henkybaby
I heartily agree with most of your analysis of the present dispute, but there is one area on which we differ, and, with respect, one point where I believe you are not correct.
...The original ballot was cast because BASSA said the BA had breached the contracts by imposing changes that were contractual. It was not about the changes themselves mind you, it was about due process...
The BASSA ballot was not about whether contractual changes had been imposed. BASSA left that to the lawyers and the Court, thus far rather unsuccessfully!
The ballot was about BASSA’s objection to any change being imposed unilaterally, rather than negotiated, regardless of whether that change was contractual or non-contractual, major or trifling.
The court case is about whether BA’s imposed changes are contractual changes or not.
BA will argue that they are not contractual changes, and need not have been negotiated. BASSA will argue that they are contractual changes and should have been negotiated.
On the 05th November, (
correction courtesy of Meal Chucker) BASSA applied for an injunction to prevent BA imposing certain changes until the case had been heard in full, but the application was refused.
BA imposed the changes, the full case will be heard in the High Court next month, and we will learn the judge’s ruling in due course.
If BASSA win, BA will not be allowed to maintain those changes, and will face a claim for damages as well as being required either to reverse the changes or rapidly reach a negotiated solution with BASSA.
If BA wins, then this will mean that BASSA will not have any legal grounds on which to oppose those changes.
Now, if BA should win the case, you appear sure that BASSA cannot ballot over non-contractual matters.
...It seems simple to me. BASSA cannot prevent changes it has no (for lack of a better term) jurisdiction over...
... If the changes are non-contractual BASSA can not call a strike over the changes themselves either...
I don’t think that is correct. One commentary on UK industrial legislation puts it this way:
...For a dispute to be lawful it must be a 'trade dispute'. This means it must be a dispute between workers and their own employer and it must be wholly concerned about employment related matters, e.g. pay, working conditions, jobs, discipline etc...
I’m told that the case law that has built up on the relevant legislation does not confine the term
trade dispute to mean solely contractual matters. Just that it has to be a dispute between workers and their employer, which has arisen out of their employment, no matter how trivial or inconsequential others may think it.
Provided BASSA observe the technical requirements of UK industrial legislation (something that has singularly proved beyond them so far) such as balloting the correct people and asking the correct question on the ballot paper, it seems to me that a judgment in BA’s favour in February would not preclude BASSA from opposing these changes industrially.
BASSA has already indicated that its members will be re-balloted in mid-January.
As to the wisdom of, support for, or likely effectiveness of any such future industrial action, I leave that for you to comment on, from the safe distance of Sydney!
Happy New Year
Bellerophon