I don't post often but the above caught my eye. The action was taken in the name of "Malone and others", not Unite or BASSA. This means that, officially at any rate, "Malone and others" will be liable for the costs.
I am not sure this is true - I see they filed as "(on their own behalf and as representatives under CPR r19.6)" per
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010)
CPR r19.6 provides that a representative action can be begun or continued by one or more persons who have the same interest in a claim as any other persons who have that interest - that would seem correct to be reps, whose legal costs are paid by their union (so long as those other persons can be identified before judgement, and thus it is not a class action).
I can see why the PCCC have set up their own representation, so that they have some degree of representation at least to preserve their lifestyles as and when Unite delivers BA a completely free hand to introduce any change they want, through their utterly intransigent and foolish "negotiating" position.
Which is particularly bothersome, as real people at the end of the day need a negotiated and agreed solution to the fact that BA has become - unfortunately - structurally uncompetitive by the nature of the way in which scheduling is inefficient, seniority is skewed, and the whole setup costs more than competitors operating the same routes into the UK.
The arrogance of Unite is encapsulated by their reported dismissive and belittling attitude towards the "junior" BA finance analyst (who was probably not that junior), who had been tasked with briefing the reps on the company's financial position.
Reps who cannot take the time to even listen to the other side are not worthy of the position that they hold (and the allowances they collect for holding).
The timeline given by the judge in his verdict shows up the fallacy of claiming it's all about imposition though. It's perfectly clear from that it was the union refusing to negotiate that was the reason for BA having to impose a decision.
Papillon neatly points out the basis of the judgement as set out in per
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010)
No precedent for all UK workers at all in my opinion - just sheer stupidity! The basis of the ruling was simply that the union
failed to bother negotiating.
And Malone's cronies cannot delete the opinions set out here as well! Ha!