Fascinating
This has developed in to a fascinating debate. One of the problems that I am having with the debate is the fact that so many issues are intertwined.
I'll have a go and some seperation - maybe someone could improve/develop it?
Unite vs Bassa. Unite is the "Union". It does have a legal presence, and can be sued for its actions, as can its employed Full Time Officials. (FTOs).
For instance, if a TU Official unlawfully induces an individual to breach their contract outside the limited protection, then both the TU and the Official could be sued for damages...............by employers and by other people who have rights.................such as customers with contracts with the airline.
Bassa is a branch, with no legal standing.
Unite have allowed a situation to develop where it has little/no leverage over Bassa. The devolution of power to branches started years ago. Jack Jones was its author.
Bassa reps. The reps as individuals employed by BA have no legal standing as reps. They have a duty of care with the advice they give, but only as individuals. I cannot recall any case of an employee suing a rep successfully, even after woeful advice was given. Over the years, tribunals have passed comment on some pretty poor advice given by reps - but I do not remember any successful litigation.
Employee contract law vs (European) Human Rights. (Interesting that we qualify Human Rights in that way. They are not human rights in China/USA/Russia/India, all great countries with large populations.)
The contract law is quite simple - you sign a contract and are supposed to deliver whatever you promise in the contract. When you breach that contract in the context of IA, there is some, limited protection, (detailed in earlier posts). In the UK context, the notion of a "Right" to strike is, and always has been, quite limited. This has never been about fairness/justice, it is just the law.
The European notion of being able to strike has always been balanced by the rights of other stakeholders. There never has been some sort of absolute right to strike, as Courts have always paid attention to the rights of other stakeholders. Taking it to the extreme, if me exercising my right to strike means that there is a very high probability that someone else will lose their right to life, then the couts will balance the interests.
Perks.
I think we're agreed on this, the ST is a non-contractural perk.
Innocence
We are clearly not agreeing about the use of this word. Just because someone has used the available legal protection in the context of IA, it does not mean that they are "innocent". "Have they done anything wrong?". Different views have been expressed...........
Dismissal.
Any employer can dismiss any employee at any time. A year or two later that employee might/might not receive compensation for that dismissal from a Tribunal if the Tribunal thought the dismissal was unfair. Some dismissals are more unfair than others.
Redress. - if the employee is right
It is very seldom what the employee wants. It is normally financial, and the methods of calculating "loss" are seldom satisfactory.
As to ST, both staff and the TUs have to face 3 ways at once on calculating the loss. 1. Did I lose the retail value of (say) 4 First tickets? 2. If I did, what about the Revenue view of that? 3. What is the cash value of the perk to those who are unable to take advantage of it? - A pregnant female unable to travel - should they receive compensation?
That's as far as my typing takes me. I don't know if it helps??