Please educate yourself with the above ruling.
I'm quite familiar with the ruling thanks, but it doesn't apply retrospectively to BASSA, who failed to comply with the law not once but twice. To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to fail to comply once may be misfortune, to fail twice looks like carelessness! You'll note the appeal Unite won relates to the second matter (failure to notify members), not the first (inability to add up!). IIRC the RMT's beef over membership numbers was that they had balloted 80ish staff they shouldn't and had told those not entitled to vote not to. A far cry from LaLa's demands that all non-eligible staff should vote! Doh!
No he didn't. He'd had no previous warnings.
Uncle had failed to show for previous rostered duties. It's all in the ET report.
It was tongue in cheek referring to the massively discriminatory tactics used against cabin crew compared to pilots. Cook V BA?
Discriminatory? The only discrimination was that the cabin crew were in dispute and the rest of the company weren't. That's why the cabin crew were treated differently to the pilots, the check in staff, ramp staff, back office, engineers, and indeed everyone else who knuckled down to keep the company in business.
As I say I don't know too much about CD but I know one thing for sure - all their members are staunch BASSA supporters first and foremost. I know many of them.
What, even the ones who quit BASSA? Are you perhaps the individual that Duncan outsourced the membership records to? LOL.
It's important they know we won and achieved an honourable deal. This was in the face of lies being printed in the right wing press, discriminatory tactics, dubious draconian court decisions, the likes of you working against us, bullying and threatening staff to attend work, withdrawal of staff travel concessions etc.
So IB you can win an honourable deal - just as we did.
No, what you got was almost exactly the same deal that BA had offered you months before but your union refused to take, believing instead that they could strongarm BA into giving them something better.
Instead the union tried to bolster weak support for their actions with a string of lies about BA wanting to cut members pay by 50%, other employee groups stealing cabin crew money, conspiracy theories about the crews pet bogeymen (pilots) plotting against them, legal baloney about how libellous and offensive comments on their internet forum couldn't be punished, puffed up statements about the strength of the union and comical adverts placed in the national press that fooled precisely nobody, phoney uncosted savings proposals put before the company and a outright refusal to look economic facts in the face. That all sounds a bit like SEPLAs actions up until now.
What BASSA got was two trips to the High Court, invalid ballots, massive legal bills, poor support amongst their own union members and 2000+ resignations, ineffective action against BA, their members disciplined and fired over Uncles made up legal advice and three of the reps kicked out of the door. Meanwhile BA broke the stranglehold BASSA had on the operation, terminated employment on legacy crew contracts and set up a new and growing rival cabin crew force with much lower costs and completely separate union representation, plus a permanent corps of volunteer cabin crew (iCSP) who can step in to fly when there is disruption. BASSA had to swallow all of this and attempt to salvage some pride by saying it was an 'honourable' deal that protected members earnings - something which BA had been promising from the outset anyway. BASSA had their balls cut off. If SEPLA want to know how not to do it then BASSA are the finest possible example, unless out Spanish colleagues think the most important debate they should be involved in over the next five years is what colour bag tags they should be allowed to display.