As I write this, BA and BASSA are in court to resolve the issue of whether crew complement forms part of an individual’s contract of employment. The suggestion forwarded by BASSA is that crew complement is embedded in agreed terms and conditions and thus forms part of an individual’s contract of employment.
The Contract of Employment merely confirms someone is employed in a certain role and required to do such duties as is required by the employer in that role. It goes on to outline notice periods etc but there is usually no mention of rank or specific terms and conditions as they constantly evolve.
Clearly, terms and conditions are mutually agreed over the years between the Company and the Union representing the workforce, and they are just that, agreements. There is no doubt in my mind that the court will find for BA.
BASSA continually points out that BA cannot impose anything without their agreement. What is not clear is the procedure that exists should agreement not be reached. Industrial action on the part of the Union yes, but what are the options for the Company? Given there is an element in BASSA that come from the “The answer is No, what is the question?” school of negotiation, where does that leave the Company.
Perhaps the opponents of “imposition” would explain what other option BA had, given that no agreement had been reached in the previous months. ( and please don’t say negotiation because I think we have been there )
I am convinced that there is a quiet confidence at the Waterside top floor that the number of cabin crew actually failing to show for duty during a strike would be perhaps 20% at most given the risk of losing staff travel at best and your job at worst. Add to that, a very very successful initiative to replace the potential strikers and you are coming close to a very reasonable flying program on day one of a strike.
BASSA, your move I think.