It has been pointed out that Unite seeking council may be appropriate; however this would seem the eleventh hour and what has changed? It has been my understanding from reading these threads that if a strike went ahead it may be a “legal” strike but still be “unprotected” if it were deemed to be a continuation of the previous strike. In this situation the strikers might not be protected from dismissal but Unite would not have liability to BA. On the other hand, if the strike were deemed illegal Unite could incur a financial liability to BA as well as the strikers being unprotected. In his latest missive to the faithful Duncan said ”they have used their considerable financial muscle and resources to try and bully the ERS into not publishing the result, by claiming for the third time, procedural errors within the ballot process, to this end they have failed and the result was published.” Could it be that after the ballot was closed BA raised certain objections such as nonunion members being balloted and requested that ERS not publish the results as they could be invalid. ERS is, of course, not in a position to decide this matter and published the results. Now there is a new issue for Unite to confront, one that could create a financial liability. This could explain the apparent delay in announcing plans and the need to again consult legal council. Certainly this must give any member who is paying attention (I know there are probably few) a less than secure feeling.