My question is that if the original action was called on imposition (that was never settled) and the next action is called re staff travel etc with no mention of imposition, does that not qualify as a different reason for a ballot, even though the issues of staff travel etc were introduced during the strike but not the reason for the original ballot.
Like all these things, it will be up to the courts to ultimately decide.
When you have evidence in minutes with meetings with Unite during the last IA, and recorded TV interviews, where the Union is saying the strikes can be stopped on certain terms, and then these same terms are called for the latest industrial action, it would be hard for the Union to say it is a new dispute.
remember, that when the union went to ballot last time (before it was called off) BA immediately wrote to the Union to say in their view it was unprotected. The ballot was then pulled.
All legal eyes will need to be on the precice reasons on the actual ballot paper, when it is issued, to see how creative the Union are.
in reality, of course, however you dress it up, this is a continuation of the previous dispute... and BA, as we know from experience, have better legal people than unite.... let the fun commence....