Anyway DH has 21 days from the 21st Jan to reveal his options.
Makes you think this one. Why should Holley have these options?
Considering that Holley no longer represents, through default (i.e. being sacked by BA), the BA CC he is doing an awful lot of acting as Gen. Sec. with - apparently - 'legal' actions as above. What about Unite. How are they placed in acceding to this militant's outrageous attempts to fulfill his personal paranoiac vendetta against BA. McCluskey appears to be shouting and hollering in support of a union that is under Holley's control, yet it isn't - except by its very dubious constitution. I would hope that BA have delved into this very carefully to see if Holley can legally dictate HIS options for IA against BA. Unite would be in a fearful position if they jump on Holley's Trojan horse only to find that this outgoing Gen Sec represents nobody.
Then, of course, McCluskey has the blatant cheek to say BA should resolve the dispute knowing, as they do, that
ANY OFFER would immediately be turned down by Holley. What pray, is the use of that? How can it be right?
And what do Unite think about Holley telling a few thousand BASSA members to 'get out' of 'his' union?
My head hurts!