This part of Unite's missive interests me:
Their challenge to our ballot via the Electoral Reform Society carries with it a veiled threat that any action taken by our members would be unprotected, and although we do not accept their assertions we are conscious that we are dealing with an erratic management who are capable of doing anything.
Having consulted with your representatives we are not prepared to put any of you at risk and have therefore decided not to proceed with action based upon this ballot result. As your General Secretary I share your obvious frustrations.
There is no claim that BA made an absolute statement regarding the invalidity of the ballot, only the use of the "veiled threat".
Even if such a "veiled threat" has been made its a common tactic used by companies when threatened with a strike.
If Unite was certain they had properly balloted their members they would proceed. My guess is that they have been told by counsel that they have some very real problems with their procedures and that as a result there is a large chance that their members would be unprotected and Unite would be exposed to a legitimate claim for damages.
What Dave3 on the other forum fails to recognize is that BA hasn't "gone to court", Unite has withdrawn as a result of its own decision.
What is predictable is that the failure in the balloting procedure, which had nothing whatsoever to do with BA, is somehow claimed to be BA's responsibility.