Sounds like a very desperate attempt to make sure they don't make the same c*ck up that occurred with the first ballot. I still think that the situation is a potential minefield.
I don't understand how Unite can ballot LHR plus the LGW strikers only. The grievances only impact those who walked out on strike, so what is the logic in ballotting all of LHR ???? The folk who worked normally have nothing to gain from any negotiations on the grievances listed. To me the logical situation would be either to ballot al CC on the basis that the use of VCC, removal of ST and disciplinaries were 'an affront to the whole community'
or to only ballot those who were directly impacted - i.e the people who went on strike or had been subjected to disciplinaries. The latter ballot would be more likely to get the degree of support needed to call for strike action, albeit it would be limited to those balloted. If Unite are right in saying that a large number of crew walked out - the figures touted suggest about a third of all crew may have taken strike action - then getting them to down tools would indicate a greater degree of solidarity.
Assuming that LHR is about 7000 crew, if there are 3000 strikers who have no reason not to vote for further action, you need an 85% or lower turnout to guarantee a majority for action, but you run the risk that the strike call will be ineffectual as over half your membership may not have supported the ballot. On top of that, some of those who opted for strike action may find the economics a bit hard to handle and turn up for work - if only 30% of crew walked out on a ballot which suggested that 60%+ supported strike action you can bet that some of the 3000 who have zero to lose in supporting the ballot may think twice about losing still more pay.
To me this ballot is sheer stupidity. Now if Unite were to ballot on the introduction of mixed fleet, they might gain more support, but they've let themselves be suckered yet again. They've focussed on some truly silly niggles and announced them as the basis for ballotting and allowed BA to then slide in MF. The sensible thing would have been to acknowledge that they had lost the current battle and gone back to talk about MF. If BA then imposed MF they could try ballotting, although since BA have stipulated that current staff can retain their Ts&Cs and don't have to move across, it might be a dodgy wicket, but one that could get more support from other groups. Unite bought the dummy and BA have scored a neat goal. Doesn't say a lot for Unite's business acumen or negotiating skills - glad they don't represent me.