Originally Posted by
jethrobee
How can they legally strike about the imposition when the court ruled that it wasnt imposition?
Not quite true. The court ruled that the changes BA had imposed were not contractual. As such, while it was still imposition, BA were legally entitled to make those changes to working practices.
The fact that BA's imposition was legal doesn't prevent BASSA / Unite taking industrial action. If the unions are unhappy about something BA has done then they're still entitled to ballot their membership.
As regards the reasons for the strike, then officially it is about the imposition of a pay freeze and new crewing levels. However, the reality is that the strike was actually a convenient proxy for a wider and more complex variety of (perceived) issues and grievances amongst the cabin crew community. If you spoke to two different CC about why they were in dispute with BA you’d probably get two different answers.