My proposals for resolution.
Point 1.
Full restoration of staff travel is a no cost option for BA. If restored now BA have made their point, they should now return full staff travel with an agreement that Unite/Bassa/Amicus will not support any group or individual legal claims against the company for the loss of staff travel from the point of removal until the date of agreement to restore.
Point 2.
Cabin crew who have been suspended and dismissed by BA as a direct result of this dispute should have their cases assessed by a mutually agreed independent arbitrator. The arbitrator should also consider if an individuals case was a direct result of the dispute. The outcome should be binding to both parties. Any individual whose has proceeded to an employment tribunal and been found against should not be assessed.
Point 3.
I concur with Miss M but add that for cases of illness which is self certified an individuals manager should review the case in line with EG300.
Point 4.
Whoever is responsible for the removal from the facilities agreement the solution is the same. It should be restored. Easy and at no cost.
Point 5.
Odd point. Strikes me that both sides need to rebuild trust. It must be noted it works both ways and if, as they say, you cannot take it - don't give it. Symptomatic of a bitter dispute and should the dispute be over then so should this. On reflection point 5 is unnecessary and should be dropped.
Point 6.
A bit late and confusing as bassa have written it should be allowed. (This in my and many others views is where bassa went wrong. It should never have been agreed to in the first place and if the trade off was less crew on legacy fleet then that should have been agreed.) However, as it is here to stay, at least a discussion of the transfer of work should take place. More important, a revisit of either top up payments or mtp should take place with a negotiated settlement, seperate to this issue, being agreed which, would offer some form of protection against the loss of earnings. Again, on reflection I would drop this point and raise a seperate negotiation on allowance and route protection.
Point 7.
Again I concur with Miss M.
Point 8.
The agreement needs tweeking. Importantly drop the 2 night rest for LR diversions. Not necessary for anyone. A basic definition of disruption needs to be agreed and BA allowed to implement the agreement without union discussion in such cases. For situations not previously agreeded I suggest that BA contact the unions to discuss use of the agreement and agree that it is required. When invoked the DA has issues for cabin crew and rosters, allowing BA to invoke the agreement at will could be problematic and may be used to cover issues such as incorrect rostering or crew shortages.
Point 9.
Should cease immediately. VCCs used at present have prolonged a bitter dispute and undermined current agreements. However, if BA are prepared to stand the cost of keeping VCCs current then I see a benefit in using VCC in conjuction with the DA. The current use of VCC whilst substantive crew remain unused is unacceptable.
Point 10.
BA accept the need for collective bargaining with over 13,000 cabin crew, yet make individual offers. After a negotiated collective settlement is achieved, cabin crew who have accepted individual offers should be given the opportunity to accept the collective agreement. For further negotiated changes to agreements and pay settlements, all should be collective and equally applied. As it stands BA should not offer any more individual pay settlements to cabin crew.