What do people make of this (from another public forum):
Rob.Bedcrew - 17/02/2011 11:13 GMT
For anyone who does not believe that there has been a concerted UNION-busting agenda at BA, perhaps the following will give some an insight, into the twisted slanted and underhand policies being enacted against individuals who dare to have a voice.
For those who are unaware BA have formed a secret group under the heading "Leiden" which is specifically to deal with the current industrial dispute and to silence anyone who holds an opinion contrary to their own.
How many other employees may view this and wonder the possible implications, is anybody's guess and a stark warning of what may become.
Leiden for Beginners
British Airways have a number of policies and procedures each of which have been developed and agreed with the trade unions before being approved by the Employment Policy Council. These include EG901 which is the policy dealing with disciplinaries and EG102, the policy dealing with bullying and harassment. These and all other policies comply with and largely exceed ACAS guidelines which recommend a minimum possible standard. In accordance with ACAS, these policies and procedures are accessible, in that the details of each are published, and known by all British Airways employees and apply to all employees equally.
When, early last February, at the beginning of the industrial dispute,
cabin crew were being suspended in unusually large numbers, the trade union reps attention was drawn immediately to the fact that the managers involved, acting on behalf of the Company, seemed to have dispensed with normal policies and procedures, sometimes in part and sometimes in their entirety.
An example of this is that prior to this time, in accordance with EG901
3.4 if a crew member was suspected of wrong doing, their line manager or a duty line manager, depending on the nature/timing of the wrong doing, would decide whether it would be undesirable for the employee to remain at work and might therefore make a precautionary suspension of the employee.
Indeed, from February 2010 this remained the case as per the policy for all alleged offences unrelated to the industrial dispute. So if a crew
member was suspected of misusing their staff travel or the sickness policy for instance, they would be interviewed and the manager would make a decision based on that interview whether to suspend or not.
If, however the alleged offence was somehow related to the industrial
dispute the decision to suspend was not made by the manager as per the policy. The decision to suspend had already been made elsewhere prior to the suspension meeting. In the first two weeks of February, eighteen crew members were suspended for bullying and harassment and breeches of data protection for talking on facebook or on emails or text messages about the existence of a list of pilots training to work as crew during the strike to undermine the effect of that cabin crew strike. In each case the letter notifying the crew member of their suspension had been typed out prior to
the meeting. The decision to suspend was not made by the line manager carrying out the suspension. It was made elsewhere. This is in breach of the company policy EG901 part 3.4.
The Preliminary Investigation Team exists within BA to carry out
investigations into cabin crew members when an offence is alleged in all cases of disciplinary action whether or not the crew member is suspended. The team exists with this sole remit. They have always conducted, in a non-judgemental way, all such investigations and throughout the industrial dispute continued investigating all cases not related to the industrial dispute. All cases relating to the industrial dispute, from the very first case, were investigated by an outside team of managers brought in specifically for that purpose. These managers did not have the same experience as the PI team. They were unaware of custom and practice. They worked to ACAS minimum standards. They were far from thorough. They were
far from non-judgemental.
All dispute related preliminary investigations and hearings were held in one of two rooms; syndicate room 5 or 7. All non-dispute related cases are held elsewhere. There is a card outside each room in Waterside on which the purpose or titles of meetings are noted ie: this room is in use for.....In every dispute related case it was noted that the room is in use for "Backing BA". Backing BA refers to supporting the Company in its dispute with Unite.
Immediately then, if a case was related in some way to the dispute, crew were being treated differently from how they would have been treated were the case unrelated to the dispute. Their cases were treated differently solely by virtue of the fact that they were related to the dispute.
EG 102 is the policy dealing with bullying and harassment. There is a set procedure to follow if you feel you have been bullied and/or harassed. You should, in the first instance attempt to resolve the matter informally either directly with the alleged bully or through mediation with a third party. If this fails, an informal grievance should be brought which will be investigated by a manager. If unresolved, a formal grievance would then be investigated by a second manager. At that point, disciplinary action may be instigated by the manager. In the cases of all crew accused of bullying and harassment relating to the dispute, this procedure was dispensed with in its entirety. A pilot would make an allegation and the crew member was suspended. In most cases allegations were not even made, but rather, the company took the decision to suspend and instigate disciplinary action regardless and an allegation or a 'victim' sought later. In other departments and with regard to cases unrelated to the industrial dispute, normal EG102 procedures were followed. If the case was
related to the dispute, normal procedures were dispensed with. It is
difficult to suggest that this constitutes a breach of EG102 because it
was simply dispensed with entirely.
The accused crew members and/or their TU reps expressed concern at various stages of the disciplinary procedures that ordinary policies were not being followed. Concern was expressed repeatedly that in several cases there appeared to be either no original complaint or no victim. The manager in each case simply replied in the same set wording that if something is brought to their attention, as a concerned company, they had a duty to act. To test that theory on the 12th of April 2010, the BASSA Branch Secretary sent a number of threatening or bullying postings made by pilots on the BALPA forum to Tony McCarthy. Presumably, as a concerned company, they would have a duty to act. These postings could be compared directly to those made by Cabin Crew on facebook. For instance on facebook a number of crew mention a list of pilots training as crew. At no time do they mention the actual names of the pilots. Every crew member on that
facebook thread was suspended, suffering severe financial deficit and emotional distress. Every crew member received sanctions ranging from a two year final written warning to dismissal. Pilots, on the other hand who published the name, telephone number and email address of a specific crew member on their forum and talked about wanting a list of those who had been suspended and having them 'hung, drawn and quartered', were neither suspended or sanctioned. In every Cabin Crew case, concern that the Company was not acting equitably or fairly was expressed. In every case,
the response from the hearing managers was that they were convinced that the pilots involved were being treated in line with the Company's policies and procedures. To date no pilot who made a bullying and/or harassing statement on the BALPA forum has been disciplined in any way. The Company cannot, therefore demonstrate that they have acted equitably or fairly.
A pilot wrote a posting on the BALPA website informing pilots that he had been present at a meeting on the 3rd of February with senior BA management and with input from the 'head of the company himself' in which certain things were put in place that would expedite any disciplinary processes and which convinced him utterly that the Company were using all their extraordinary contacts across industry to leave no stone unturned in exposing and punishing anyone who might pose a threat to pilot volunteers. This posting was passed on to the union by a concerned pilot who is willing to testify to this and to the integrity of the postings (in that they were not tampered with). Though the writer of this posting subsequently became the main witness or the alleged victim in several cases, the Company would not allow accused crew or their reps to question this pilot in any case as is their right according to the ACAS Code of Practice and the Company policy which states that either side may call witnesses. Indeed no request to call any witness in any case was ever accommodated by the Company. This constitutes a breach of EG 901 3.6.2 and the ACAS Code of Practice. When asked about the specifics of his posting
through a number of hearing managers, the pilot replied that he had not made the posting and that it had been edited by BASSA for their own purposes. This is a lie. Regardless, his posting backed up BASSA's belief that extraordinary measures outside of all normal policies and procedures were being taken to prosecute cabin crew in dispute related cases and that therefore they were being discriminated against.
BA managers are accompanied throughout all stages of a disciplinary by a member of PMA (People Management Advice; the BA equivalent of HR). Fifty dispute related disciplinaries of striking cabin crew were conducted before a PMA advisor titled the notes from a crew member's disciplinary, 'Leiden'. This led him, in his appeal to question the word 'Leiden'. Crew and TU reps have subsequently asked about the meaning of Leiden in various disciplinaries. Some managers and PMA advisors decline to answer, others have answered that Leiden is merely the name of a room in Waterside.
Whilst some suggest that it is the name of a particularly secure room
enabling only the manager concerned to have access to the case because of the sensitive nature of dispute related cases, others suggest it is a room where managers can compare sensitive dispute related cases to ensure consistency. Others, when pressed acknowledge that it is the name of a unit named after the room in Waterside that deals specifically with dispute related cases. One manager confirmed reluctantly that there exists a Leiden framework of sanctions which is referred to and applied in Leiden cases. Another manager has confirmed that the decision to suspend and instigate the disciplinary process is made by Leiden.
On the 16th of July a Flight Operations manager in response to questions posed in one hearing in which he had some involvement wrote that in order to protect volunteers a number of managers met in early February a number of times: He wrote -
"Either Len McCluskey or Tony Woodley had set the scene before this period by referring to the volunteer workforce as 'scabs' so it was not a surprise but it was a source of real concern. A number of meetings took place prior to 4th February.... where we discussed how to protect the volunteers, what action to take against those responsible for intimidation and where it was appropriate to draw the line. In order to promote a consistent approach, we identified and categorised 5 areas of intimidation which we considered were either gross misconduct or misconduct. We also agreed that the incidents would be investigated by a central investigation unit....that would be set up immediately."
Crew and their reps have since requested these five criteria which have never been forthcoming. Reluctantly, the Company has provided the Leiden framework in only two cases. It is undated and is version 4. The Company have been asked to provide copies of versions 1,2 and 3 and for the dates of any changes. To date these have not been provided. Most recently, in the case of one sacked crew member, a fragment of an evidently earlier framework was provided at the insistence of her solicitor. It is again undated and the sanctions available to the manager are narrower and more defined.
When asked about Leiden in an interview with Dan Milmo of The Guardian on the 7th of November 2010, BA say -
"Investigations into allegations are conducted under the company's disciplinary procedures, which have been in place for many years, are fair, open and transparent and are agreed with all our trade unions,
including Unite......This is part of an open and transparent process and copies of the matrix have been provided on request."
It must be noted that BA have a robust disciplinary procedure agreed with the TUs and that that procedure continues to be applied in all non- dispute related cases. There is no need for supplementary frameworks that apply only to dispute related cases or for a separate set of criteria. Leiden was not agreed by the Trade Unions or approved by The Employment Council. Nor was it known to either. It was not transparent or published or indeed known to the employees and the Company have been at great pains to keep its existence secret. At no time did they ever answer a concern or query by stating that they were acting outside the norm because they were
working to a separate, secret framework. At no time was any crew member aware of the existence of a 'central intelligence unit'.
Whilst, the Company finds the deliberately prescriptive nature of their covert Leiden framework an acceptable advisory tool for their chosen Leiden Unit managers to use in deciding to suspend, sanction and dismiss; indeed this being its very remit, The TU rep responsible for representing the majority of the crew and for collating information about dispute related cases and the very existence of Leiden, was accused of gross misconduct and sacked for the way in which she advised, prepared and represented crew involved.
Subsequent to the uncovering of the Leiden Unit and during negotiations prior to the current ballot for further industrial action, the Company provided Unite with a list of Leiden Cases. This matched the Union's own list of cases thought to be related to the dispute. All Leiden cases have been subjected to secret criteria and frameworks unknown to the crew involved or to the cabin crew community at large or to their unions. All Leiden cases have been treated outside normal policies and procedures. All Leiden cases have been classified as such because they are related to the industrial dispute and for no other reason. Therefore all crew classified as Leiden have been discriminated against by virtue of their trade union membership and activity.