Litebulbs #399
I think you also need to keep in mind that HRA/ECoHR does not deal solely with workers rights. There are also some very powerful provisions in support of private property rights. Indeed, these rights tend to be supported more rigourously than all others, as they provide protection against unwarranted interference in citizens' lives by the State.
In this particular case, what Unite/BASSA is apparently arguing is that workers have a right to require BA to allow its members onto planes when BA chooses not to do so. Your argument seems to be that BA's preference to bar staff for no reason other than the fact they indulged in lawful industrial action is unfair, and a de facto breach of the protections offered in support of industrial action/workers rights.
Against that, however, is BA's right to use, and make available to others, its property, in this case its planes. BA is pretty much free to offer its services however it wants, subject only to specific legal restraints on discrimination etc. Flying on BAs planes is very much a contractual arrangement. There is no automatic right for anyone to be granted carriage.
I think the problem Unite/BASSA faces in claiming that its members' human rights have been violated is twofold. Firstly, there simply is no fundamental human right allowing persons to use the property of others. The rights of users to force owners to allow use of their property is very limited. Secondly, even if the Court accepts that withholding staff travel from strikers is a breach of workers' rights, it does not immediately follow that they will require BA to give back access to staff travel. What would be required is consideration is whether the breach of workers rights is suffiiciently serious to require moderation of private property rights. I think it's highly unlikely they would, as the moderation of those rights could potentially extend way beyond the rights of 2,000-3,000 striking cabin crew to enjoy discounted travel. In other words, the remedy of requiring BA to allow use of its property by a group of persons it prefers not to carry is possibly disproportionate to the damage suffered by the workers.
You need to keep in mind that BA and its owners have rights as well as its workers.