Safety Concerns #851
I actually agree with you that there is far too much emotion in this debate, and that is clouding judgement. However, the main result is that we see people assuming this matter is going to end up in front of the judiciary at a suitably senior level to produce a precedent-setting decision. I'd suggest you fall into this category too.
This issue will never get anywhere near that stage. As I've noted earlier, BA will settle the issue, probably once they've starved out a lot of commuting strikers. If we are to believe the tales of hardship about striking commuters, then there really are possibly hundreds of crew who will have to leave soon because they cannot afford to get to work. So this issue really does seem to have provided BA with an unexpected benefit, namely managing out a significant number of expensive (and relatively disaffected) staff at zero cost. Once they've actually gone, to be replaced with lower cost staff on New Fleet terms, BA can afford to reach a (financial) settlement with Unite/BASSA. If BA really does not want to reinstate seniority for staff travel, it could always offer cash compensation for its loss to the staff affected. That immediately renders any legal action very much harder to sustain as BA would have implicitly acknowledged the principle behind the Unite/BASSA argument if not necessarily agreed to their preferred means of rectification. You will never get a precedent set simply because one party does not agree with how the other prefers to rectify a breach.
In any case, you seem to forget that BA has actually offered to reinstate staff travel for strikers. They simply will not do so with previous seniority. Therefore the human right that Unite/BASSA really seems to be asserting here is the right to contined preferential treatment in respect of a perk, ie effectively stating that ANY variation to the perk linked to industrial action is a breach of workers' rights. If the Court were to agree to this then I would have to acknowledge how right you are in terms of its impact on employer/employee relationships. Unfortunately there is no precedent to support interference at such a level, and a lot of precedent to suggest the Court will not see it as within its competence to interfere. To do so would imply a degree of intrusiveness in individual agreements way out of line with the intentions of either Parliament or the framers of the ECoHR.
But let's say BA really is as intransigent as you imply, and takes "the bosses" position versus Unite's "the workers" position as a fundamental matter of principle. It duly ends up either at the Supreme Court or ECoHR. "The workers" win. The next question is how will employers generally react? You seem to assume that they'd just accept the result and do nothing. I suspect the reality would be rather different. Either employers would simply withdraw all non-contractual benefits from all staff, hardly a victory for "the workers" generally. Or, more likely in my view, they'd tighten up the language dealing with circumstances in which they may be withdrawn, such that employees acknowledge certain specific cases in which they will no longer qualify for the perk or its terms may be varied (such as engaging in industrial action even when such as action is "legal"). Leaving aside the current dispute, many people (not all of them on "the workers" side of the debate) would welcome greater clarity in certain aspects of employer/employee relations, including discouragement of "at our complete discretion"-type wording in contracts or related documents.
From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.
Whilst there is a degree of emotion displayed on here, the dispirting fact for Unite/BASSA is there is no such display of emotion from BA. They clearly set out what they wanted to achieve in terms of cost cutting, clearly stated what they would do to undermine any industrial action and the effectiveness they anticipated from their contingency plans, and delivered on it. Everything BA has done to date has been driven by delivering the improved cost base it promised investors. Resolving the staff travel issue will be no different. As and when BA can settle it at lower cost than continuing to oppose Unite/BASSA, and in a way that does not require them to back down on what they now consider the principle of non-return of seniority, they'll take it. This is only a matter of principle to those on one side of the argument.
I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.