then it would be unlawful to take action to stop individuals exercising that right. It does not mean that BA would have to return ST, but they may have to compensate for a potential unlawful action.
Removal of ST evidently did not stop a strike and it did nothing to remove any such (as yet to be proven) right. It did place consequences upon such action, of which there are several others - you do not get paid while on strike, should this then also be lumped in with removal of ST as an illegal act?
There has been no erosion of any right to strike, BA placed a consequence upon an individuals actions, making them take some responsibility for the harm done to the company by their actions. The union does not like that as it diminshes their ability to force a company to it's will through the blackmail of a strike. It is therefore attempting to muddy the waters, to make this an issue of the right to strike, which it patently obviously is not.