In another place MissM poses the question:
Not the P45 rumour again, please. Even before the first strike in March last year there were rumours that anyone going on strike would be issued their P45.
If BA would have any intention of actually going ahead with it surely they would have issued them earlier when they had the chance? Why have they gone to court on several occassions for an injuction when they instead could have allowed us to go on strike and issue our P45?
I think the answers may be:
1. BA has to act to minimise IA-related losses for shareholders' benefit.
2. BA owes a duty of care to all its employees - something it wouldn't have been doing if it had ignored the ballots' shortcomings.
Unless anyone has any other or better ideas?