite issues legal challenge to BA over imposed changes to contracts
Unite the union is to take legal action to stop British Airways’ plans imposing contractual changes on crew without agreement.
The challenge, in the High Court, is over the imposition of contractual changes, including the reduction of crewing levels, which BA said it will force cabin crew to work to from 16 November. Unite is seeking an injunction against this imposition.
The High Court hearing is currently set for Thursday, November 5th
This action is separate to the ballot for industrial action which Unite announced this week it is intending to carry out.
Originally Posted by Heckybaby
The only option BASSA would have is to now claim the new strike is about something else entirely. I don't think even the strongest BASSA supporters on here would accept that.
Bassa can ballot again over the same reason - imposition. The judge took issue with the ballot process rather than the reason for the ballot.
IMHO!!