Under Unite's constitution it can force the merger of branches. There was a comment in the CC89 recent posts on the UniteBA site that suggested that this had been mentioned in recent meetings. I think that it may have been pushed through. It makes life a bit easier for Unite in that there is only one branch to try and deal with - BASSA. The meberhip don't have a say in this at all. It just has to be agreed at Regional or Excutive council level. Net result is likely to be that the remaining CC89 members jump ship, but that is no skin off Tony Woodley's nose.
I do get the impression that BASSA are expecting Len McCluskey to romp home in the Gen Sec race and then to support them. They really haven't got a clue about the legal aspects of strikes, poor dears. They want Duncan's List to be the start point for negotiations. Anyone with a happ'orth of common sense can see that BA will not blindly accept these items. BASSA expect that if BA don't come up with a deal that accommodates them, that Unite will allow them a strike ballot. But they haven't exhausted all avenues, so the union would be in deep brown smelly stuff if they allowed the branch to go for a strike ballot. Why ? Because they failed to put the previous offer to the membership. Then there is the small issue of the reason for any further strikes. Looking at Lizanne's diatribe it seems she is thinking of using the same reasons as deployed last time around. Unite won't wear that as they don't want to get saddled with yet more expensive litigation and loss of income. Frankly I am amazed that someone who sits on the Unite Executive committee can come up with such a load of tosh.
It's going to get very messy. If BASSA do go for further strike action, expect the BA legal team's kid gloves to come off.