Any employees dismissed for dispute related reasons, and whose case has not been heard by an Employment Tribunal, may elect to have their case heard through the ACAS arbitration scheme.
Since BASSA are claiming this as a victory, I wonder if the statement is wrong or if BASSA's interpretation is wrong?
I think BASSA are reading this as, "Any employees dismissed for dispute related reasons, and
THOSE whose case has not been heard etc". Inserting that one word means arbitration applies to those already fired and those who are awaiting 'trial'. Remove that word and you get rid of the ones already fired and it is only the ones awaiting 'trial' that get the ACAS deal. It's pretty clear in the original text but I wonder if this is what it meant to say or if BASSA are correct.
Probably more deliberate misdirection from Duncan which 'bigs up' one part of the deal in BASSA's favour.
PS: Since Duncan was only elected with a show of hands to remain in office until this problem was sorted out, does it now mean he is out of a job with BASSA? He's no longer employed by BA and, even if he was, it would require a proper vote of all BASSA members for him to remain (as opposed to a show of hands from the party faithful); so I think that means it might be 'goodbye' but can anyone confirm/deny this?