Litebulbs, thank you for the link.
What seems (to me) to be clear, wading my way through it, is that the picture is confusing. There seems to be a right to right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels. It is far less clear whether there is a right to strike, despite the concluding part of Article 28.
5.36. Article 28 of the Charter does not create a free-standing right to strike
It states further that the right to strike is already recognised as a general principle of law. This "principle" seems to be where the fun starts as:
Such principles, explained Lord Goldsmith, "only give rise to rights to the extent that they are implemented by national law or, in those areas where there is such competence, by Community law"
So, is there a right to strike in the UK? or is it a principle, which is not enshrined in law? The problem arises from this distinction. IF there is only a principle and no right, can BA be acting illegally by "punishing" strikers, as their rights have not been infringed. This I suspect will be where BA's case will reside. As it seems unclear and confusing to the scholars of EU and UK law, this is likely to run a long way before a clear resolution is reached and may even force parliament to make clear what the relationship is between UK law and EU law. Does an EU law that is directly contradictory to UK law mean that UK law must bend?
This is a fascinating conundrum and may have far reaching consequences. It also shows that there will be a lot of scope for appeal after appeal on this subject. I do not expect a swift resolution to this issue. Sadly for BASSA, a speedy resolution is what they need, the longer this goes on the longer a new "normality" is established.