This is from the BBC website on the 10th November:
Among the stumbling blocks, Bassa says, are a demand the union gives up all outstanding legal claims arising from the dispute, and an acknowledgement that BA has the right to withdraw travel concessions from staff in future
In reality, this means that BA is asking a union to sign an agreement that includes giving the right to the company to threaten and bully staff into not exercising their legal right to strike. Even if travel perks are not contractual, BA wants to be able to use them as a device to punish future strikers, ie curtailing one of the citizenīs constitutional rights by means of coercion.
Even if I donīt agree with CC strikes, if I was a rep I wouldnīt accept this proposal. Effectively it means that BA has the right to threat its employees into not exercising their rights with freedom, ie going on strike. Other departments in BA shouldnīt be happy about Unite accepting this agreement, as BA will then have the right to punish anyone on future industrial action. And letīs face it, this strike may not be justified, but others in the future may well be entirely legitimate, by any department.
A strike is a protected breach of contract. BA has the right to suspend contractual agreements, such as pay, sick pay, pension, etc, DURING THE DURATION OF THE BREACH, ie the strike. After that, they have to reinstate them, as the right of IA is protected by law. Staff travel, being not contractual, can also be suspended, but then again, to mantain it after the preotected strike period has ended, if staff are back to work, could be understood by a court as discrimination against employees on the basis of their exercise of a lawful right. It may be understood by a court as if BA decides to withdraw travel perks to people who vote, or to people who get married, or to women. They couldnīt argue "but itīs not contractual, so we can do as we please". Being non contractual doesnīt mean you can use it to discriminate at will.
Thatīs my opinion, only, of course, but I get the feeling that it may also be BAīs opinion, as they are very insistent on that point: not taking BA to court and giving them freedom to withdraw staff travel as they please. They wouldnīt be so worried about the unions accepting that point if they knew for sure they have acted rightly.
And I wouldnīt like a union rep signing something that will affect me in the future, just to strike a nice deal for another department. They would be selling everyone in BAīs rights for their own fight.
My tuppence worth.