A "reasonable" belief
My reading of the law is that if an "Official" of the Union had reasonable grounds to believe (whether or not they did believe) that the issues covered in the ballot were not "new" issues, then the ballot - however well constructed, would not give the employees/the TU any protection if they withdrew their labour or failed to work "normally".
The ballot would not give Unite any protection either.
McCarthy's letter is not quite strong enough to give the Officials reason to believe. McCarthy needs to send a second letter to the relevant FTOs which is more clear, and which lets them know that if they intend to pursue the ballot, then BA will both seek an injunction, AND use any powers that they have for any reason against anyone they choose, to ensure that unprotected action does not damage the interests of either the airline, or its various stakeholders.
BA would have to take on Unite - tempting though it might be to take on the Champagne Charlies/Charlottes in bassa. Holley et al are so far in to their "cult" that they would love to become martyrs to the Champagne cause.
I would have thought that Unite had some more deserving causes to take on, rather than BA. How about Simpson spending his time on attacking the low-wage economy??? - rather than the high-wage economy.
As to that Grauniad (Private Eye spelling) piece, the writer ought to know that there are lots of unwaged and capable managers who would be delighted to help out at BA, for the price of a New Fleet Cabin Service Operative.
Clearly, neither Holley nor Grauniad writers have any empathy with the Unemployed and/or the low waged..