Litebulbs
This issue is really one of proportionality. An action, ie withdrawal of staff travel seniority, that results in losing preferential queuing rights to cheap holiday tickets, is very different to one that may cause someone to have to give up their job because they can't afford to get to work. So my point essentially is that if Unite wants to make a legal issue of this, they need to focus on those cases where the effect (job loss) is way out of proportion to the underlying cause (legal strike action). Taking a "one size fits all" approach to the issue looks very unlikely to succeed. The Telegraph (not my paper of choice I assure you) is correct to label the current approach as fighting for the right to a cheap holiday in the Caribbean. Separate out those members for whom loss of staff travel really does equate to loss of job, and you can argue constructive dismissal, and from there discrimination by virtue of participating in industrial action. Cheap holidays are not protected in any way shape or form. Non-discrimination for participating in legally called strike action is protected.
Unite would still face serious hurdles in winning such an action, not least the fact that they would effectively be arguing that staff travel was contractual, when there is acknowldgement all round that it isn't. There is also the fact that staff choose to live where they want. BA does not require the likes of Ava to live in S Africa and commute. Against that there is evidence that BA has encouraged the practice of European staff to live in their homeland and commute to London. I doubt Unite would get a precedent-setting decision even if they take this approach. However, they are far more likely to pressure BA to settle, such that no commuter actually loses their job. I would have thought that ought to be a Union objective.
All this of course further raises the question of why Unite made the return of staff travel such an issue in the recent ballot. The pragmatic approach would have been to recommend acceptance of the deal, thereby getting commuter staff travel returned immediately. They could have reserved their right to contest the initial staff travel withdrawal via legal action if necessary. I know BA made cessation of all legal action a condition of the deal, but if the only thing preventing settlement was Unite's wish to clarify this point of law, then BA would have settled. Not doing so would make them the intransigent party, not to mention risking a higher settlement cost if Unite eventually won. Bad tactics in my view.
Agree with you re McLuskey. He must have dirt on lots of people in Unite. No other logical explanation for him being so senior.