Litebulbs #392
I think you fail to grasp the hypocrisy of your argument. I have not seen any posts from the Union side complaining that BA discriminates amongst staff within its staff travel scheme when such discrimination benefits the Union. You all crawl out of the woodwork only when it doesn't.
BA's scheme includes a right to higher class of travel etc for more senior staff does it not, eg a CSD gets to fly First/Club whereas the oiks slum it in World Traveller? Isn't this discriminatory? And doesn't it benefit the class of staff from which about 95% of BASSA reps belong? How come this has never been a problem of discrimination that needed to be tackled?
It would seem that not only has Unite/BASSA expressly acknowledged over long periods that staff travel is a non-contractual perk provided at the absolute discretion of the company, but within the scheme itself they have happily accepted a discriminatory seat allocation structure. I'm afraid it's a bit late to start rolling out the sibling solidarity line now. If BA wants to adopt a policy that further segments access to a discretionary perk then they are perfectly entitled to do so. All the guff about Human Rights Act protection and ECoHR is just nonsense. It's entirely inapplicable. If there were any chance to Unite winning such an argument, the legal action would have commenced already. They know the provisions often quoted do not apply.
You, and others, seem to think that legislation, including HRA and ECoHR somehow protect people against any form of discrimination that may arise as a result of taking industrial action. It does not. It provides a degree of protection to individuals against action for breach of contract. More importantly, it protects the Unions calling for action against the (normally) much higher claims that might be made against them for costs arising out of action they have induced members to take. However, BA can take many discriminatory actions against staff with no fear of legal redress against them. Provided such steps do not break specific legislation on discrimination (eg based on colour, gender etc), then BA can do pretty much what it likes.
You need to get over the idea that somehow discrimination is always disallowed. It's actually entirely the reverse. Discrimination is always allowed except in the specific circumstances laid out in law when it isn't. We are all discriminated against at work, normally on the basis that we don't have the necessary skills and experience for a particular role. If BA wishes to provide an employment perk, and then segment access to that perk, it is perfectly entitled to do so. The fact that one element of the segmentation is that persons who went on strike are disallowed, or otherwise handicapped in enjoying the perk, is allowable. "Fairness" only enters into it to the extent that they treat everyone in each segment equally. So, for instance, if BA were to decide arbitrarily to grant full access to staff travel to some strikers but not others, that may be grounds for challenge. However, if all strikers are treated equally, then BA is free to do pretty much what it likes with its non-contractual perks. I think you'll find there are Tribunal cases along pretty much these lines, but I'm not sure if there are any High Court or Employment Appeall cases to provide legal precedent.