It is interesting that WWW thinks justice is done by ignoring the ruling of the courts, but that aside.
So, I am right in concluding that the merit of the strike has been negated by the court ruling. So, the ballot is now - once again - null and void since there is no clear other issue on the table (remember: the judge also ruled on the matter of imposition and blamed that on BASSA!) so the crew can have no idea why they would vote YES other than general disagreement with BA Management.
In my country (NL) Industrial Action must be proportional to the issue that instigated it. E.g. there must be a clear definition of the issue so a judge can rule the strike legal or not. There also must be an alternate proposal on the table (like wage increase or keeping a status quo). Furthermore you cannot go on a 10 day strike because of a minor conflict (however much that escalated by warmongering).
To know whether or not the strike has merit is important for both sides since if the strike is legal BA can do very little to the strikers but take away every perk. However, if the strike is illegal they can do much, much more.
Any lawyers out there who can tell me if the judge needs to rule the strike unlawful before BA can start taking measures like firing or can BA also take the position the strike in unlawful, take appropriate measures and start firing people and deal with the courts afterwards?
The latter would seem very inappropriate (strikers need to know the legal consequences of their actions before they commit to striking) so would that not mean that BA will have to seek a second injunction?