BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III [Archive] - Page 5

Diplome

30th Nov 2010, 14:31

Courtesy of srbrenna on another forum:

29th November 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE - BALLOT ANNOUNCEMENT

We are pleased to see that a press conference was held today to announce Unite's INTENTION to ballot it's members on Industrial Action.

Whilst we would have preferred the press conference to announce that we will be giving notification on a specific date to British Airways, we are at least moving in the right direction.

Needless to say in the interim period we will ask all of our members to ensure that their details are accurate and up to date.

It is vital that you advise us if you are off work on long term sick, maternity or taking a sabbatical – or any absence that means you will not be in the workplace during any potential strike period.

YOU CANNOT BE BALLOTED IF YOU CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY INDUSTRIAL ACTION THAT IS CALLED.

We are gravely concerned that as a result of the press conference today, British Airways have conceded to meet with Unite next Monday under the auspices of ACAS. To the best of our knowledge this will NOT include any of the representatives from either Bassa or Amicus. This is unacceptable to us and we will communicate that to the JGS on behalf of our membership.

Furthermore we are not prepared to accept any offer to settle this dispute on the basis that British Airways ONLY agree to the "four no cost items". The current agreement in any guise is unacceptable to us and we believe to the community as a whole.

Why, you might ask? Because it is built on quick sand and has no guarantees for our future. The offer does not adequately deal with the reasons why the dispute arose in the first place. To add insult to injury, it also seeks to restrict and deprive you of your statutory rights to litigation against an increasingly unreasonable employer.

We do however believe that the four items form a good basis for discussions to commence with the involvement of the reps and will clear the decks of all the diversionary nonsense that British Airways has chosen to introduce into the dispute.

We would also like to assure you that the figures recently published on some forums suggesting that only a handful of AMICUS members took industrial action are misleading and we can honestly advise you that more than five times that number of AMICUS members actually went on strike. That is not to say we couldn't do better, because we can and we must!

Today saw information come to us that Mixed Fleet will be operating the SIN-SYD, CPT and JNB from the 08th March 2010.

Whilst this has been a long drawn out struggle with many pitfalls, one positive thing that has come out of it is that British Airways have been exposed and the true nature of their intent is now glaringly obvious. Be that the misleading rationale of an airline in trouble, or the assurances that Mixed Fleet would not adversely affect us, we can now see clearly that the leadership team cannot be trusted and neither therefore can their offer be trusted. We are now in profit irrespective of the cost of this dispute, the ash cloud and the hefty fines – and yet our work is being stripped away and our agreements are being decimated on a daily basis.

If you had any doubts about your future in this once wonderful airline, be GUARANTEED of this – unless we ALL support the call for action, and, when appropriate lawfully withdraw your labour, YOU WILL HAVE NO FUTURE- the writing is on the wall!

A frustrating example as to exactly why BA cannot negotiate with this group. Agreements mean nothing and they will not realistically negotiate.

What is particularly amazing about the above is that the vast majority of Amicus members did not strike yet their leadership will not allow them a vote on the latest offer and seems determined to force them into further loss of pay and benefits.

I disagree with those that state that Unions are entirely negative. I don't believe that to be so...but communications such as this only serve to harden the public's disdain for militant BA cabin crew.

ZimmerFly

30th Nov 2010, 14:48

As usual, one wonders if this is fact, or just another red herring to feed the lemmings? :confused:

Today saw information come to us that Mixed Fleet will be operating the SIN-SYD, CPT and JNB from the 08th March 2010.

I didn't notice that happening nearly 9 months ago..........oh dear !..:}

Richard228

30th Nov 2010, 14:52

thanks for the post Diplome...

One particular bit that is funny is this:

We would also like to assure you that the figures recently published on some forums suggesting that only a handful of AMICUS members took industrial action are misleading and we can honestly advise you that more than five times that number of AMICUS members actually went on strike. When it was actually Amicus/CC89 themselves who said this - and it is on their own website! :ugh:

see "Amicus Update" 16th November: . LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)
On basis that only 40 AMICUS members claimed strike pay, versus 7000 BASSA members, our democratic right to an opinion and our ability to represent you is extinguished.They cant even keep up with their own spin and propaganda - hilarious! you could not make it up!

pcat160

30th Nov 2010, 15:15

Last time I flew the routes CPT and JNB used 747’s. I thought Mixed fleet would initially only operate 777’s on long haul routes.

TopBunk

30th Nov 2010, 15:22

It seems that with the Winter schedule (northern hemisphere) that the JNB's have reduced to 14 per week (all 747) and the CPT increased to ~13 per week (daily 747 + 6 777's).

From memory this increase in the CPT frequency has been a feature of the last 3 years or so. Sometimes with all 747's and sometimes with a mix, as in the case at present.

Whether or not BA would choose to mix MF crews and legacy LH crews at the same slip station in the same hotel is another question. I don't believe there are any firm plans to train the MF crews on the 747 in that timeframe.

Juan Tugoh

30th Nov 2010, 15:26

It all depends on your definition of initially. If it means "at first" then that is exactly what has happened. I don't think that BA specified a time scale for MF to be expanded to the 747.

The additional cost imposed upon BA by UNITE's threat of a strike ballot needs to be recovered. This additional cost can be recovered by training MF onto the 747 in order for them to operate some more premium trips. Potentially another own goal by UNITE.

Or it could just be another scare story put out by the union in an attempt to garner more support from within the CC community.

Sporran

30th Nov 2010, 16:11

I had a vcc on the flight deck this week and he stated that they were all being trained on the 744 and that MF were going to be trained up as well.

I for one hope it is true and that the training for MF is ramped up to ENSURE that the miltants and agitators get their true deserts - a P45!!!!

Ancient Observer

30th Nov 2010, 16:26

Just to add to the sketch, I can just imagine John Cleese saying, "We want those 4 things that we had before we went on strike".
"It was unfair of the Romans to remove the aqueduct, the sanitation, the education and the wine, just because we went on strike. Re-instating these would be a no-cost option for the Romans. We demand fair treatment for Judea"

In the forthcoming Movie about this modest little Employee Relations problem, which actors should play which participants?

It's a shame that Leslie Neilsen has died (RIP). I can think who he should have played.

How do we represent the majority of BA CC who have had nothing whatsoever to do with this strike, and just want to be allowed to do a great job - not to mention the other, er, "saintly" BA staff, who have put up with this stuff for nearly 2 years now.?

vctenderness

30th Nov 2010, 16:57

I heard a trailer on radio Sunday for the travel show with Simon Calder. It said that they would be featuring the British Airways Cabin Crew Panto I expected The Wicked Witch (LM), Buttons (DH) Scrooge (TW) and the Ugly Sisters (BASSA reps) to come on shouting 'The strikes are on' 'Oh no they are not' 'Oh yes they are!'

The audience would then shout 'IT'S BEHIND YOU'..........:):):)

fl dutchman

30th Nov 2010, 17:26

First post on this issue. I understand the reason for the ballot earlier in the year was "imposition".
During the strikes other reasons came into play ie loss of staff travel and sacked reps/staff.
It was clearly stated during the action by Unite that the strikes would be called off if staff travel was reinstated and the sacked were given there jobs back.
So when talking about reasons for the next ballot the unions are stating staff travel etc as the reasons( I think ).

My question is that if the original action was called on imposition (that was never settled) and the next action is called re staff travel etc with no mention of imposition, does that not qualify as a different reason for a ballot, even though the issues of staff travel etc were introduced during the strike but not the reason for the original ballot. Hope that makes sense.

Incidentally I agree with other posters in that this is being dragged out by certain people in the union who are supposed to be looking after the interests of the cabin crew. But are simply running there own personal agenda, which appears to be to do as much damage to the company who pay the wages of not just cabin crew but the thousands of other staff who work for a very good employer. Will they not be satisfied until they achieve there aim.

notlangley

30th Nov 2010, 17:51

Ancient Observer askedIn the forthcoming Movie about this modest little Employee Relations problem, which actors should play which participants?
As it happens Duncan was offered the major staring role in this movie but he couldn’t afford the drop in income.

notlangley

30th Nov 2010, 18:26

WW will not want to sack strikers because that would tarnish his image._ He therefore will attempt to prevent a strike-vote being called._ WW can do this with the ultimate weapon - a veiled threat to sue Unite for a few million pounds._ That is what was done last time - a very fast statement that the strike would be unprotected.

LD12986

30th Nov 2010, 20:59

Taking the temperature of the response of yesterday's announcement, from a public perspective it seems to have been greeted with a collective yawn rather than panic over disrupted trips.

Part of me wonders whether TW knows full well that this ballot will not work. He is caught between the company and the branches clamouring for another strike ballot. He has delayed in order to prevent a strike at Christmas. If the mandate for a strike isn't sufficiently strong the membership can be blamed. If the company threatens to sue, he can blame BA and bleat about justice etc.

call100

1st Dec 2010, 00:11

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
:E

The SSK

1st Dec 2010, 08:39

Looks as though BASSA could learn a thing or two from the Finnair unions:
How to call a strike and make it stick
How to force a CEO from office (Hienonen left in frustration at union intransigence)
How to drive a national carrier to the brink of extinction – and maybe over the brink, time will tell.

Richard228

1st Dec 2010, 08:44

My question is that if the original action was called on imposition (that was never settled) and the next action is called re staff travel etc with no mention of imposition, does that not qualify as a different reason for a ballot, even though the issues of staff travel etc were introduced during the strike but not the reason for the original ballot.Like all these things, it will be up to the courts to ultimately decide.

When you have evidence in minutes with meetings with Unite during the last IA, and recorded TV interviews, where the Union is saying the strikes can be stopped on certain terms, and then these same terms are called for the latest industrial action, it would be hard for the Union to say it is a new dispute.

remember, that when the union went to ballot last time (before it was called off) BA immediately wrote to the Union to say in their view it was unprotected. The ballot was then pulled.

All legal eyes will need to be on the precice reasons on the actual ballot paper, when it is issued, to see how creative the Union are.

in reality, of course, however you dress it up, this is a continuation of the previous dispute... and BA, as we know from experience, have better legal people than unite.... let the fun commence....

The SSK

2nd Dec 2010, 12:17

You have nothing to lose but your ...

BA cabin crew dispute: union rejects latest offer | Workers' Liberty (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/12/02/ba-cabin-crew-dispute-union-rejects-latest-offer)

That BASSA spokesperson clearly wasn't Holley - very low-key

Ancient Observer

2nd Dec 2010, 12:23

The other thread says that the HR person at BA will soon be leaving. There are debates about pushed vs walked.

I suspect "being knackered" might be a better description.

No bonus would be big enough to deal with the (previously) monumentally incompetent managers and bassamentalist junta.

Tigger4Me

2nd Dec 2010, 12:34

In the link posted by The SSK, reference is made to claims by BA CC staff who were allegedly sick during the strikes.

This included people who were sick during the strike, who had thousands of pounds deducted from their salaries.

“As I understand it, as each case comes up BA are being forced to back down and crew are being paid, but at the last count there were still more than 1000 cases outstanding against the company.

So, more than 1,000 off sick out of approx. 13,000. Is that a normal sickness rate amongst BA CC? Surely that is rather high and no wonder then that the sickness cases are being looked into.

AV Flyer

2nd Dec 2010, 12:44

If 1000+ CC reported sick during the strike days then maybe, just maybe, we have discovered the reason for the discrepancy between the Union's 7000+ strikers claiming strike pay and BA's 4963 who went on strike?

I can't begin to unravel the ramifications of who is being dishonest and how their dishonesty is benefitting them from which source (i.e. Union strike pay vs BA "genuinely sick" pay) but, if this report is true, there could well be a discrepancy of, say, 1500 which is in the right ball-park.

I could also believe that faced with a strike or work decision on the morning of a rostered/strike day a significant number of CC would take the "going genuinely sick" option as a way of putting their heads in the sand rather than face taking one side or the other with its associated potential repercussions.

just an observer

2nd Dec 2010, 14:09

As I understand it CC have historically had a habit of going sick rather than on strike, which is why it was well publicised in advance that being sick would be regarded as being on strike - unless one had a doctor's certificate to back it up.

Anyone who didn't get a doctor's certificate has no one else to blame, but if they did have one and are still waiting for their money they should get their rightful pay in the end without legal recourse.

The comments about 1000+ still waiting does not make it clear whether they are certificated or not. I find it difficult to believe that more than 1000 people went sick without getting a doctor's certificate, given the advance warnings, but also BA would be very inefficient if they have still not paid people who supplied a certificate.

Hipennine

2nd Dec 2010, 15:59

This article links the sick pay cases to legal action. Are they suggesting that there are over 1000 pending Tribunal or breach of contract civil claims outstanding ? - I haven't personnaly heard of any such volume of outstanding cases (which would I assume be common knowledge as it would be very exceptional), or is it just falsely linking some internal grievance procedure cases with "legal action"? Given that it is now well over 3 months since the sick-pay would have been paid, it's now too late to commence an industrial tribunal claim, and I think a civil claim would fall into the same bracket, this would seem to be yet more disinformation.

jethrobee

2nd Dec 2010, 16:13

I'm sure that if you produce a valid sick note during the days on the strike the airline would not take disciplinary action.

Airline crews have a higher sick rate than most professions, because anything effecting ear/nose/throat means that they cant fly.

As I recall there was a warning prior to the strike regarding calling in sick, but as I said I am sure that any reasonable employer would, if presented with the evidence take a view that it was a genuine sick day.

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 17:48

Interesting to note that several, er, "robust" posters here and on the other thread are trying to divert it [the CC thread] away from the "industrial action..." and more onto Mixed Fleet Ts&Cs :rolleyes:

I guess a M-F Ts&Cs thread wouldn't generate as many readers ;)

:ugh:

Betty girl

2nd Dec 2010, 18:22

Hi Rustle,
The cabin crew thread is now called 'BA CC Industrial Relations' and I think that Mixed Fleet terms and conditions comes under that heading.

The whole dispute is completely linked with the introduction of Mixed Fleet, although Bassa called a strike about imposition it was to do with the introduction of crew on lower terms and conditions that they were really fighting about.

Even those of us who did not strike are concerned about Mixed Fleets introduction firstly because of the affect it could have on us in the future and secondly because some of us are actually concerned about the terms and conditions these new crew will be working to.

From BG obviously one of your ""robust"" posters!!

LD12986

2nd Dec 2010, 18:24

Before the planned strike in 2007 (which was called off) it was reported that cabin crew had called in sick in their hundreds even before the planned day of the strike.

I would not be surprised if many had called in sick (but the quoted numbers seem high to me). Partly for historical reasons and also because it is an easy way out. Though, I don't feel particularly sympathetic towards any members that had voted for industrial action themselves. If they weren't prepared to walk out they should have voted in the first place.

I suspect there may be a high volume of cases because BA procedure requires the formal lodging of a grievance.

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 18:35

Does a doctor have to give you a fit note, if you are off work for a cold? Can you insist if the sickness is in the self certification time?

west lakes

2nd Dec 2010, 18:39

As I understand it you may have to pay for a sick(fit) note if within the first 7 days.
Of course the chances of getting an appointment within the first 7 days could be an issue

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 18:47

Hi Rustle,
...

The whole dispute is completely linked with the introduction of Mixed Fleet, although Bassa called a strike about imposition...

...From BG obviously one of your ""robust"" posters!!

Hi BG :ouch:

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I can concede the thread title, but I don't agree (having read everything here over the year(s)) that the two things are linked other than by, er, "convenience" or December 2010-expedience ;)

The "sick-note" diversion is an interesting twist as well -- is this more bullying by BA or what?? :p

It is obvious [to everyone outside your union] that MF wouldn't have even existed, possibly ever, if some changes were made to archaic working practises: To now try and claim the moral high ground
it was to do with the introduction of crew on lower terms and conditions that they were really fighting about.

Even those of us who did not strike are concerned about Mixed Fleets introduction firstly because of the affect it could have on us in the future and secondly because some of us are actually concerned about the terms and conditions these new crew will be working to. is not only "a bit rich" (understatement of 2010 contender), but undermines any valid points you may have made... IMO.

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 18:52

As I understand it you may have to pay for a sick(fit) note if within the first 7 days.
Of course the chances of getting an appointment within the first 7 days could be an issue

So for those reasons, you could be seen as a striker?

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 19:27

So for those reasons, you could be seen as a striker?
I do not believe it is "for those reasons" you would be "seen" as a striker .

I believe that if you pull a sickie on a strike day you should be seen as a [less than effective] striker.

I believe that if you are given fair warning that if you pull a sickie on a strike day, fail to cover yourself by obtaining a 'sicknote', then you're a [even less effective] striker.

I also believe that if you're genuinely ill and unfortunately that illness affects you on a strike day otherwise you would have been at work, you won't have a problem.

If it happens that every time there's a strike called you happen to have been in that unfortunate position and, for whatever reason, you haven't noticed and therefore got yourself a 'sicknote' to cover, you're probably in the wrong job :8

Joao da Silva

2nd Dec 2010, 19:31

Rustle

(a) If you had paid attention, you would know that Betty Girl is not in the union

(b) She is trying to help you understand what is really going on

(c) She is a genuinely nice person, who actually cares about colleagues

But, of course, you know more than her, don't you :ugh:She is only a BA EF CSD

Try this anagram, Rustle.

ida maick daeh

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 19:35

I also believe that if you're genuinely ill and unfortunately that illness affects you on a strike day otherwise you would have been at work, you won't have a problem.

But as west lakes has just said, you will need a fit note, which may be hard to come by.

Why does industrial action by some, mean that the existing sickness policy is suspended?

Betty girl

2nd Dec 2010, 19:41

Well rustle, we might have to disagree on that.

I will concede that by the union talking and coming up with alternatives and costs savings Mixed Fleet could have, maybe, been avoided but of course, no one except the union reps and BA actually know the real detail of what BA were wanting in return for having new crew on existing fleets.

I did want the union to talk more and negotiate and I have been very upset by them not doing so and I did not strike and also left the union. But having said all that the 'Operation Columbus' document that BA produced well over two and a half years ago was all about the introduction of a low cost fleet that was going to do long haul and short haul work, so you can hardly say it is something new thought up as a result of Bassa's actions.

It is however a concern for all crew, even those on it and as such is about 'industrial relations' and is therefore a very valid topic for the CC thread but maybe not for this one as it is called 'BA strike your thoughts' !!!

benhurr

2nd Dec 2010, 19:44

Although of course Mixed Fleet was brought to the table by BASSA amongst their package of savings.

To try and claim the strike was about MF terms and conditions is a nonsense. MF came about, when it did, because of the strike, not the other way round.

Guess that makes me a dick head too!

Betty girl

2nd Dec 2010, 19:48

benhurr,
The union did concede to Mixed Fleet in one of their many ridiculous offers, but it was definitely not their idea originally.

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 19:49

But as west lakes has just said, you will need a fit note, which may be hard to come by.
Litebulbs, WTF are you on about? I said: "if you're genuinely ill and unfortunately that illness affects you on a strike day otherwise you would have been at work, you won't have a problem."
How does your reply (where you quoted my question) answer this? Why, for the love of God, would I need a "fit note" if I was sick/ill?? :confused:

...and another thing, I feel bullied and harrassed by Joao da Silva :D

BG, am pondering your last reply... :ok:

LD12986

2nd Dec 2010, 19:49

Why does industrial action by some, mean that the existing sickness policy is suspended?

If it is being widely abused (I suspect that thousands of crew members do not ordinarily call in sick on a normal operational day) then the company is justified in suspending it.

Although of course Mixed Fleet was brought to the table by BASSA amongst their package of savings.

To try and claim the strike was about MF terms and conditions is a nonsense. MF came about, when it did, because of the strike, not the other way round.

Guess that makes me a dick head too!

No. Mixed Fleet was on the agenda before the strike. BASSA had the chance to negotiate it away entirely (but that would have meant significant changes to working practices that would have been unpalatable for BASSA) or for Mixed Fleet to work alongside existing crews (but again, that would have required changes to existing working practices to allow efficiency gains from Mixed Fleet to come through).

Mixed Fleet was certainly a consequence of BASSA's unwillingess to change, but it was formally confirmed that new crew would join on a separate fleet at the same time that the company changed crewing levels.

The reason why Mixed Fleet was not on the ballot paper was because it hadn't actually started at the time so the union might have been on (even more) shaky ground legally.

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 19:52

for the love of God, would I need a "fit note" if I was sick/ill?? :confused:

Maybe legislation?

Fit note - DWP (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/fitnote/)

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 19:56

If it is being widely abused (I suspect that thousands of crew members do not ordinarily call in sick on a normal operational day) then the company is justified in suspending it.

Has that been tested at tribunal? If you were a non union member, you cannot strike, but you will be penalised for being sick. Reasonable? No.

Betty girl

2nd Dec 2010, 20:06

LD12986,
Thanks for confirming that.

The reason that Mixed Fleet (and back then it was being called the New Fleet) was not on a ballot paper was because if BA wanted to start a new fleet, they had every right to do so. The only thing that the union could legally strike over was a breach in their agreement. So that is the reason why imposition of crewing levels was used but this dispute has always been far more complicated than that and has been about the New Fleet as well as imposition.

The perverse thing is that by the union taking the stance it did over crewing levels and racing to strike, it has actually meant that Mixed Fleet has been brought in faster and bigger than it ever would have been and without any union representation and discussion at all, about their agreements, which has made it worse than ever for both current crew and the new crew.

So although many of us did not strike and I believe that was the right decision, we are still very nervous and concerned about Mixed Fleet.

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 20:08

Maybe legislation?

Sorry, cross purposes a bit.

I originally said "if you're genuinely ill and unfortunately that illness affects you on a strike day otherwise you would have been at work, you won't have a problem."

and I stand by that, "fit note" notwithstanding.

I then qualified the statement by pointing out that if this was a pattern (i.e. everytime a strike was called you were "ill") that could be a problem that required a doctor's note.

Are you saying you believe a reasonable employer wouldn't look at strike -v- illness history of an employee? :confused:

...or that they shouldn't? :confused::confused:

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 20:19

First things first, if you vote for a strike and you the go sick, rather than strike, you are a fool, in my mind. If you are not prepared to back up your vote, then don't vote or vote against the strike and go to work.

Back to actually being sick. If you have patterned sick around strike days, then no doubt it will be used against you, if you submit a grievance. However, what if you have a compliant GP how isn't busy and is happy to give you the relevant paperwork because you have stress? Then your friend who lives in a different area that has a GP who can't see them, is genuinely sick, but can't get the relevant note.

If your contractual provision gives sick pay and it is refused, then the employer has potentially made an unlawful deduction from wages, as the sickness policy will not have been adhered to.

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 20:28

...but that's the whole point I was [trying to] making :cool:

If you have patterned sick around strike days, then no doubt it will be used against you, if you submit a grievance.
If you "typically" pull sickies on strike days and you don't have a note, I *will* deduct from your wages and you can argue about it.

If you "typically" do NOT pull sickies on strike days and you don't have a note, I *will NOT* deduct from your wages.

It ain't difficult, unfair, "unreasonable", illegal, bullying, harrassment or anything else.

The whole red-herring about compliant local doctors never comes up.

Assume "my" records are better than their's anyway ;)

...it was only a tiny point I was making, apols to other posters for the hijack :(

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 20:30

But it is about burden of proof and what proof will the employer have, if the UK works on an up to 7 day self certification scheme?

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 20:32

History.

Repetition.

God knows there have been enough bloody strikes to establish the pattern. :E

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 20:38

Well, one thing is for certain, it would be for the employee to fight to get the monies back. This will serve its purpose as any doubters will probably not risk it and go to work.

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 20:42

Aye. Just as it should be.

Work hard, play by the rules, if you are unfortunate I will assist. :ok:

Take the piss, you're on your own. :ugh:

Glad we have an accord - we should do *all* the negotiating :)

Snas

2nd Dec 2010, 20:50

On the subject of sickness, for your amusement, maybe: -

My brother works for a VERY large fast food company, he applied legislation that required any staff off sick to provide a stool sample for health check before they could return to work. Sickness rates crashed to an all time low as a result.

Colonel White

2nd Dec 2010, 20:55

The sicknote thing can be looked at in two ways. There is the view that this is BA management placing unreasonable demands on staff to prove that they were genuinely ill and not having a duvet day. There is also the point that BA has a duty of care to ensure staff are fit to work and will not endanger colleagues or themselves. By all means take time off if you are sick, but returning to work too early, particularly for flight and cabin crew can have some nasty repercussions. Last thing you want is to transmit a bug amongst fellow crew and customers. The air scrubbers on aircraft are good, but don't work on contacts. Then there's also the cost of medical aid downline if you have a relapse or pass it on to colleagues. Small wonder that there is a greater emphasis on fitess to work amongst crew than a lot of other parts of the airline. So in these circumstances, insisting on doctor's note is maybe not such an unreasonable request. Those who were genuinely ill should have had no problem in gettng a medic to issue one. OK so you might have had to shell out a few bob for it - GPs are known to see this as a useful earner. If the reason given to the GP is something vague like 'I had a funny tummy' or 'I felt sick' with nothing to provide a diagnosis, then in all probability you'll be out of luck GPs are not in the habit of providing dubious testimony - it's their reputation that is also on the line.

Claiming sick pay under false pretences is fraud isn't it ? So isn't a company entitled to ensure that its employees are not acting fraudulently ?

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:03

You are generally right, but why should you have to spend some money to prove you are sick?

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 21:08

What few quid?

I live in Surrey, England. If I see a doctor it costs me nothing AFAIK.

When did this dubious practise of handing over money for a sicknote start, and where?

...and if, as I suspect, sicknotes (or "fit notes") are issued FOC, what is the problem in requiring one?

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:12

Dunno, unless it gets you to the front of the queue.

Anyhow, after me, fit note, fit note.

west lakes

2nd Dec 2010, 21:16

When did this dubious practise of handing over money for a sicknote start, and where

As you can self certify for the first 7 days, most doctors will not issue one for that period. They class the request for one for those days as a private note & charge for it.

but why should you have to spend some money to prove you are sick

I would guess (well am fairly certain) that at BA you do not normally have to, it seems to be an attempted counter to the going sick instead of striking ploy(?).
I'm sure BA know roughly how many staff would be ill on a daily basis so if that number peaked on strike days (despite BA warning staff in advance) they would see it as possible avoidance tactics

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 21:16

Dunno, unless it gets you to the front of the queue.
Blimey, that ain't very left wing! Brothers [comrades] are supposed to be arm-in-arm, side-by-side, not fighting to be at the trough :}

Colonel White

2nd Dec 2010, 21:16

Yep, it does sound a bit harsh, but remember that not many years ago, in fact in the lead in to the current sickness policy within BA, the company was seeing the average days sick per employee running at around 18. This was getting on for three times as many days as most major organisations. If it was all genuine then there were some serious problems with employees lifestyles at work and at home. The health and safety side got ramped up. There was also a fair bit of analysis done on when the peaks occurred. Strangely, there were consistent spikes around Wimbledon fortnight and Royal Ascot. Cup Finals also featured. Clearly there was a need to weed out the 'social sickness/duvet day' culture from those who were genuinely ill.

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:21

Blimey, that ain't very left wing! Brothers [comrades] are supposed to be arm-in-arm, side-by-side, not fighting to be at the trough :}

Yep, but that is what employers drive you to.

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:24

I was talking to a mate a while back about the new sickness policy (well new a while back). I am reasonably sure that you are allowed a certain amount before it kicks in. The policy was known locally as the us 'em or loose 'em scheme!

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 21:25

Yep, but that is what employers drive you to.

Bastards the lot of them. :p

Think I might chuck a sickie tomorrow - haven't had a day off in days :ugh:

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:32

You will get away with it, nobody is on strike:ok:

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 21:37

Come off it.

As a "union person" through and through you know as well as I, that somewhere in the world "someone" is on strike about "something" :p

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:47

As long as the working man is oppressed and exploited by the capitalist masters, the working man has to have the ability to take the struggle back to the establishment........................................

Sent from my ipad.

rustle

2nd Dec 2010, 21:53

Very droll ;)

west lakes

2nd Dec 2010, 21:56

Will you two get a corner of a pub somewhere :\

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 21:58

West lakes,

Hint taken. I will start arguing with Question Time instead.

TightSlot

2nd Dec 2010, 22:30

......Good!
:D

Chuchinchow

2nd Dec 2010, 23:06

and another thing, I feel bullied and harrassed by Joao da Silva

Don't worry, Rustle. You have joined a small, elite, but very rapidly growing club.

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 23:27

We have had a fair few exchanges, but have you ever felt B&H'ed on 'ere?

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 23:41

Human nature?

Litebulbs

2nd Dec 2010, 23:56

Surely nobody actually did this.

I would like to think so, but in reality.................

PPRuNe Pop

3rd Dec 2010, 07:53

As a point of interest (perhaps!) I checked that two practices near me, also in Surrey, charge £10 for a sickness certificate.

rustle

3rd Dec 2010, 08:21

As a point of interest (perhaps!) I checked that two practices near me, also in Surrey, charge £10 for a sickness certificate.
That is interesting. Thanks. :ok:

Must admit I haven't been to a doctor for years (other than AME) so this charge has completely passed me by.

LD12986

4th Dec 2010, 14:18

Another update from CC89:

At 09:35hrs on Friday 3rd December 2010, the AMICUS Cabin Crew Committee received (from Unite), a copy of a pre-ballot letter dated 30th November 2010 from the Unite national officers to British Airways. With it came a copy of the letter from the Unite JGS's to all cabin crew members of Unite (AMICUS and Bassa) dated 2nd December 2010.

We had no knowledge of these letters of their content prior to this.
Contained within these letters are the chosen items of our dispute. There are 4 of them.

1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA.

2. Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.

3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.

4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this.

It cannot go without saying that the AMICUS Committee have had no say in these items. We are part of the negotiating/strike committee and yet we have not even been consulted about our own items for dispute upon which you shall now be balloted.

However, these 4 items are same as those contained within the Bassa article dated 12th November 2010 "Duncan's Blog" and with which the AMICUS committee disagreed. We responded in detail to that position in our article dated 16th November 2010, and again in our article on 17th November 2010 (on the . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE (http://www.UniteBA.com) website). We made it very clear that these 4 points were flimsy and dangerous, and by no means far reaching enough considering the levels of imposition to which we have already subjected, and the continuing breach of our existing agreements.

We also made it very clear in our articles that to our knowledge, these 4 items were indeed the final Bassa position despite protestations from them and others to the contrary. As you will now see, these 4 items were not simply the starting position we had been assured of. We were absolutely right from the start - because they are now the 4 points upon which our entire dispute now hinges. They define it. They are it.

On 29th November 2010, we wrote to you again when we had heard the intention to ballot had been announced. We can only assume this too has been ignored. We said:

"we are not prepared to accept any offer to settle this dispute on the basis that British Airways ONLY agree to the "four no cost items". The current agreement in any guise is unacceptable to us and we believe to the community as a whole.

Why, you might ask? Because it is built on quick sand and has no guarantees for our future. The offer does not adequately deal with the reasons why the dispute arose in the first place. To add insult to injury, it also seeks to restrict and deprive you of your statutory rights to litigation against an increasingly unreasonable employer.

We do however believe that the four items form a good basis for discussions to commence with the involvement of the reps and will clear the decks of all the diversionary nonsense that British Airways has chosen to introduce into the dispute.

So what does solving just these 4 items mean?

As it stands, should Willie Walsh decide upon a magnanimous gesture to settle this dispute on his way out of the door in January 2011, he could do so just by addressing these 4 points. He could simply agree to these relatively no cost items now DEFINING our dispute. We will have foregone all the other aspects that have affected each and every one of us for the last 12 months and that will continue to impact upon our careers, earnings and job security from now onwards. It means that all the toxic elements of the latest deal which ultimately benefit the company will remain in place, including the litigation appendix. In short, all matters of litigation against BA are surrendered, including our appeal to the Supreme Court on the contractual issues of our flying agreement - and imposition - the original basis of our dispute and one which is gaining momentum. By implication this means we accept breach of our agreements - and this will continue. And it means serious restriction and undermining of your individual and collective legal rights.

Surely, this cannot be what you want?

We stand by our earlier position. With the company sustaining the cost of weather disruption, ash clouds, the cost of industrial action and a series of punitive fines for their conduct - and yet still making an operating profit, in our view, it is now our `fight for survival' that is at stake. In order to restore the relationship and for us all to recognise the merit of BA's intent to move forwards, as we understand it, the issues that they now need to resolve are very simple:

(i) return to the collectively agreed crewing levels (BA has spent far more on this dispute than removing crew was ever going to save);

(ii) acknowledgement that collective agreements will not be broken by BA and will only be varied by further negotiation and collective agreement;

(iii) reinstatement of all lost staff travel benefits to strikers (including accrued seniority/status tickets etc);

(iv) no victimisation (including full reinstatement of all those dismissed, and restoration to their former positions of all those otherwise penalised in this dispute - (the foregoing are now identified in the current offer documentation as "relevant employees" and "processed employees");

(v) in view of how the dispute came about and how negotiations since have been conducted, a recognition that AMICUS/Bassa are the elected representatives of the cabin crew with whom all future negotiations will be conducted (save where existing collective agreements or AMICUS/Bassa otherwise expressly agree in advance). This naturally includes recognition of our existing facilities agreement.

In addition to these major items of our dispute, there are a number of other issues that would need to be satisfactorily addressed within any offer from British Airways in order to bring peace to the cabin crew community.

These were outlined in the recent Bassa article dated 1st December 2010:

1. Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused.

2. Mixed fleet is here, it will grow, routes will transfer into it - this is your working life-blood. NO routes = NO work. There has to be an agreement on how this would happen. British Airways want to move routes to mixed fleet purely based on their "commercial needs". No consideration of the type of work being moved or its impact on current crew (length of trips, type of trips, days off, earnings) would be factored into this. These things must be taken into consideration; so far this has been refused.

3. Top up payment - we asked all along this to be classed as "lifetime" and/or "contractual", again thus far this has been refused.

4. Proposed changes to the employment policy must not simply be to allow British Airways to introduce changes that will be worse for you and make it easier for people to be sacked, a harsher sickness policy, a reduction to only one appeal (currently two) if subject to a disciplinary. These will only be the tip of the iceberg; there is also a whole raft of other proposed changes that could adversely affect you. No trade union should accept this.

5. Redeployment agreement - British Airways is trying to remove this cornerstone of security; if your area is closed or has no work, your historic pay protections and right to redeploy on protected conditions must be maintained.

You will now have received your personal letter regarding the upcoming ballot. As the membership behind this union - your voice now has to carry. Make the sound. This is your dispute; these need to be your items. In our opinion, although subject to the `majority' view - the current items are simply not enough.

Colonel White

4th Dec 2010, 14:41

So let me get this straight. CC89 are saying that the ballot reasons are insufficient. Am I right in thinking that they seem to be advising members to vote against the proposals ?? If so this is the most bizarre situation. We have a branch executive who wish to call the membership out on strike, yet they are telling the members not to support the call for strike action ????:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:You really, truly couldn't make this up.

At least the Unite proposal seems to have a faint glimmer of hope in avoiding 'same cause as previous'

'1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA. '

OOoopps - own goal here - this was cited as cause for previous stoppages

'2. Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.'

Was offered in last two proposals - how come Unite didn't accept it then ?

'3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates. '
Genuinely sick folk would have provided a sick note. Guess there are some who forgot or maybe weren't sick enough for their GP.

'4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this. '

Hey, the last offers included a thing about agreeing facilities within 8 weeks of acceptance. What was wrong with that ??

So two of the four items were in previous offers mad, the sick pay is a red herring - all those who were genuinely sick are the ones who handed in sick notes. The only outstanding item is removal of seniority and that is linked to the previous dispute.

Note that there is no talk about court cases or legal action

Litebulbs

4th Dec 2010, 15:32

the sick pay is a red herring - all those who were genuinely sick are the ones who handed in sick notes.

I risk sounding repetitive, but how can you justify that comment?

AV Flyer

4th Dec 2010, 15:56

The absence of any concerns over withdrawing all current and future legal action over issues arising from this dispute does suggest that Unite & BASSA recognise this to be a fundamental necessity otherwise no such agreement could be reached. Not that AMICUS appear to have understood this however.

On the basis that BASSA still has sufficient vestiges of its old leadership intact to cause continuing trouble then I would guess that BA will not agree to these terms, however, it will have to attend the ACAS talks to appear to be continuing to act in good faith.

BASSA will then have no choice but to go through with its threat and stumble on into an extremely misguided and ill-advised strike that anyone can see at the outset it cannot possibly win. I am surprised that Unite is allowing this to happen on its Executive Council's ticket.

Dawdler

4th Dec 2010, 16:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel White http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/429571-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iii-55.html#post6102013)
the sick pay is a red herring - all those who were genuinely sick are the ones who handed in sick notes.[/quote]

Litebulbs: I risk sounding repetitive, but how can you justify that comment?Why would they NOT have done so? Surely a genuinely sick person, knowing the implications of the absence of a sick note duly authorised by a medic, would make sure they had one to submit. If only to ensure they were not incorrectly classed as strikers.

Litebulbs

4th Dec 2010, 16:55

Well, I imagine in the first instance, there is a sickness reporting policy at BA (but I do not know the details, as I no longer work there). This will lay down the procedure for sickness reporting. I would imagine that if it follows the general accepted procedures (there is no specific law for this), then there will be a self certification procedure upto 7 days.

Is there a separate policy for sickness when in dispute? Is there a specific cabin crew policy? What happens to other employees who are sick when a strike is on? What happens to non union members, who cannot strike, who are sick? As one of the mods has stated, you may have to pay for a fit note too. If you have a cold, that may have passed by the time you get an appointment. A common cold has greater implications if you fly, than if you do not.

The Blu Riband

4th Dec 2010, 17:45

Litebulbs

there is a well publicised sickness policy which caused industrial "difficulties" when it was introduced about 6 years ago.

It is well known that it was specifically designed to reduce pattern sickness on 2 fronts.

To reduce sickness amongst BA cabin crew during obvious times (like school holidays, Ascot , Wimbledon etc) , and to stop crew doing the mass "sick-out" in lieu of a strike , which is what has happened in the past.

Furthermore crew were repeatedly warned that sickness during industrial action would require documentary evidence. BA doctors were on hand to offer free medical advice and certificates earlier this year during the strikes.

If anyone went sick during the strikes they would have been very aware of the risks they were running. Even the Bassa massive were very vocal about discouraging colleagues from going sick; even if only to boost their direct support.

Litebulbs

4th Dec 2010, 21:57

A couple of things on contacts as I see them. The first is unlawful deduction from wages and the second is the implied term of confidence and trust. Firstly, there is a policy in place, which should be adhered to and the employer is expected to trust it's employees (although that is reciprocal).

nononsense frank

4th Dec 2010, 22:02

3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.

I don't see any problem with this, and surely BA wouldn't see this as a problem. BASSA are asking for the restoration of docked wages NOT from ALL crew who went sick during the strikes but only from those who were GENUINELY sick during the strike.

Surely it is the responsibility of these crew to provide proof that they were genuinely ill at the time, isn't it?

Litebulbs

4th Dec 2010, 22:10

I don't see any problem with this, and surely BA wouldn't see this as a problem. BASSA are asking for the restoration of docked wages NOT from ALL crew who went sick during the strikes but only from those who were GENUINELY sick during the strike.

Surely it is the responsibility of these crew to provide proof that they were genuinely ill at the time, isn't it?

I would say the burden of proof lies with the employer.

binsleepen

4th Dec 2010, 22:58

Lightbulbs,

I disagree. If an employer knows that that on specific occasions, be they social or industrial, that staff sickness levels rise far higher than the norm they are surely within their rights to demand a higher level of proof from their employees. In this case Blu Riband says BA supplied doctors at the workplace to sign off sickness.

Surely common sense says if you do get a cold on a strike day and you know that by reporting sick you will be classified as a striker you would go into work and see the Doc for free (no sick note cost) to ensure that you were not penalised. If you were so sick that you couldn't get into work i.e. car crash, then other documentation would be easy to come by.

Trust works both ways with regard to self certification. If the employees have continually shown themselves to be unworthy of that trust is it any surprise that the employer acts?

Regards

Dawdler

4th Dec 2010, 23:17

On the other thread, I see a declaration from BASSA that during the build up to the decision on whether to put the latest BA offer to their members they were lobbied by members. They tell us that emails were received from members threatening resignations if they DID ballot the members and others saying that they SHOULD carry out a ballot.

Guess which ones they took note of...... either way it is now out of the committee's hands their members' lobbying saw to that. Of course we only have their word for this. With their record of lies and half truths should we believe them on this occasion?

AV Flyer

4th Dec 2010, 23:25

A quick look on the CC thread confirms exactly why BA cannot move one millimetre more on their current offer negotiated with TW nor will they settle on the so-called "four points" being mooted for resolution at ACAS. Indeed, having called for a strike ballot, and inflicted yet further damage, I am still very surprised that BA has not taken its current offer off the table. After all, why leave it there when BASSA has thumbed its nose at it so vehemently?

BASSA's leadership has now blatantly revealed its true colours in not wanting to settle until its power base over ICFE operations has been reinstated. As such, BA has no (and never realistically ever did have any) choice but to see this through to where BASSA's current leadership is gone.

The interesting thing to watch will be how long will Unite's Executive Council stay with BASSA in allowing it to play the game to BASSA's wishes? When BA's lawyers start warning Unite of the substantial potential liabilities of unlawful IA, sending ballot papers to non Union CC, etc., the pressure will increase for Unite to make a very difficult call whereupon BASSA could find itself isolated and out on a limb.

Dairyground

5th Dec 2010, 00:03

Baggersup:

Would somebody going sick to avoid striking be silly enough to document their own subterfuge by also claiming strike pay? That's a double paper trail.

A possible rationale is for someone who is genuinely sick to report so to BA, but also give the appearance of striking to BASSA, safe in the knowledge that nobody will have seen them at work.

Were BASSA bright or devious enough to have some stooges who worked during strikes so as to report on who else turned up for work?

AV Flyer

5th Dec 2010, 01:12

baggersup - You are correct. The number of individual offers made by BA to BASSA on issues that BASSA claims it wants but were rejected in one form or another make it more than clear the only satisfactory resolution to BASSA is full reinstatement of their power base over IFCE's operations.

But this is not surprising as the whole matter was nothing short of a massive power struggle from the outset thus the only resolution will be when one side is crushed.

The interesting thing is that BASSA's leadership still believes it has every chance of winning. Delusion at its ultimate supported by a weak Unite that is having to pick up the legal and strike support bills for BASSA's actions in the face of dwindling membership dues.

I just can't see Unite staying the course especially as it has much bigger matters at hand in supporting the strife emerging in its public services branches.

west lakes

5th Dec 2010, 01:24

I'm confused now.

The latest missive contains this: -
1. Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused.

as far as I know from posts on here no other parts of BA have actually received a pay rise this year (apart from the non-union CC)

Litebulbs

5th Dec 2010, 03:50

Surely common sense says if you do get a cold on a strike day and you know that by reporting sick you will be classified as a striker you would go into work and see the Doc for free (no sick note cost) to ensure that you were not penalised.

Common sense is not necessarily the law however. If you take the strike out of the equation, look at what you have just said. You are off work sick. so come into work, so we can see that you are sick. Common sense would be to say stay at home until you are better, but now because of industrial action, even non striking non members would be suffering potential detriment.

Joao da Silva

5th Dec 2010, 09:25

Litebulbs

I Agree with you.

As a board member of a company, I would not relish defending a company imposed requirement to exceed the law if cross examined by a capable lawyer.

It is obviously unreasonable to expect sick people to travel to their place of work to be examined by a doctor.

Had I been involved in this dispute, my tactic would have been to hire a number of doctors and let it be known that they would visit sick people at home to examine them.

I believe that this threat would have achieved the same purpose, because a doubbt would have been created in the minds of those taking advantage.

On the other hand and I speak from personal experience of a difficult employee, should someone really wish to play games, then back problems are very difficult to diagnoese effectively.

AV Flyer

5th Dec 2010, 13:09

Following the normal rules of negotiation, we were all led to believe that BASSA's "counter offer" was going to be four points to be negotiated with the help of ACAS which would all appear on the strike ballot if talks failed.

Now it seems to be ten different points that do not form a counter offer but sound more like a "set of demands" with no clear statement of what will be presented as agreeable for resolution at ACAS or what will appear on the strike ballot should these completely undefined negotiations fail.

Given we have been hearing about a strike ballot since well before 10/10/10/10/10 .... , BASSA and its cohorts have completely lost the plot and any rational sense of direction or adherence to rules of engagement seems to have flown out of the window.

Under these highly confused circumstances, BA would be ill-advised to enter into any negotiations with anyone or any party whatsoever, including attending at ACAS, until it had been:

1. Reassured of exactly what the respective authorities, responsibilities and bona-fide of any presented Union negotiators to this dispute are,
2. Received a clear statement of the Union's counter-offer that would lead to resolution should it be acceptable to BA, and,
3. Received a clear statement of the reasons that would appear on the elusive strike ballot should BA not agree to these terms.

Short of this BA would be foolish to continue in good faith negotiations with this floundering body that is collectively called "the Union" particularly as BA currently holds all the cards and needs to do absolutely nothing.

hellsbrink

5th Dec 2010, 14:17

Just a thought concerning possible future strike action.

In the other thread,someone has mentioned how his wife received a letter from UNITE asking her to confirm address, etc, for an upcoming ballot despite her havingleft the union 6 months ago. Now, we all know this will not be an isolated case so my question is simple.

Could BA go to the High Court to get a decree that the upcoming, and any future, ballot and possible strike is illegal, due to the failure of the union to keep tabs on who is actually a member so any ballot will be subject to the possibility of "fraud" due to the ineptitude of the union regarding who is a member and who isn't, and could this give BA the ammunition to move to derecognise BASSA as they clearly do not represent anything like the staff they claim?

That sort of pressure, because of clear failings in the union's admin, etc, could do untold damage to BASSA/UNITE campaign and could force them to put everything on hold until they sorted their own mess out which could lead to more people leaving because of a fiasco created by themselves...........

AV Flyer

5th Dec 2010, 16:44

After reading again BASSA's latest missive on the CC thread, I'm seriously wondering if "the Union" collectively has sufficient internal organisational skills and control (or even will-power at the Unite level) left to provide the discipline required to implement a properly and legally orchestrated negotiation at ACAS followed by a membership strike ballot and then an effective strike action - even assuming BA do nothing to derail them along the way?

I could be completely wrong but the entire situation appears close already to self-imploding and descending into a farce with BA looking-on bemused.

For just how long, exactly, have we been hearing about the latest strike ballot call which has failed to materialise?

MPN11

5th Dec 2010, 17:10

IMO, it is now a one-man campaign of "pure socialism/self-interest" in which a diminishing number of CC follow The Leader without much sense of where they're going.

A tragic indictment on the Trades Union movement as a whole in the 21st C. ... and neither BASSA, CC98 nor Unite emerge from this with any credit or credibility. Foolishness and rhetoric just pile up against the barriers of reality, just like the troops in WWI or the indigenous people in the film "Zulu".

However, "As you butter your bread, so must you lie on it" ... or something like that.

Ancient Observer

5th Dec 2010, 19:15

If great companies such as Shell, BP, Astra Zeneca and ICI can successfully manage de-recognition of the T & G, how come the monumentally incompetent BA managers cannot manage de-recognition of the over-paid bassa junta??

"4 points?? ..............yup, now 14, (see other thread) and about to be 24.

Woodley has personally worked through de-recognition, as has the scouser docker, so other than a bit of moral high ground, what exactly are BA waiting for????

If my personal safety is in the hand of the fools who allow the bassa junta to survive, then, sorry, JSL, Betty, et al, I'm going back to Virgin. Even sabena's latest incarnation (run by an ex- BA pilot, I'm told) is better than this.

nononsense frank

6th Dec 2010, 00:11

Lightbulbs,

As was mentioned earlier by one of the posters here, It is completely ridiculous to think that these crew who got genuinely sick during the strike period will not expect BA to require sicknote from them. BA is not unique in asking for proof of genuine sickness during industrial action, and work unions including UNITE , UNISON, RMT, etc. expect this to be the case.
Furthermore, BA issued a warning not only to those crew who will call in sick during the industrial action period itself, but also to those crew who were off sick during the WEEK PRIOR to the start of the first period of strike in March, that if they do not return to work before the industrial action commence, they will be considered as strikers. With this warning in mind, surely it would have been a lot simpler and easier to get a sick note, than take BA to court afterwards for docking wages during the supposed genuine sick period. After all, if they have to resort to court/tribunal as “thousands”(according to the strikers' claim) have done, they will then have to provide this same proof that they were genuinely ill and if they couldn’t provide this proof, couldn’t then BA charge them for abusing the sickness policy in the first place?
Lastly, I find it completely laughable that BASSA demand BA to treat the sickness during the strike period as genuine while at the same time, they themselves, talk about wildcat strike action in the form of social sickness during the Christmas period. See link below
Quote:
However, cabin crew militants and officials have also repeatedly warned of "mass sikcies" and unofficial wildcat over the Christmas period. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1334353/BA-strike-threat-returns-union-plans-target-holidays-New-Year.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
So can they, in all honesty, blame BA to demand proof of genuine sickness?

notlangley

6th Dec 2010, 03:54

Baggersup saidThey will know how many have their union dues deducted from their checks.I would have thought that it was an offence under the Data Protection Act for the "wages department" (a computer) to pass this information to management.

notlangley

6th Dec 2010, 03:57

Baggersup saidThey will know how many have their union dues deducted from their checks.I say old boy the correct word is "cheques".

Litebulbs

6th Dec 2010, 06:40

notlangley

6th Dec 2010, 06:42

Actually this illustrates how powerful is the concept of money._ In the UK we do not use the phrase "checking account"._ UK usage is "chequebook account" - but this is uncommon, "current account" is customary._ And in the contextmay do direct payment from their checking accountsthe phrase that would be used is almost always "bank accounts"._ Another UK paradox is that many so-called bank accounts are not bank accounts, but are "building society accounts".

Please excuse my pedanticism.

Neptunus Rex

6th Dec 2010, 07:15

The word is pedantry.

You are excused.

Juan Tugoh

6th Dec 2010, 07:33

As we have strayed into Pedant's Corner, there is no letter C in the word "negotiate."

TightSlot

6th Dec 2010, 07:44

Sum ov thee spelink on heer is apawling and the grammarr iz sumtymz worser

However - please let's not get bogged down in pedantry - back on topic please. Many thanks

:)

notlangley

6th Dec 2010, 08:56

Entaxei

6th Dec 2010, 14:26

Given that the numbers of CC union members in Bassa/Amicus/Unite seems to be an unknown/flexible quantity - I wonder what the effect would be if BA announced a payroll system enhancement, due to take place on the 1st April for the new tax year, which had as an unfortunate side effect, an inability to continue paying members fees to unions.

The announcement being made on the 1st January, to allow the unions time to make other arrangements. Any estimates as to how many members would drop out by default? and how could any union or branch then make any calls for IA without months of preparation - no more instant strikes.

With apologies Tightslot - but I always thought that Pedants hung around ladies necks and Pedantry was something to do with Sexual Devients - but memory is a fragile entity at the best of times and I never could spell! :ok:

vctenderness

6th Dec 2010, 16:07

1) Is the total number of Unite members unknown to BA management?_ (Because of Chinese Walls within BA)
2) Does the authenticated numbers of Unite members only become known when there is a vote to strike?
3) Is BASSA/Unite uncomfortable for its membership shrinkage to be authenticated?_ (i.e. authenticated by a vote to strike)

BA management know how many members BASSA have due to 'Payroll deduction'. The vast majority of BASSA members pay by this method and in the past BA has used this to 'Verify' the membership in order to allocate seats on BA committees.

CC89 members are the opposite virtually all being Direct Debit.

I am not a legal expert but would think that, as BA is registered to hold details of their cabin crew under the DPA, and they carry out the function of deducting subscriptions at the request of the union and the individual it is not a breach to pass the information on those numbers to other relevant departments in BA.

call100

6th Dec 2010, 16:10

Every company I've worked with in the UK in IR consulting knows who their union members are. No one has ever mentioned the data protection act in this regard.

I'd have to search the archives to be sure, but during the last ballot I think there was a procedure in which BA sends to the union every month their updated leavers and joiners or sumsuch, based on BA's records.

There was discussion last time about BASSA either not waiting for this or having the ballot delayed while awaiting the update from BA.

It's foggy, but there was definitely some union membership update that BA was providing BASSA from their files.

I've done audits of entire memberships of this type in my consulting work. It takes time and requires an outside accounting firm in most cases.

In the U.S. with my clients, I've seen three cases of court-ordered union membership audits when votes were in dispute.
My last company refused to give lists of Union members quoting the Data Protection Act. Even when the names were wanted as an up to date check for consultative local ballots.....No great problem but I think they enjoyed it!!
Many members (especially those in management) choose to pay by direct debit these days. which makes the whole process a bit more difficult when trying to get up to date lists.

LD12986

6th Dec 2010, 16:58

From The Telegraph at the weekend:

Unions should look on the bright side of life - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/8180397/Unions-should-look-on-the-bright-side-of-life.html)

Monty Python’s Life of Brian is the favourite film of BA chief executive Willie Walsh. So how appropriate that Unite, that misnomer of a trade union, is putting on a scene just for him.

Tony Woodley, who is this week leading 11,000 BA flight crew to another strike ballot, seems hell-bent on reproducing Scene 8: The Grumpy People’s Front of Judea.

You remember. John Cleese, in the Reg role, asked if he’s from the Judean People’s Front. His two-word response is memorably Anglo Saxon, before he explains: “The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ------- Judean People’s Front.” That’s excepting, of course, the Judean Popular People’s Front.

Over at Unite, it’s a familiar script, no doubt inspired by the line that “any anti-imperialist group like ours must reflect... a divergence of interests within its power base”. Unite is the product of coupling the Transport and General Workers Union with Amicus. Both wings have their own crew branch – the T&G’s militant British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association; and Cabin Crew 89 from Amicus.

Trying to control them is the T&G’s Woodley – and Amicus’s retiring Derek Simpson, the other joint-general secretary. Simpson, you may recall, is the Twitterer who sent “I am at Wembley for England match” – just as a BA strike began in May.

“Dysfunctional” is Walsh’s term for this lot, with whom he has been negotiating since February 2009. But don’t ask him, ask Sir Christopher Holland – the judge who ruled that BA did not break contracts when it cut cabin crew on long-haul flights from 15 to 14.

“Ostensibly, representation is by this single union,” Holland wrote in his judgment. “However – again at all material times – the old allegiances have held sway, engendering from time to time, mutual rivalry, hostility and mistrust”. He noted how “the Bassa and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms”. Once, they had a “heated argument”.

LD12986

6th Dec 2010, 20:38

BA management must know the numbers of non-union members and, ergo, union members. I do recall WW quoted the numbers of non-union crew that had accepted the previous offer on an individual basis and what percentage this was of non-union crew.

Can BA require Unite to conduct a full audit of its (cabin crew) memership databases?

nononsense frank

6th Dec 2010, 23:21

BA can say and do what they want, at any time including stopping pay and making asumptions on who is and who is not on strike. It will be for the individual to then seek damages for unlawful deduction from wages, which is a breach of contract through the court system, which will no doubt lead to binding legal opinion.

Exactly my point Litebulbs. When the affected individual has to seek damages through the court system, won't the court require the individual to provide proof that he/she was genuinely sick? Wouldn't it have been easier to just provide the same proof at the time when BA requested it? This way the individual concerned will avoid further unnecessary lost time and expenses that a court case would entail?

Dairyground

7th Dec 2010, 01:43

Baggersup asks:

Though if the reports that BA sends BASSA an update every month is true, I wonder why that's possible? Hm.

It has been common for many years for businesses to deduct union dues from payroll and transmit the deductions to the union. Employess who wish to manage union subscriptions in this way have obviously given the company permission to make the deductions and to have the union informed that they wish to subscribe in this way. so the company has a lower bound on the number of employees who are union members; the number may be swelled by other individuals who choose, for whatever reason, other payment methods.

Litebulbs

7th Dec 2010, 06:13

Exactly my point Litebulbs. When the affected individual has to seek damages through the court system, won't the court require the individual to provide proof that he/she was genuinely sick? Wouldn't it have been easier to just provide the same proof at the time when BA requested it? This way the individual concerned will avoid further unnecessary lost time and expenses that a court case would entail?

I do not believe that they would. They will have a contractual position on sickness, which will probably relate to a policy, which it appears on the face of it, has not been followed. The burden of proof should lay with the employer, as that who is making the accusation.

The point in question being made by the employer, is not that they are in breach of the sickness policy by not attending work when fit to do so, but that they were on strike. No investigation was carried out as far as I know; they were just found guilty by association.

Litebulbs

7th Dec 2010, 06:30

Baggersup asks:

It has been common for many years for businesses to deduct union dues from payroll and transmit the deductions to the union. Employess who wish to manage union subscriptions in this way have obviously given the company permission to make the deductions and to have the union informed that they wish to subscribe in this way. so the company has a lower bound on the number of employees who are union members; the number may be swelled by other individuals who choose, for whatever reason, other payment methods.

Exactly and that is why BA probably differs from the wishful thinking of the pprune community. No doubt it the number of check off employees got within an amount of 50% of the employee group, then wheels would be put in motion, either by derecognition or serving notice, depending on whether it was a voluntary or statutory agreement.

Juan Tugoh

7th Dec 2010, 07:50

BA cabin crew have a history of taking sick days rather than going on strike. It could be argued that if you are absenting yourself from work on a strike day and you are not genuinely sick then you are either a: taking unofficial industrial action or b: putting yourself in breach of contract by defrauding the company. Both are actions that can lead to dismissal.

BA have been pretty even handed about this as all they chose to do was to warn the crew that if they were sick on strike days they would be treated as strikers unless they could prove that they were genuinely sick. For those that were sick this should present an obstacle, all they have to do is get a sick note. Having been warned before hand that this would be a requirement only those who were not really sick or were too lazy or stupid to get a sick note will be on the wrong end of this issue.

A question for all the lawyers out there, is a sickness policy part of your contract and therefore needs agreement to vary, or is it a company policy that can be varied by the company with prior notice?

call100

7th Dec 2010, 08:10

JT.
I would say that would depend on if (as is my experience) the sickness policy was negotiated. Any changes to policy, if negotiated, would fall under 'Terms and Conditions' and would form part of the contract....

Sonorguy

7th Dec 2010, 09:10

But I really can’t imagine that it is lawful in the UK for an employer to have on his office-wall a graph that shews the month by month decline of numbers of Union members.

There's no breach of information governance or the Data Protection Act if an employer chose to have that graph as there's no personal information.

Any employer who has any form of collective arrangement with a union has to know how many are in the union to ensure that the union being negotiated with is still legitimately representing staff.

It's up to the union to ensure that this info is up to date.

Litebulbs

7th Dec 2010, 09:28

Juan Tugoh

7th Dec 2010, 09:43

I do not see how due process changes the basic argument. You are either sick or you are not. If not and you have absented yourself on a strike day and then subsequently claim to have been sick you are defrauding the company and have taken unofficial IA. BA have not chosen to follow this line.

If you are stupid enough to have failed to protect yourself from lost wages due to being genuinely sick on a strike day, that is your own fault. The law allows self certification for illness, but this is to prevent doctors from being overwhelmed with patients requiring sick notes for minor issues that prevent attendance at work but that do not require medical attention - e.g. the common cold. Cabin crew have in the past exploited this loophole which essentially allowed them to go on strike without losing money. BA have responded to this "tradition" and acted to protect themselves. Those suffering loss have only themselves to blame.

Joao da Silva

7th Dec 2010, 10:35

Juan

I am neither a lawyer nor an HR person, but as a company director both these experts have informed me that if we publish a process involving people, we must abide by it or risk bad consequences via legal challenge and imagine this may be what Litebulbs is thinking.

Having read Litebulb's many postings, I think we probably see many things in the same way, although from different positions.

west lakes

7th Dec 2010, 11:53

Firstly, remember that generally in HR terms that innocent until proved guilty does NOT apply.

So a member of staff was ill during IA despite fair warning by the employer. If they now take the employer to court, how are they going to prove they were ill without medical evidence?
(which if they had in the first place the situation would not gave arisen)

Snas

7th Dec 2010, 12:03

If they now take the employer to court, how are they going to prove they were ill without medical evidence?

Remember that a tribunal isn’t a court; the rules of evidence are very different. You don’t have to prove things so much as convince the chairman that you are being truthful.

So, if you walk in and say “I was sick” then unless the employer presents a video of you at Wimbledon or some other compelling statement that convinces the chair you were not ill, a pattern to sickness for example, then in most cases as far as the chair is concerned, ill you were.

That has at least been my experience, usually, which is why I avoid (as an employer) IT’s where I can.

Hipennine

7th Dec 2010, 13:32

IIRC the time limit for ET claims of this nature is 3 months from the date at which the money would normally have been paid. Why have we therefore not heard of ET's in the Heathrow area being paralysed by such a volume of claims ? We can only assume that potential claimants are out of time. Claims of this type made in time are usually conducted in a "quick" procedure held before a Chairman, and not a full panel, to get them out of the way expeditiously. We must assume also therefore that if claims have been made in time, that they would have been expedited using the simpler hearing.

The time limit for a Civil Breach of Contract claim (ie to a County court, not an Employment Tribunal) is more extended. However, unlike an ET where there is an automatic presumption in favour of the claimant until an employer proves otherwise (the employer is called a Respondent, not a defandant), civil court procedures require the claimant to prove that a contract has been materially breached, and the defendant to attack against the claimants evidence. This means that the defendant in this case can legitimately say "prove you were ill", whereas as a Respondent at an ET can only provide evidence to demonstrate that the claimant may not have been ill.

Richard228

7th Dec 2010, 13:59

so if I have got this right...

- Employees had three months to put their case through an Employment Tribunial, where the burden of proof would have been on the employer.

- Now three months have expired, the only option is to go through to a County Court, where the burden of proof is on the employee.

Makes sense then why this is now on the list of demands from BASSA to end the dispute, but begs the question why did they not advise affected employees to put cases to an Employment Tribunial within the three month window?

A failure from BASSA to represent their members, or another reason?

notlangley

7th Dec 2010, 22:11

I won’t quote numbers because they change all the time._ But BASSA quotes a larger figure for strikers than BA quotes._ However BASSA is now saying that some of those who BA labelled as strikers were innocent sick persons._ This makes the discrepancy between the figures of BA & BASSA even larger!

nononsense frank

7th Dec 2010, 23:33

There are 2 types of sick pay – statutory and contractual. I would imagine that a company of BA’s magnitude has contractual sick pay in place for their employees. It seems to me that a lot of people believe that protected industrial action must not have an effect on the statutory and contractual rights of strikers. However, the effect of industrial action on statutory and contractual employment rights of strikers has been documented and published in the local government employment website from which I quote:

Statutory Rights – Statutory Sick Pay:
Employees who are absent from work through illness before a stoppage of work retain their right to statutory sick pay (SSP) during the period of industrial action. Where, however, an employee is away from work because of a trade dispute when their sickness begins, they are excluded from SSP, except where he or she has no 'direct interest' in the dispute and has not participated in it at any time.

Contractual Rights - Sick Leave:
Employees who are absent on account of sickness before industrial action starts should be assumed to be on sick leave, providing that the necessary certification is produced. If the employee reports as sick on the day the action starts, the authority will need to make its own judgment, taking into account any evidence that the employee can provide, whether he or she should be regarded as on sick leave or on strike.

Source: http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119719#contents-3 (http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119719#contents-3)[

Also, I have noticed in the Statutory Sick Pay form itself on Part E from the last page (page 7) , the following clarification of the “Reasons why you cannot get SSP”

H . You cannot get SSP if there is a trade dispute at your workplace. But you may get SSP if

you were already getting SSP when the dispute began, or
you can show that you had no direct interest in the dispute. We use trade dispute to mean

a strike
a walkout
a lockout
another dispute about work.
Source: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/claimforms/ssp1_print.pdf (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/claimforms/ssp1_print.pdf)

Futhermore, notwithstanding the above effects during strikes, under normal circumstances (i.e no ongoing industrial action) contractual sick pay may have slightly different rules to the statutory sick pay in terms of provision of medical certificate for employees calling in sick. The following quotes are from the Citizens Advice Bureau – Employment in England:

Telling your employer you are sick – contractual sick pay

Your employer may ask you to follow certain rules about telling them you are off sick. For example they may insist that you:

provide a medical certificate immediately
phone in by a certain time of day to tell them you are sick
phone in more than once a week when you are off sick
phone in yourself (not ask someone else to do it on your behalf).Your employer must let you know what these rules are in advance and if you break the rules, your employer can refuse to pay you your contractual sick pay. For example, our employer can refuse to pay you contractual sick pay for the days you are off and do not call in sick. Also if you break the rules, you will be breaking the terms of your employment contract and eventually this could lead to you losing your job.

Source: Off work because of sickness (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment/off_work_because_of_sickness.htm#contractual_sick_pay)

just an observer

8th Dec 2010, 09:41

I Googled the heading of the above article, and found a Unison info sheet from a University branch, which says the info is taken from the Unison Industrial Action handbook. The bit about SSP is quoted below -

Workers who are absent on sick leave when a stoppage of work starts retain their right to statutory sick pay during the period of industrial action. If an employee reports as sick on the day the action starts, the employer can be expected to make their own judgement as to whether they should be regarded as on sick leave or on strike.

Edit - I then found the IA Handbook itself, here http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/17518.pdf see page 13 of the document.

binsleepen

8th Dec 2010, 10:47

From the Unite Absence at work handbook here: http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/Job%20866%20absence%20research%20inside%20pgv2.pdf

It discusses the differences between statutory sick pay and occupational sick pay. For statutory sick pay:

An employer must provide its employees with details of their sick
pay entitlement as part of the written statement of employment
particulars. Many employers provide an occupational sick pay
scheme that is more generous than statutory sick pay (SSP).
To claim statutory sick pay the employee must notify their
employer. The employer may have its own notification procedure
but it cannot insist that the employee notifies them in person
nor insist on a doctor’s certificate for the first seven days of
absence for this purpose.But for occupational sick pay, which I believe BA provides:

Some employers will provide an occupational sick pay scheme.
The scheme must pay at least the equivalent of statutory sick
pay. As occupational sick pay schemes are a contractual
entitlement the employer can set its own rules and guidelines.My bolds

So from this it seems that for SSP an employer cannot insist on a doctors note for the first 7 days, but if an employee wishes to take advantage of the enhanced benifits of OSP they have to follows the T&Cs that the employer has laid down. This may include sick notes required for any sick period during time of industrial action.

regards

rethymnon

8th Dec 2010, 13:09

looking at the CC thread, postings are few and far between (ignoring quality). even the most vociferous Bassa-ites seem to have lost interest in pouring out their rhetoric(do they have to learn it by rote as in days of yore?)

i wonder whether this now indicates that the dispute is effectively over? there are very sound reasons for all the union factions to let this rest and to let the issue of a further ballot quietly slip away.

ba have moved to a position of strength vis-a-vis cabin crew since this issue first arose. should the union attempt to resurrect the question of industrial action, on whatever pretext, ba are unlikely to be materially affected. that in itself would demonstrate how enfeebled the CC factions have become.

in addition, to hold a ballot that commanded respect( ie. cannot be challenged at law) the union would have to calculate and disclose accurate membership figures. the ballot would reveal how many bothered to vote( a bit like red len's election perhaps: 15% of how many?) and anything less than a resounding 'yes' vote would further cripple the union factions.

enlightened (?) self interest suggests it would be better for all to maintain the fiction that the dispute is on-going and that officers should remain in place until either it is resolved or until the end of next year at latest.

Richard228

8th Dec 2010, 15:34

Latest from Amicus, who haven't been invited to the party...

8th December 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE: Meetings With BA

It is our understanding that a meeting was held yesterday between Unite and British Airways. However, we were only made aware of this late on Monday evening. In spite of the serious nature of these discussions, the company refused to offline anyone from AMICUS to attend.
We have yet to receive any feedback from anyone on the progress of these talks, and we believe that another meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, with a meeting of all reps to be organised at some point very soon.
In the meantime, we have no reason to believe that the imminent ballot of industrial action will not be underway as planned.

source : . LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

MPN11

8th Dec 2010, 16:12

I think it may be spelled ... M A R G I N A L I S E D

Juan Tugoh

8th Dec 2010, 16:58

or .... I R R E L E V A N T

notlangley

8th Dec 2010, 18:54

In the High Court tomorrow is the appeal of BA against the decision of the 20 January 2010 Employment Appeals Tribunal which had endorsed the decision of a 2008 Employment Tribunal.
If BA fails then it will be a three-in-a-row failure and Eliza Mak will be entitled to compensation for being dismissed on the grounds that she a BA hostess had reached the age of 45. Eliza Mak was employed in Hong Kong.COURT 70
Before LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS and
LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
Thursday, 9th December, 2010
Not Before half-past 10
APPEAL
From Appeal Tribunals
(Employment Appeal Tribunal)
FINAL DECISIONS
A2/2010/0305 British Airways Plc -v- Mak and Ors. Appeal of Appellant from the order of The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dated 20th January 2010, filed 11th February 2010.
_________________link (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm)

PleasureFlyer

8th Dec 2010, 19:09

A (possibly silly) question from an observer, are the Hong Kong staff employed in Hong Kong on local contracts? if so why would UK law be relevent? or, are they on UK contracts?

If this went against BA what would the implications be for, as an example, someone who is employed by BA who lives/works in France working at CDG as local managers? Could BA then say to that person you are now on a UK contract with the following xyz reductions in T&Cs? and if you don't like it you can blame the unions as they won a case to say that overseas employees should be treated as though they were in the UK?

ZimmerFly

8th Dec 2010, 21:59

I think Ms Mak retired at 45.....in accordance with her employment contract.

Perhaps Unite would like all overseas employees of UK companies to be subject to UK terms and conditions............:ugh:

Maybe all BA HKG staff would like UK Taxation rates too..........:E

LD12986

8th Dec 2010, 22:17

Will be interesting to see what the High Court makes of the case. I'm not aware of the details so can't comment on the specifics.

What I will say is that it is not unusual for the High Court to throw cases back to the Tribunals with the words "SEE ME" scrawled over their decisions.

Colonel White

8th Dec 2010, 22:50

Think this is a very dangerous game for Unite to play. This could blow up rather spectacularly on them. If the precedent is set that overseas staff should have UK T's and C's applied to their contracts then an awful lot of employers may just turn around and do just that - to the detriment of the workers concerned. Take the situation with employees in France. The immediate impact would be that their normal retirement age would be pushed out to 65 instead of the current 60. Then see the ripple around the rest of Europe. Add on that UK T's and C's are affected by UK statute and all of a sudden you start to find a load of variations occur, like limits on hours worked etc. Whilst this may be beneficial to the employee in some aspects, it may also be limiting in others. And it won't only be BA who will have to take this route, all other UK companies who employ staff overseas are similarly caught. Net result is that the number of non UK staff employed by these outfits may decline substantially.

binsleepen

8th Dec 2010, 23:15

If the court find in favour of Unite would foreign companies with UK based workers not be able to employ those same workers on the T&Cs based on the laws of the nation of domicile of the company. i.e. Man City footballers employed on Thai T&Cs or workers at a Citron dealership insisting on a 35 hr week etc. In my opinion it would end in chaos.

Regards

nononsense frank

8th Dec 2010, 23:56

If BA lose the appeal and the law recognise that HK based cabin crew should have the same T&C’s as the UK ones, could the court insist that the effectivity of this law be retroactive (i.e should Ms. Mak and others be compensated)? After all, Ms. Mak and others have already signed their contracts agreeing to the set terms and conditions with respect to retirement age at the time, which is in line with the regulation in their home country.

Some will undoubtedly argue that the T & C that the HK cabin crew have signed was unfair in the first place so it makes it void. But I disagree with this. I think that at the time when BA introduced this separate contract for HK cc’s, it was acting in good faith that it was not breaking any regulation. At the time, there was no specific law recognised that says the T&C’s of all employee groups of a UK company should be the same regardless of where they are based.

Therefore, wouldn’t it be likely that this new regulation on T&C should only affect some existing HK CC’s and future ones, but definitely not those who have already retired? Much like when UK law was changed with regards to retirement age in UK, there is always a cut-off point where the change is enforced.

Betty girl

9th Dec 2010, 09:14

I think you are all blowing this HK crew thing out of all proportion.

These crew are members of Unite (like a lot of other crew) and that is the reason why unite have been representing them. I believe this issue has been around for a long time and started before the IA.

The reason it is being looked at by a UK court is because the HK crew WORK on a UK registered aircraft. I doubt any verdict will affect people that work on the ground overseas as they work in another country.

Some of our overseas crew earn more than UK based crew because of the cost of living in their country and local competition but this action is not about their pay it is about their forced retirement at 45.

I am amazed that any of you think a practice of making HK crew retire at 45 could be a good thing or that you feel that HK based crew don't deserve to have union recognition.

I am unhappy with a lot of what Bassa and Amicus have been doing but in this case I think they are actually representing their members as they should be.

TightSlot

9th Dec 2010, 09:40

Some of you appear to have been to close to this for too long: If you can only see everything as being within the context of the existing IR, then possibly you need to step back for a moment.

UNITE & BASSA, like almost everything and everybody else on the planet, are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad. They make some misguided and irrational decisions, certainly, but are also capable, on occasion, of doing things that are valid, and fairly within their remit.

This thread continues its slow degeneration into an anti-Union Hamster Wheel - matched in tone only by the Daily Mail leader and letters pages. A good indicator of a thread feeding on itself and becoming self-internalised is the number of "quotes" both of external sources and others postings, matched by the ever-decreasing number of contributors.

Please try and raise your game a little. If there is nothing to say, or if you have nothing to say, then don't say it. This thread will remain open, and if/when trouble flares up again, you'll all be able to return to it and debate the wright/wrongs of the situation.

Betty girl

9th Dec 2010, 10:06

It is well known, by many of you, that I have been very unhappy about how the union has handled this dispute and that I felt I had to resign because I felt the race to strike was a mistake.

However, having said all that, I have to say that Amicus years ago took BA to court about the then SUPPORT contract. This contract, was at that time, the only way to be part time. You had to make yourself available to work for at least 10 days a month but BA would only give you work if they needed you. You only got paid if you worked and got no pension or holiday entitlement. So when BA was over crewed you would earn nothing but you still had to be available on the days you had registered your willingness to work, which was a least 10 days a month.

Amicus took BA to court, to say this effectively discriminated against women and won their case. This led to BA offering proper part time jobs with the same benefits as full time crew.

This has, actually, been good for BA too because in times of being over crewed BA are able to offer people to move to part time and thus adjust their crewing levels easily, instead of having to pay full time crew to sit a home, which used to happen in the past.

The point I am trying to make is that, big companies always try to work to the lowest denominator unless they are forced to change. Sometimes the activities of unions are good for employees and mankind as a whole. In the case of the HK crew, I believe this will be the case.

BetterByBoat

9th Dec 2010, 12:36

Not sure I can agree with your logic Betty Girl as limiting it to just people who work on UK registered aircraft seems a very artificial boundary. Where do you realisticaly draw the line?

What about non UK nationals working on other UK registered "bases" - be it shipping or haulage?
Or local employees on UK military bases (ie British soil)? Gurkhas? Different rules apply to those based in HK before 1997 and after ... on the basis that they were based in HK prior to 1997 - Court of Appeal (http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/10/18/gurkha-defeat-in-claim-for-equal-pension-rights/) emphasises where they are based and where they are expected to retire to is the important criteria.

Or turn the logic around - could a UK based airline register their aircraft elsewhere and retrospectively apply local terms and conditions to UK based employees who work on the aircraft?

Entaxei

9th Dec 2010, 18:27

On the very thin base of argument being presented here, you could equally say that aviation pay and T&C's could be that of the country of manufacture of the aircraft - that then leads to saying that shipping companies should give their staff the wages and T&C's of the country that built the ships.

Neither of these work as a proposition any more than paying local staff around the world the same as HQ based or paid staff get. The wages and T&C's of any people around the world, employed in vitually any industry, is that of the local rate for the skills involved. This is linked to the need that anyone in a given country has, in terms of income to live in accordance with their needs and status for a given job. If you don't pay enough, you don't get either the quantity or quality of worker desired and your product suffers accordingly, as does your operation. What you get has no relevence to them or their lives.

The airline industry grew alongside and in competition with the shipping industry. Whilst in the early years of the 1920's, the great shipping lines were the flag carriers of the nations and the vast majority of employees were on the vessels, hired and paid by Head Office, they employed a large network of local arms length employees around the world in the form of agents, which was and still is to the benefit of both parties and the economy of the countries in all forms of international trading.

Now in the twentyfirst century, through various competitive and financial pressures the shipping industry has evolved into establishing its operating bases and costs around the 'flags of convenience', to achieve the greatest base profit and possibly the most easiest judicial setup - so Lufthansa could decide that its flag and HQ address, should be that of the Congo, with all staff being paid a fair congolese wage, other than those elsewhere in the world, who are of course under their local law, who would also be paid an 'overseas' living allowance, to bring them up to the normal levels of pay for the country in which they were working. Anyone care to join Aer Lingus and get the increased levels of taxation and other reduced 'benefits' about to be applied?

It has to be said that this whole publicity puffball dreamt up by Unite, is a personal ego trip by Len Mc, for the glory of the cause of bringing another UK industry to a standstill and bringing down the Government, assisted by two minor squeakers, Amicus/CC89, who are now looking for trouble and being driven by a marxist group and, of course our old manic depressive Bassa, who have found that they don't rule the world after all, but will do anything to hurt BA and WW.

Whew - Apologies, that was longer than I thought!! E&OE :ok:

Betty girl

9th Dec 2010, 21:01

This issue about HK based crew and their retirement age, not their pay, has been going on a lot longer than this industrial dispute.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Len McClusky who has nothing to do with the day to day running of Bassa and is only involved now because of the strike.

Unite/Bassa/Amicus have a duty to represent all their members and that includes any international crew who are members and this is something that they felt was unfair to them. It is perfectly normal and right that their union represents their views too and tests this in the courts.

I just can't see why any of you have a problem with this.

call100

9th Dec 2010, 21:17

@TightSlot.....Spot on Sir...

This case has nothing to do with the strike in any shape or form. Seems many are forgetting this is the 3rd appeal so it will probably be won again. The ramifications will not be as life threatening as some are trying to make out.:ugh:

Meanwhile it all seems quiet on the western front at the moment....I have been told that there have been 'informal' 'Unofficial' talks taking place between the top tables. Nothing surprising there, but, while people are talking at whatever level there is always hope....;)

LD12986

9th Dec 2010, 21:33

Back to the dispute. It is now over a month since the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case on crewing levels. Has Unite actually sought leave to appeal to The Supreme Court? Correct me if I'm wrong but the time limit for leave to appeal is 28 days?

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1225.html)

Litebulbs

9th Dec 2010, 21:38

I believe that they have.

Entaxei

9th Dec 2010, 22:45

Hi Betty Girl,

Whilst appreciating that this is getting to be an ancient problem, non the less times have moved on since the original decision in 2008, in terms of the union makeup and activity. Unite were/are trying to ensure that both Bassa and Amicus are recognised solely as branches of Unite and not as negotiating or decision making units in their own right, hence keeping them out of negotiations with BA on the current CC dispute. In the meantime both appear to be fighting for political independance of action.

So its now Unite, in the form of Len Mc as the new and ongoing joint/ general secretary, who are looking to seek the limelight, nothing has been said AFAIK from either of the two branches.

That said, it does seem a ridiculous situation whereby a local contract of employment in HK should be the subject of an employment tribunal in the UK, but obviously there must be some connection for the UK legal involvement - I'm not going there, I rattled on enough in the previous post.

Yes, unions do have a role to play in the normal run of things and should be of assistance to their members, unfortunately with the politics and infighting that have arisen on the union side in the past two years, it appears that the members needs currently have no relevance or priority other than to be used to make political or financial gain.

The other problem of course, is the unique working and lifestyle structure of CC, which despite modern technology must be a nightmare for communication purposes for both BA and CC, especially where the union as the only cohesive force, succeeds in convincing its members not to even read the communications from the employer and, the members are encouraged not to discuss issues among themselves but simply believe as gospel any statements made by the union. This way lies the anarchy of the past 12 - 18 months.

Solutions? - not with the present bunfight going on and with due respect, Ms Mak's problem is actually irrelevant unless political points can be made by the union and become a cause celebre. :ok:

Betty girl

10th Dec 2010, 07:47

Well I will have to disagree with you.

These court proceedings have been going on for many years and the HK crew member test case, supported by Unite's legal department, has won every time.

This is an example of a union doing good work for it's members.

Are you suggesting that foreign workers, working on the aircraft of a British Airline, don't deserve to have a union to represent them like all the other crew on that aircraft. Or maybe you think it is OK for BA treat foreign crew in a different way. These crew work alongside British BA cabin crew on the same aircraft. It is not about how much they earn, it's about when they retire.
Some International crew, like Japanese crew, earn more than British crew and I am pretty sure that they retire at a normal retirement age. So this case is about right and wrong not about the current industrial action.

Having said that it is hardly strange that the Union would want to highlight the way BA treat their International cabin crew. I would if I were in their situation.

I am not going to argue with you anymore about this side issue. We will have to agree to disagree.

Juan Tugoh

10th Dec 2010, 08:16

If UNITE win this and the HK crew and by extension all crew from overseas bases gain the right to UK terms and conditions, there will remain little benefit for BA to keep them on. The risk being run is that is that BA will simply close the base and employ more UK based CC. More MF cabin crew.

As has already been said the industrial relations landscape has moved on since this case was started and is not directly related to the current dispute. However, the same UNITE that has been at the heart of the current dispute and has shown a stunning lack of strategic thinking is behind this too. Winning this is likely to have for more consequences than just allowing HK based crew to stay on to 60. This cannot be viewed in isolation, the reality is that the current state of affairs will impact upon the result of this case and vice versa.

The question at the crux of this is whether overseas employees of UK based companies are entitled to work under UK industrial relations laws. If they are then this ruling will have massive repercussions for UK industry and will cost the UK economy dearly.

call100

10th Dec 2010, 08:41

Or is it? Would it not be similar to crews employed on British registered ships? (One of the reasons for 'Flags of convenience' is to avoid regulations and taxes and to employ cheap crew.
It seems to be upsetting some people who only want to bash whatever the Unions do. Usually the people who have no idea about the amount of good that they do.
Some posters really must stop looking at every contact BA and the TU have and connecting it with the current dispute.....Take a look in the mirror and realise how obsessed you have become!!:rolleyes:

Richard228

10th Dec 2010, 09:23

The question at the crux of this is whether overseas employees of UK based companies are entitled to work under UK industrial relations laws. If they are then this ruling will have massive repercussions for UK industry and will cost the UK economy dearly.I agree Juan. Another big impact, if you switch it the other way around, is the potential knock on effect on British employees working for foreign airlines, eg QF's London base, by implication, they would no longer be governed by British Law, if Unite were to win

Dont know whether Australian law is better ot worse than the UK's, but you can't have it both ways, and select the jurisdiction that suits you best.. and we know that many many other countries do not afford their employees the protections that the UK and Europe do....

BetterByBoat

10th Dec 2010, 09:36

I fully agree with you Juan - this isn't just a case of BA versus Unite. It has huge implications for all UK employers who employ local employees, based locally on local terms and conditions.

I don't understand the logic of Betty in this instance who seems to be suggesting that these cabin crew are different from other employees becuase they work on UK registered aircraft. It seems a totally artificial boundary. I work for a French company and spend my work time split between France and the UK. Does that mean I could be entitled to French T &C which include better pension provision and higher holiday entitlement?

Call 100 - it isn't a case of Union bashing. It just doesn't make sense that you can be based in one country and claim T & C from the country that the company you work for is registered in.

Betty girl

10th Dec 2010, 10:08

Look, it just is not the same. You are all comparing apples with pears. As Call 100 said it is the same as the shipping companies, they cannot employ low cost foreign workers alongside UK worker on a UK registered ship.

If there is a flaw in all of this, it is the law at fault not Unite. I am not a fan of Unite at the moment but blaming them for a court decision is just crazy. If you are unhappy with the legislation and the Judges verdicts you should be lobbying your MP about it not blaming a union looking after it's members.

It is blatant discrimination to make these crew retire at 45 and their is no reason for it other than because they can get away with it. Just like it happened in the 70's when female crew had to retire from BA at 35 or if they got married. In this day and age I am totally shocked that any of you can think this kind of practice is good or OK.

BA could have avoided all of this if they had amended the contracts of these International crew and allowed them to retire at a normal retirement age. So maybe you should be blaming BA if this court case has ramifications for other companies and not Unite, who are merely representing their members in this over an injustice.

BetterByBoat

10th Dec 2010, 10:20

It isn't quite the same with shipping as ships come under maritime law, not aviation but I do now understand your logic so thanks for explaining it so well and apologies for missing it in earlier posts.

"A ship operates under the laws of its flag state, and these laws are used if the ship is involved in an admiralty case."

.. is this the case with aircraft? Genuine question as I don't know. Maritime law won't apply to aircraft but are there similar \ identical regulations in the aviation industry? That might well be the crux of the case.

Juan Tugoh

10th Dec 2010, 10:46

I disagree that this is union bashing, the union is doing it's job quite correctly in representing it's members. Some of the best work that Arthur Scargill did was as the Welfare Officer of the NUM, does that mean that he served the miners well by taking them out on strike in the 80's? You can admire the work he did looking after miner's welfare but see that he also helped to destroy their longer term welfare by destroying their jobs.

Whatever the result of the court case today the repercussions will be played out in the industrial relations of the time of the ruling not the ones extant at the time of the original case.

The issue is which country's law has supremacy. If the Chinese government were to make a law that insisted that cabin crew had to retire at 45 would that apply to UK cabin crew? This issue cannot been seen in isolation and while it does not relate directly to the current dispute it is inevitably going to be affected by the current dispute.

The irony is that UNITE may well win this case to the detriment of many UK workers and indeed to their own members at BA. If the HK base becomes too expensive as a result of this case it will be shut and those crew members will be replaced by MF, who at present have no representation by UNITE within BA. So they win the battle and lose the war.

Entaxei

10th Dec 2010, 10:53

Thinking further on the Ms Mak case, if at the time that her contract was put into place, Hong Kong was still a crown colony, then very likely UK law would have applied to HK legal matters, and would be the governing law for the contract. With regard to the term of retirement at 45, this could well have been a normal period of employment in HK for that particular activity at the time of contract - in any case this ruling would then only have an effect limited to similar employment contracts commencing prior to the Chinese takeover.

With regard to "union bashing"; in the present political climate of the unions rising up en masse against the government and calling for multiple industrial action, and the current state of the union/branches involved in the BA dispute who seem to be following this lead, I find it very hard, if not impossible to find any trace of any element involved who appear to be actively looking after their members interests, other than trying to claim that all those dismissed were playing harmless jokes and nobody should suffer any loss for going on strike.

However the Bassa members subs still appear to be losing 5% on the way through the branch, nobody appears to have any accounts or published rules & regulations and of course a ballot of the membership would seem to be the last resort for deciding to do anything in either branch or union.

And This is a democratic union setup, run by the members and for the benefit of the members ??? - and no disparaging word should be said ?:ugh:

rethymnon

10th Dec 2010, 10:53

can i suggest that we are woefully short of a full set of facts here? there are parallels between maritime and aviation law and i find it surprising that an employee on a local contract should expect its terms to be adjudicated subject to the laws of another jurisdiction. in that sense, i am on the side of those who cite the (enormous) implications if this has wider application. any multi-national firm can reasonably expect that its locally recruited and based employees would be subject to the labour laws of that territory. equally, the government of that territory has every right to be offended if a foreign court decides otherwise.

we must be missing something here; there is an element we cannot see that pursuades unite to pursue this and for a court to agree with them.

there is a contradiction also in those, on the other thread, who are advocating that this is the correct interpretation. if, as cc say, their job is so stressful- anti social hours, exposure to radiation etc-not to mention difficult passengers and bullying management- surely there is a case for a lower retirement age? rather like the armed forces, the police and the fire service.

should not unite be campaigning for a universal 45 retirement or redeployment to a less front-line role? I have recently used a european airline on several occasions, where there is clearly no early retirement for cabin crew. it is only a slight exaggeration to say, as a retiree myself, there have been times when i have been tempted to offer my seat to the cabin crew out of courtesy. i think unite are fighting the wrong battle.

Hipennine

10th Dec 2010, 11:00

So, is Ryanair correct in stating that their French workers should be on Irish contracts ?

BetterByBoat

10th Dec 2010, 11:26

I think it would be limited to cabin crew \ pilots - those who actually work on board UK registered aircraft. The correlation that appears to be being used is with maritime law around registration of vessels, flags of convenience and which countries laws are applicable - e.g. where the vessel is registered is key.

It does seem to a dodgy route to be taking ... how easy is it register aircraft in another country, say even within the EU, that has worse local T & Cs and then apply those local T & Cs to all cabin crew and pilots?

just an observer

10th Dec 2010, 11:34

any multi-national firm can reasonably expect that its locally recruited and based employees would be subject to the labour laws of that territory

I doubt there are laws in HK/China that women should retire at 45, CC or otherwise. If it's only the enforced retirement that this court case is about, good luck to them.

BetterByBoat

10th Dec 2010, 11:46

Sadly it isn't about the "pension" or "forced retirement" - it goes far further than that. I would certainly agree that it is morally wrong for BA (any employer) to do this. But why use UK courts to fight it when the employees are based in Hong Kong, reside in Hong Kong and have no connection to the UK at all (the answer to that is in other posts above this one).

"Unite, the largest union in the country, will be arguing that the airline must apply UK law to its Hong Kong-based female cabin crew"

vctenderness

10th Dec 2010, 11:59

What I find puzzling about this is that the Hong Kong crew have never been represented by BASSA/Amicus in BA. They had/have their own union in HKG.

BASSA did sign up a number of ICC's some years ago but BA refused to acknowledge that they were represented by BASSA.

The South American based crew did belong to the TGWU going back decades to BCAL.

The Narita based crew are represented by their Japanese union and they get some pretty good deals. I guess they would not be happy if this case is won and BA put them on UK T&C's.

Betty girl

10th Dec 2010, 12:05

Bettybyboat,
That does happen, all Ryanair planes are registered in Ireland and whatever base they are based at and whatever nationality of crew that fly on them, they use Irish rules and laws.

UK Qantas crew work to Australian laws of Aviation because they work on Australian planes.

In this case, we are of course, only talking about air crew who only work on UK Aircraft and not the millions of people that work for foreign companies or UK companies in foreign countries.

I don't see how bringing BA HK based cabin crews retirement age up to that of a normal retirement age can affect all these companies as you say but I have lost the will to live over this now.

I am going to leave this debate now because to be honest some of you think you are experts on everything and I feel the Unions and the UK courts and UK legislate are actually the experts.
Vct
Where has it been said that anyone is trying to put HK crew on UK terms and condition? They just want to retire when all other crew do including other International crew. Obviously some of them are members of Unite. You can be a member of a union even if it does not have bargaining rights for you, they can still represent you.

call100

10th Dec 2010, 13:18

With regard to "union bashing"; in the present political climate of the unions rising up en masse against the government and calling for multiple industrial action, and the current state of the union/branches involved in the BA dispute who seem to be following this lead, I find it very hard, if not impossible to find any trace of any element involved who appear to be actively looking after their members interests, other than trying to claim that all those dismissed were playing harmless jokes and nobody should suffer any loss for going on strike.

If your only information is gleaned from the Daily Mail, Telegraph etc then that is how you would see it. However, in the real world you are all so fond of quoting, the TU's look after thousands of cases daily. They and their legal departments do far more good than harm for many ordinary members who don't give a toss about the politics.
It's easy to generalise and doesn't exactly take any intelligence. It would be easy to say that British Management are some of the worst in the world. Although true of a large minority of British Managers it would not be fair or useful to generalise and put them all in the same boat.
BASSA screwed up and the Top table compounded it......It certainly doesn't affect many Union members in other industries. In fact you will find that life just goes on and they wouldn't know or care about what is happening at BA. They have far more to worry about. ...:ugh:

Juan Tugoh

10th Dec 2010, 13:24

the TU's look after thousands of cases daily. They and their legal departments do far more good than harm for many ordinary members who don't give a toss about the politics

You are absolutely spot on here Call100, this is where the true value of a union lies.

beerdrinker

10th Dec 2010, 14:18

Bassa have been involved in two court cases this week:
HKG Stewardess and
Malone leave to appeal.

Does anybody know what happened?

Also, BA and Unite were due to meet together with ACAS on Monday. Again is there any news?

keel beam

10th Dec 2010, 20:30

I may be looking at this in a simplified manner, but if 2 parties sign a contract that is within the scope of a country's law that is fine. If one signee of the contract wants to vary it then it is done through negotiation to the satisfaction of both parties?

The suggestions by some are implying, as an example, if I signed up for a 12 month contract and it ends after 12 months, why should I complain that this is not fair and then take the company to court to argue I should be on a longer contract?

Likewise the retirement issue.

Betty Girl, I see what you are arguing but at the end of the day it is a contract (a local one at that)

If there is a law in China at the time of this lady's retirement said that this was illegal then the Union should be taking it up in the chinese courts.

Many staff around the world that are employed by BA are on local contracts. Are you going to tell those in the UAE, for example, that they must take a pay cut to the UK rates and pay UK tax. I can see that going down like a lead balloon.

Do you remember a few years back a number of stewardesses (CSDs I think) took BA to court because they were forced to retire at 55. They lost the case because there was nothing in law that said people could stay on until 65 if they wished. A couple of years later the law changed to what we have now. Then, IIRC, there were complaints that the Cabin Crew could not retire at 55 on FULL pension, they would have to wait until they were 65.

Personally if I had the opportunity to retire at 55 on full pension, I would take it (and yes I know that crew paid more into the pension scheme so that they could get the full pension benefits on retirement. I would have liked to have done the same)

BetterByBoat

11th Dec 2010, 07:59

This appears not to be about local contracts or who signed what and when - this seems to be about whether the aviation industry has the same sort of legal obligations as the maritime industry. A UK registered vessel must abide by UK law (no matter what contracts are signed or when or where - an illegal contract is null and void). Hence the widespread use of "Flags of Convenience" and some nations even setting up Second Registrations so that you can register a vessel in your home country but still not have that vessel abiding by the home country law - e.g. Norway, Denmark and Germany. This allows for the use of cheap labour, less rigourous safety standards etc.

The big question (I think) is whether the same applies to a UK registered aircraft?

So for instance, if a HK based cabin crew employee was injured whilst working on a UK registered based plane, would any subsequent legal action take place under UK or HK based law? Or to take it a step further, do non-UK basesd employees working on UK registered aircraft have the same "protection" as UK based employees?

Betty Girl has given a good explanation of why the courts might find against BA.

Joao da Silva

11th Dec 2010, 08:33

I may be looking at this in a simplified manner

I fear that you are right, as there are so many HR laws/regulations these days that sometimes it is difficult to even have a high level of confidence in one's ability to comply with all.

Add to this the fact that BA has lost at two tribunals and perhaps the safest conculsion is that we don't know what the outcome will be.

As they say in your country, it will come out in the wash.

Juan Tugoh

11th Dec 2010, 10:10

Litebulbs

11th Dec 2010, 11:11

Read the case -

British Airways Plc v Mak & Ors [2010] UKEAT 0055_09_2001 (20 January 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2010/0055_09_2001.html)

Betty girl

11th Dec 2010, 11:35

I can see from that, that it is not about the fact that she works on a UK registered aircraft. Thanks Litebulbs.

It seems to be about the fact that she spends other time working in the UK, like turnaround times and training so the result of this case would NOT affect other companies with overseas staff except airlines of course.

Just from a perspective of fairness to these girls I really do think a fair outcome would be for them to be able to retire when other crew do and I am glad that the union has been able to make a case for this in whatever way is legally possible.

AV Flyer

11th Dec 2010, 12:49

I have no knowledge of the intricacies of employment law in the airline industry but, like JdS, as an employer I am aware there different rules of evidence and onus of proof between employment tribunals and the courts with the former being more pro-employee and the latter being more pro-employer.

Just because two tribunals have decided against BA I suspect that BA has driven the appeal to the high court to actually get a legal ruling on the matter which may be more in its favour.

Don't get me started on tribunals where I've been found guilty of constructive unfair dismissal against a former employee who was openly stealing company tools and property in front of my nose! I didn't actually dismiss the guy but attempted to operate within the law and clip his wings a little to stop the thieving. Alas, apparently I did not follow the correct procedures - the fact that the individual was a brazen thief was of no interest whatsoever to the liberally-minded, do-goody, tribunal. What made it worse was, as a small employer, I had to pay for legal representation whereas this individual had an entire slew of government-funded resources advising on his rights and what he was entitled to that didn't cost him one pretty penny.

Now he has our tools, our stock, six month's pay and it cost him nothing whatsoever. I couldn't dream-up more efficient employment laws than we currently have to positively encourage employees to behave in this manner!

Hipennine

11th Dec 2010, 13:29

AV Flyer,

Using you experiences to return the thread on topic, Employment Tribunals are all about procedural fairness, not whether somebody deserves to be sacked (that is the law, not the views of individual tribunals), and this is exactly why BA is now being criticised by some non-strikers for not rewarding them, or them feeling unwanted. BA have to be very careful at the moment that they don't commit any low level procedural error that could be used by the strikers/union to BA's disadvantage. Your own unfortunate experience shows why it is more in the employers interests to rigorously follow procedures, and in some cases sack somebody rather than take a more conciliatory approach, and also leave well alone when a group of employees are being exceptionally helpful, because the risk is there that somebody will use this to bite back using Tribunal rules.

It is immoral that a thief can harness the power of the law and public funding to "rob" the employer again. However, it can work both ways - you can "fairly" sack individuals or groups for the most flimsiest or immoral reasons, but as long as it is procedurally "fair", a Tribunal has to find in the employers favour.

BA has initialy played it by the book in suspending CC who have been inculcated in any way with some of the bullying, harassment, repute, etc., etc. issues. They have also used process fairly to find some of the suspended "not guilty" without any change to their employement status (or perhaps then invoked lesser disciplinary action than dismissal if partially guilty). That all smacks of an employer who now recognises that they have to play by the book, even if some of the good guys think that they are being unreasonable.

TorC

14th Dec 2010, 17:06

BA handed notice of new cabin crew strike vote - News & Advice, Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ba-handed-notice-of-new-cabin-crew-strike-vote-2160367.html)

Mariner9

14th Dec 2010, 18:46

No attempt whatsoever it seems to seperate the forthcoming ballot from the current dispute.

I guess Unite are calling either or both of BA and BASSA/CC89's bluff.

Will be very interesting to see what communications are passed to their members with the ballot. Will it contain any warning that stike action will most likely be unprotected and the possible consequences of this?

Neptunus Rex

14th Dec 2010, 19:21

Should this nonsense go ahead, BA will wait in the wings, then, after several days of strike action (which will not have any noticeable effect the flying schedule) their lawyers will pounce. Strikers will be sacked, but, of course, the real troublemakers will not have gone on strike. They will be on leave, or off sick, or skulking down route, leaving the poor cannon fodder to take the rap.

Predictable? You bet.

LD12986

14th Dec 2010, 21:02

The turnout will be interesting.

If there is strike action, I don't think the company will sack strikers. It will want to retain the moral high ground in this dispute. However, there is still the risk of the company making a claim for damages against the union.

Dairyground

14th Dec 2010, 23:48

Strikers will be sacked, but, of course, the real troublemakers will not have gone on strike. They will be on leave, or off sick, or skulking down route, leaving the poor cannon fodder to take the rap.

But does the ballot and notice period not give BA time to ensure thatknown troublemakers are rostered to report for new trips early in possible strike periods? And to deny new requests for lengthy spells of leave around that time?

Real sickness cannot, of course be controlled, but should be capable of being verified.

keel beam

15th Dec 2010, 00:48

Dairyground

I am sure BA could arrange the roster so that the BASSA hierachy are flying through the proposed strike dates. As the strike dates are not announced it will be a hit and miss affair. Some will get caught out others will not. So not 100% foolproof

AV Flyer

15th Dec 2010, 02:47

keel beam - In response to your post on the CC thread regarding BASSA & Unite's latest strike issue over BA employing MF CC on lower pay/Ts&Cs thus showing they still believe that they are running the airline, with the news (at last!) of the strike ballot it is now clearer than ever that BA simply has no choice whatsoever but to hold its ground until BASSA is defeated.

If BA were to settle with BASSA's leadership (and most militant members) still intact then a monumental victory would be claimed by BASSA and they would simply keep kicking-up again and again at the slightest opportunity.

Although my instincts agree with LD12986 that BA would not want to lose the moral high ground by sacking strikers, the extreme nature of BASSA's position may well require BA to take this action in finally crushing this power crazed entity.

MCOflyer

15th Dec 2010, 04:02

Great thought. Proof that with age comes wisdom.

keel beam

15th Dec 2010, 04:10

AV Flyer

I agree with you that BA have no choice but to go through with it.

I think it is a fair bet that the vast majority of non cabin crew employees of BA want the Cabin Crew situation to be sorted, with the kid gloves off.

The BASSA "Leadership" team have shown through the years that they are not capable of negotiating, they are just bratish kids that want their own way, all the time.

Will this latest strike ballot lead, finally, to the finishing of the dispute? I hope so.

I would not want anyone sacked for being legally on strike, but these dis-satisfied people really need to think whether the job is for them in its present and future form. Shape up or ship out!

Ancient Observer

15th Dec 2010, 13:23

We customers of BA who take an interest in this dispute must admire the recent stunning achievements of bassa.

"We now want to go on strike again in order to regain the 4 things that we lost last time we went on strike, when we lost 22 days pay. Oh, er, also, we now want to negotiate about that new crew thing that we have refused to negotiate about before".

Don't you just love it???

Bassa's achievements in the past over useless BA managers included pay levels of up to UKP80,000 for alleged supervisors. I'm not sure they'll ever gain anything ever again.

mr87

15th Dec 2010, 14:11

Hello everyone, I'm a passenger that's come on here for a bit of reassurance I guess... lucky me, I have a flight booked for January 30th, Long Haul from Heathrow - looks like it'll be slap-bang in the first phase of the new strike.

I know BA say they'll fly 100% long haul - is this a realistic prospect or is it time to consider serious disruption? I only ask because it's vitally important I fly on that day, and people on here seem very knowledgeable about this dispute. From the reading of the thread, it seems things look positive, but, as I say above, reassurance would be helpful as well!

Many thanks!

Snas

15th Dec 2010, 15:15

Mr87 --

Any reassurance you get from here isn’t really worth the screen space it’s typed on, not really.

Having said that, I don’t have any concerns about my own flights (LH) during that period – make of that what you will.

I guess my point is that us in here have a view but it is not really worth much more than that however informed that view may or may not be.
I hate to repeat what’s often shouted out in times of disruption but, “speak to your airline” and gather reassurance from them.

Whatever happens I wish you good luck matey, flights aint cheap and none of us book them just for the joy of it, we all have to get somewhere after all, it’s no small thing when it goes wrong.

Llademos

15th Dec 2010, 15:42

Mr87

I disagree (politely) with Snas. BA has said they will operate 100% of LH and, while they may have many faults, overpromising coverage is not one of them. If your flight is cancelled it will not be due to the strike.

Ll

call100

15th Dec 2010, 16:05

If your flight is cancelled it will not be due to the strike.
Well that won't be the reason given.....:)

LD12986

15th Dec 2010, 17:24

baggersup, There is a link to a page on the front page of ba.com with an update following yesterday's announcement.

As to whether BA will meet its promise of a 100% long haul operation at LHR, last time it under promised and over delivered. That said, I expect Unite to not waste any time in calling strike dates and they will go for the end of January to overshadow the launch of IAG. This traditionally a very quiet time for travel so some long hauls on high frequency routes could be consolidated.

jethrobee

15th Dec 2010, 17:24

Mr87, the ballot finishes on the 21st, but I am not sure how long it would take them to count up the votes and verify them.

I would expect that the result would take some days to be announced because based on the previous legal goings on Unite are going to be extremely careful to check and double check before announcing.

They do have to give 7 days notice of a strike, so it is extremely close, assuming of course that you dont believe that BA will operate 100% Long Haul services as they have stated.

I have a flight going long haul just before you, and at this point im not worried.

BetterByBoat

15th Dec 2010, 17:42

Mr 187 - How many flights per day do BA have to your destination? Less profitable routes will go before more profitable ones ... routes with multiple flights per day might well get some consolidation.

A target of 100% Long haul means just that ... a target. No guarantees. In fact no airline will be able to guarantee you get away that day as the aircraft may have technical issues \ there could be weather delays etc. But you are taking an additional risk with the strike as well and, personally, if you have to fly that day then I would look elsewhere. Nobody on here knows anything yet and won't until after any strike dates are announced so asking on the forum is, sadly, pointless.

Ultimately it is your call. You have to live with the decision.

cavortingcheetah

15th Dec 2010, 17:43

If there is to be a strike I would predict that it will include the dates February 21st to 25th. That weekend pretty much coincides with the spring term half term. There could be great execution among skiers. This could appeal to Tony Woodley whose sympathies quite probably do not lie with the middle classes.

Neptunus Rex

15th Dec 2010, 18:23

Whilst Brother Woodley's publicly expressed sympathies might not be with the middle classes, his salary and lifestyle most certainly are.
Hasn't he done well for a Scouser who left school at 15 to become a steamship steward.

MPN11

15th Dec 2010, 18:39

@ mr87 ... we flew BA in the Spring, LHR-IAD, through 2 lots of strikes. Outbound the 3 daily flights were initially consolidated into one, and then they were all re-instated at the last minute once they knew how many CC were actually turning up for work.. Same thing happened on the way home 3 weeks later - one flight, then at the last minute all 3 operating.

We're outbound on the same route just before Easter, and we have absolutely no doubt that BA will get us there and back.

No guarantees, of course, just stating what happened to us. Depends on your route, and number of flights, as BetterByBoat noted. If you are booked for a once a week flight to an obscure destination ... you'll probably be one of the guaranteed, IMO. It's the people served by multiple flights per day who are likely to bear the first cuts/consolidations [if any]. That way, BA can say they served 100% of long-haul destinations.

IMO, E&OE ;)

finncapt

15th Dec 2010, 18:58

Perhaps this announcing a ballot is all to win the Christmas hearts and minds.

We will probably hear, next week, it's been delayed due to "technical problems".

The Guardian and Independent will give it prominent coverage.

At least BASSA haven't released a Christmas record.

Am I cynical?

Rollingthunder

15th Dec 2010, 21:23

Runner up TFL, London Underground.
Fed up with both and I don't even live there at the moment.

mr87

15th Dec 2010, 21:32

Thank you for offering your thoughts. I'm not bothered if I'm pushed onto another flight through consolidation or whatever, as long as I can get to my destination! I guess there's a lot of unknowns up in the air at the moment and you've just got to carry on planning your trip and listening for any updates. For the most part, I'm pretty reassured that there's a good chance that things will be fine, so thank you very much! :)

notlangley

16th Dec 2010, 09:20

I am very sceptical about this information which suggests that Tony Woodley may not be around to guide the strike._ Can anyone confirm or refute the following?
Unite join general secretary Tony Woodley has told colleagues on the TUC general council that he is retiring early at the end of January 2011. The leader of the UK's biggest union was expected to stay in post for another year.
He paves the way for his friend the newly elected Len McCluskey to have a clear run as the first general secretary of the whole merged union.
The other joint general secretary Derek Simpson is also retiring.

Reference:-__link (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/Woodley_announces_hes_going_early/)

SamYeager

16th Dec 2010, 15:58

I am very sceptical about this information which suggests that Tony Woodley may not be around to guide the strike. Perhaps he can see the way the wind is blowing and wants to get out whilst the going is good and leave "brave" Len to take the blame? Another factor may be that since he lost any goodwill that he might have had with BA over the last offer he knows it's not worth going back to them?

AV Flyer

17th Dec 2010, 09:54

We've heard continual mutterings regarding a Union strike ballot for so long now I can't remember when it was first mentioned. It was certainly way before the infamous 10/10/10/10/..... which is well over two months ago now.

With the recent speculative news that TW (and maybe DS) is (are) retiring early, am I the only one who has the feeling that BASSA is pushing an extremely reluctant Unite to call a strike ballot with Unite not having the guts to tell BASSA where to get off?

I have this feeling that Unite quite correctly think the whole matter to be suicidal both for BASSA and for themselves given both the overall lack of support and the potential liabilites they will incur should they be found responsible for calling an illegal, or at the very least an unprotected, strike action. Indeed, Unite may have already received a private warning shot across its bows to this effect from BA's lawyers.

As we have seen from the recent militant CC's comments, BASSA don't see it this way at all. On make-believe planet BASSA they know the "majority" of CC are prepared to go out on strike ("just like last time") and, with only a few more "sausages" to join them, WW will capitulate as he is under pressure to resolve this "personal" matter directly with "super-important" BASSA before he "leaves" BA.

I could see a Unite/BASSA split happening way before any strike action happens and, with the current state of affairs, maybe even before a strike ballot begins.

Under the present circumstances, and rather than telling BASSA where to get off, should Unite be trying to resolve matters by attempting to engage BA into yet further negotiated concessions to appease BASSA then BA would be a complete fool to fall for this. I cannot imagine Unite hearing anything other than a rebuff from BA swiftly followed by a suggestion that any further attempts to threaten strike action to damage the airline will result in the current extremely generous offer being withdrawn forthwith.

Wirbelsturm

17th Dec 2010, 11:26

The rumour on the streets at work (BA) is that both TW and DS are retiring sooner rather than later thus leaving the entire running of the show on the hands of Looney Left Wing Len McKlusky who romped to victory in the elections securing a massive 14% of the members support. Just goes to show how bothered the other parts of Unite are about their new Leader. A socialist who hails Hugo Chavez and the state running of all major industries as his drivers he is well placed to direct the 'bruvverhood' to the Dole Queue as this is exactly what he achieved, with the help of Derek Hatton, to the dock workers in Liverpool.

As to those passengers wondering about flights during strikes. From my perspective (flight crew) I feel that the company will be running the vast majority of both LH and SH services. Perhaps with slightly reduced frequency on the busier routes. Be aware that there are thousands of good, hard working and professional Cabin Crew who have left BASSA over this mess and many who never joined in the first place. They will be working. The Volunteers will be working. Those of us that take pride in our company and product will be working.

So, we'll do our absolute best. :E

Ancient Observer

17th Dec 2010, 11:56

Once upon a time in the UK, journalists used to investigate things, and expose in the media all sorts of corruption in TUs, the Labour Party, and big business.

No more, it would seem. I worked in the Liverpool area when Looney Len and Hatton were running mad in the North West. Even the Ginger Pillock, (oh, OK, Neil Kinnock) was moved to say that they were totally, utterly, mad.

Where are those journalists now? Why haven't they exposed Len's background?? Er, they are scared to.

As for Woodley, he'll go back to what really interests him - running Vauxhall Motors soccer club. Unite has been a distraction for him for too long.
Official Vauxhall Motors Football Club Website (http://www.vmfc.com/pages.php?page_id=190)

Yet again, those CC that are hard working and that care for BA and its customers will be let down by this TU for someone else's political agenda.

AV Flyer

17th Dec 2010, 16:51

Unfortunately the questionnaire will in all certainty back-fire with the militants and just give them the impression that BA is continuing to bend over backwards rewarding their continuing hissy-fits and bad behaviour thus effectively achieving nothing towards and even possibly delaying settlement by encouraging them to push for more.

The only thing it may achieve is to gain some support from the non-militant sit-on-the-fencers to encourage them to actually think about what is going on and the quality of the offer currently on the table and vote against strike action thus deflating the militants further who would still claim a resounding and crushing victory even if two out of three total votes cast were in favour of strike action!

Warm and fuzzy as it may sound, I'm not sure this is such a good move by BA assuming the goal is to bring stability back to all stakeholders in this matter in the shortest possible time.

Joao da Silva

17th Dec 2010, 16:56

Wirbelsturm

I have just cancelled three club world reservations in the new yeat today.

Whilst I understand that you and your colleagues will do your best (and I do generally have good experiences with BA), it is simply not acceptable for the threat of strike action to be hanging around 12 months on.

Your company is in a highly competitive market and your senior management need to get a grip and restore stability as a matter of urgency. By this I do not mean go running to the unions with lots of concessions.

The communications are lacking at the moment, no commercial policy for those who may be affected (luckily I had flexible tickets) and only vague promises of 'aims' for various services.

Just not acceptable.

I am not going to accept any extra degree of risk to my business travels, when I do not need to.

When sanity is restored, I will come back.

Chuchinchow

17th Dec 2010, 17:04

When sanity is restored, I will come back.

Thank you, JdS, for that gracious concession. I am quite sure that British Airways will manage without your custom in the meanwhile.

In the pomposity stakes, the statement quoted above comes a whisker behindFor example BA (not bashing the company, but quoting a fact) cancels domestic services first when there is disruption, because the travellers have other options!

Sporran

17th Dec 2010, 17:58

Chuchinchow,

Your comment about the 'pompous' statement regarding cancelling domestic services is correct. As a S/H captain in BA I have always understood the rationale for this - even if my 'name' suggests I do not fully agree with policy.

For JdS to make the statement that BA senior management need to 'get a grip' is a bit rich. I am CERTAIN that he has never had to deal with such an intransigent bunch of pampered loonys, as the bassa militants.

No amount of stick (or carrot) works with these total imbeciles.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I would personally like to see a VERY BIG STICK used on these creeps, but thankfully I am not running the company.

notlangley

17th Dec 2010, 18:13

Unite have made the following announcement that ensures that Tony Woodley can continue his work in connection with BASSA, cc89 & BATony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite, the country's biggest union, has today (Friday) announced that he will step down from that office on January 31, 2011.

Announcing Tony Woodley's new role as Unite's executive officer for organising, general secretary-elect, Len McCluskey said: "Tony Woodley will be rightly regarded as one of the defining union leaders of modern times. It was not be easy for him to make this decision but it is testimony to Tony that he believes that to do so is in the best interests of our union.
"I am delighted to say that Tony will carry on contributing to Unite's work. His role as Unite's executive officer for organising will help this union deliver on its pledge to stop the most vicious attacks on the lives of working people for generations."

Tony Woodley will also continue to lead on the union's attempts to settle the BA dispute.

Reference_______link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/new_role_for_tony_woodley_uni.aspx)

notlangley

17th Dec 2010, 18:20

Tony Woodley will stay in his new office until he reaches the age of 65.

MPN11

17th Dec 2010, 19:08

@ Joao da Silva ... I had the same feelings a year ago, when I stopped my Company booking with BA. Since then, BA has shown it is capable of delivering, despite the disruptive activity of some CC. My restriction was lifted some months ago. You are, of course, free to make your own decisions.

@ CCC ... you're a perpetual tinker, aren't you? :cool:

@ notlangley ... thanks for the updates on Unite, proving that experience can only be gained by those who wish to learn. :ok:

Wirbelsturm

17th Dec 2010, 19:15

When sanity is restored, I will come back.

Understandably that is the viewpoint of many of the business class customers who rely upon their flight departing as planned. Personally I have to say I would tend to agree with that sentiment.

Which is why this entire sorry mess needs to be sorted out now and the short term pain lived with to prevent the ridiculous mess that has been the CC flash walkouts for the past decades based on nebulous excuses.

BASSA need taking down a peg or three and the running of the company given back to those who know what they are doing and not those flexing Union muscles.

Joao da Silva

17th Dec 2010, 20:19

Which is why this entire sorry mess needs to be sorted out now and the short term pain lived with to prevent the ridiculous mess that has been the CC flash walkouts for the past decades based on nebulous excuses.I agree with you, the 'wait it out' strategy may have been appropriate for a certain length of time, but now it starts to look tired and is (IMHO) very unfair to those on inflexible tickets, who may be caught between a rock and a hard place.

For JdS to make the statement that BA senior management need to 'get a grip' is a bit rich. I am CERTAIN that he has never had to deal with such an intransigent bunch of pampered loonys, as the bassa militants. You are quite correct, I have never had to deal with such a situation and I would never accept an appointment with a company where anyone other than the board sets the direction of the strategy and makes the operational decision. I would have to ask questions about how some of the former board members of BA take their pensions and concessions and sleep at nights.

However, unlike you Sporran, I am a board director of a global company. On the other hand, you will notice that I do not make posts advising you how to operate an aircraft.

So far from being 'a bit rich', I am only commenting on an area where I have earned the right to have an opinion.

Sporran

17th Dec 2010, 20:55

JdS,

I was not casting aspertions about you, or your business abilities. I apologise if that is how you appear to have taken them.

My only comment - was that I did not think you would have had to deal with such a bunch of complete militant prats as bassa. That you agreed with!!

I also totally agree with you that 'enough is enough' regarding 'the wait it out' type strategy. Alas, we are not privy to the intelligence these senior managers have access to.

BA are an excellent company to work for - so I for one wish these senior chaps the best in sorting out the bassa low-life's ASAP!!!

PS. Have a very merry Christmas!!!:D:D:D

Joao da Silva

17th Dec 2010, 21:04

Sporran

No aspersions inferred, just being clear about my position.

I do like BA as an airline and wish you all well for the future, it is rare that I have a poor experience in the air and long may it continue.

Merry Christmas to you, as well :ok:

Swissflyer

18th Dec 2010, 09:50

Watching while once again BA is shutting down its operation at a peak travel time causes me to wonder how much of this is not just the result of weather, de-icing problems and airport congestion, but rather the fact that a large number of commuting crew are unable to get to the airport.

Cabin crew or pilots living in Scotland, Manchester or Chamonix will be snug in their homes and chalets without any possibility of getting to LHR or LGW. The sick notes should be "flying" in by now.

finncapt

18th Dec 2010, 10:22

Swissflyer

I think the problems today are somewhat greater than those of BA.

There is absolutely no point in investing in the infrastructure, to support keeping the country running, when the sort of weather that is being experienced today lasts for a short number of days and happens, maybe, in 20% of years at most.

I live in Finland and we have had snow, about 50cm in Helsinki, for several weeks now and I doubt it will be gone before the end of March or middle of April.

So, yes, we cope but it costs the taxpayer dearly.

The proportion of cabin crew who commute is probably less than 10% and, even if they were all rostered today and couldn't make it, I doubt that the impact on the BA operation would be noticed by SLF.

Having spent my entire career, at the pointy end, in BA I can assure you that most staff make every effort to attend at times like those of today.

Edited to note you live in Geneva.

Skylion

18th Dec 2010, 10:31

With the falling snow ,BA have cancelled their entire Heathrow departure programme today from 1000 to 1700. Other operators appear to be operating as close to normal as possible, albeit with delays. Blanket cancellations in times of uncertainty have been "The BA way" or "Policy" for some time now , rendering them the least good choice of airline out of their home base on such occasions. Does anyone have any idea what prompted today's decision? Anything to do with industrial relations?

hautemude

18th Dec 2010, 11:29

And what a sensible decision BA took, having taken careful note of the Met forecasts, it was plain to see that heavy delays would occur and I see that the latest met actual says airport closed by snow. Even if by some unlikely Herculean effort, the airport had been kept open, the visibility (RVR) has for some time been low enough to require auto land approaches which in their turn lead to longer & longer delays because of increased a/c separation requirements. Hopefully most potential BA pax have the chance to remain in their homes or hotels. To try and link this weather to the machinations of cabin crew is mischievous.

AV Flyer

18th Dec 2010, 11:35

BA's questionnaire may be a precursor to BA justifying laying-off CC when the time comes.

It is clear now that positions have become entrenched and therefore way beyond anyone's ability to change striking CC's minds by reasoned and factual argument. These CC are blindly following their leaders who, as we all know, will only settle when power over the control of BA's IFCE operations is returned to them.

It's kind of the opposite of the Union's strike ballot whereby only the militants vote so are always in the majority of votes cast. In this case the questionnaire will only be returned by non-strikers verifying that what it will take to end the dispute is largely met by the terms in BA's current offer and thus representing the majority of questionnaires returned.

This would open the door to BA using the same tactic as the Union but in reverse to claim a resounding and crushing majority of questionnaires returned in favour of the current (or even a slightly modified after reflecting on the feed-back received) offer while, most importantly, not appearing to be encouraging CC to leave the Union.

The axe can then be dropped justifiably on the heads of the militants.

The militant's hissy-fits in jumping up and down stamping on their questionnaires are thus playing perfectly into BA's hands. What they should be doing is returning them with clear, well enunciated and erudite reasons to end the dispute, however, it would sound just a little too grandiose to write "when, as CC, I am given the control powers of the CEO over all of BA's operations!" so they'll choose not to return them instead.

Redcap49

18th Dec 2010, 11:36

Hautemude
Totally agree with you.The cancellation of the BA operation at Heathrow today has absolutely nothing to do with industrial relations as Skylion has intimated.
The snow that has fallen today is unprecedented and there is no way that with the manpower and de-icing rigs available could they have hoped to have succeeded in operating normally.

PAXboy

18th Dec 2010, 13:14

BBC read online @ 14:12Heathrow and Gatwick airports were forced to close all runways amid severe Met Office warnings for parts of London, the Home Counties and Surrey.

Airports in Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands are also suffering cancellations and delays.I live in the Northern Home County of Hertfordshire and we have not had snow like this in 20 years. I have to take a train later and, guess what, trains are being cancelled. Nothing to do with anything but the snow.

Shall we get back on topic ...

AV Flyer

18th Dec 2010, 14:23

Shall we get back on topic ...

I'm trying to!

notlangley

18th Dec 2010, 17:28

I disagree with Avflyer who says (18 Dec 2010, 12:35) of the Union's strike ballot thatonly the militants vote so are always in the majority of votes cast

There were only two occasions this year that the Electoral Reform Service was used for a ballot of Heritage Cabin Crew members of Unite._ When the ERS do a ballot this produces an authenticated number for the HCC union members.

1) In the opening months of this year there was a vote to strike._ The largest block was those who voted to strike - this accounted for 63% of the 11,691 ballot papers that were distributed._ This was a clear and decisive majority of all members of Unite on this Strike ballot.

1.1) After delays because of Court Hearings the British Airways cabin crew went on strike from 18-22 May, 24-28 May, 30 May 30-3 June and 5-9 June 2010 (there had also been six days of IA in March)._ The votes for this industrial action had previously been declared by ERS on 22 Feb 2010._ I have arranged those voting figures in the form of a table._ "Total" = number of ballot papers issued._ "Yes" = vote to strike._ "No" = vote not to strike._ "Spoiled" = spoiled ballot papers._ "Not returned" = ballot papers not returned for reasons unknown (which presumably includes the difficulty on long-haul duties to keep up to date with surface mail).

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11691_ 7482 __1789___11______2409
Percentages__________100%_-_64.0%_15.3%__0.1%___20.6%

2) In July 2010 there was a vote about the New Contract offered by BA._ The largest block was those who did not vote - this accounted for more than 54% of the 11,311 ballot papers that were distributed._ The interpretation of the various numbers was consequently a topic of some controversy.

_____________________Total___Yes___No___Spoiled_Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11311__1686__3419___3______6203
Percentages__________ 100%_-15.0%_30.2%_-0.03%__54.8%

My opinion
Those who did not return their ballot papers in this "New Contract" vote have been labelled apathetic._ If it were me (except that I am a PAX) I possibly would have been one of those who did not return the ballot paper._ Certainly the New Contract was an important issue._ But what exactly did the words mean?_ If it were a contract that I was expected to work to, I would have needed the advice of a solicitor (or equivalent) to enable me to understand the meaning and consequences of the clauses of the contract._ And what advice did cabin crew have?_ Well they had BASSA whose chairman had already been criticised by a judge for giving wrong advice._ They also had Unite whose Joint Secretary had lost his reputation as a source of knowledge and judgement by his foolhardy prophesy that he could get Staff Travel back in five minutes.

Please don’t label cabin crew as apathetic._ They are intelligent, conscientious, hard working people who deserve a better quality of advice than they have been receiving.
　　
Reference for 1) is paragraph number 8 of:-__link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/669.html)
Reference for 2) is:-__link (http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BA_ballot_result_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf)

MPN11

18th Dec 2010, 17:44

Please don’t label cabin crew as apathetic._ They are intelligent, conscientious, hard working people who deserve a better quality of advice than they have been receiving.

A very useful post: thank you.
But ... Advice?

Rhetoric and falsehoods?: Yes.
Facts and Advice?: No.

That is the great sadness within all of this.
BA CC have been fed scribble, and told to ignore BA's messages.
Is it any wonder that people either don't know how to vote, or simply declare it "too difficult"?

I earnestly hope that BA CC will be spared this seemingly-everlasting disruption to their lives. BASSA seems to me to be completely 'off the plot', and Unite doesn't seem to have any control of proceedings [let alone anything resembling negotiation]. It is a tragedy ... and so completely pointless, IMO.

AV Flyer

18th Dec 2010, 22:36

notlangley - The CC are being given the advice they are from the very people they have chosen to elect. In choosing to elect them they cannot then say they are innocent, misled and ill-advised by their leaders. It is their job to elect someone else.

I'm sorry, but under these circumstances the label of apathetic is doubly relevant, firstly because they chose not to vote in their confusion and secondly because they don't replace the very leaders they have chosen who they recognise to be the source of that confusion.

Litebulbs

18th Dec 2010, 22:38

Or they believe and want them.

AV Flyer

18th Dec 2010, 22:56

In which case this whole affair, including the in-fighting between the Branches and between the Branches & Unite and between the JGS's of Unite itself along with the extremely low percentage poll that elected the new GS of Unite is a very poor indictment of the Trade Union process in general. Particularly as Unite is the largest union in the UK.

With the amount of power the unions have over their evidently misguided members' livelihoods then, just as with the CEOs and boards of public companies, the law must hold the leadership of unions to much higher standards than it currently does if we are to see stronger, more professional and truly representative unions in the future.

Litebulbs

18th Dec 2010, 23:09

To your first paragraph, I agree.

To the second, I do not. Why is it the top table at fault when TULRcA 1992 insists on secret ballots? BA no doubt know the membership levels through check off, so why not go through a campaign of raising awareness of the forthcoming ballot and incentivise people to vote.

notlangley

19th Dec 2010, 00:28

I'm sorry, but under these circumstances the label of apathetic is doubly relevant, firstly because they chose not to vote in their confusion and secondly because they don't replace the very leaders they have chosen who they recognise to be the source of that confusion.This is very well reasoned AV Flyer._ I really do appreciate the worth of what you have written._ I have emphasised with bold type the two words that enable me to hold back from acceptance.

If an industrial working group works inside a factory building, then their choice of shop steward is much nearer to being the responsibility of individuals than is possible if you have 10000 Cabin Crew who work in groups of a dozen and these groups are regularly reshuffled.

Governments are much more stable if they are single party governments._ But these eventually collapse with a revolution._ BASSA may collapse and be replaced by a new association that gradually becomes a cult.

Choice exists in democratic States - however because the electorate is large, the candidates are named by the political parties._ The parties are activist groups._ And consequently it is small activist groups that produce the short lists._ Multi-party States can persist for hundreds of years and crucially depend on the toleration of the multi-party system._ Within the cabin crew community there is great intolerance between BASSA, cc89 and PCCC._ In my opinion this intolerance prevents the associations being good at representing the welfare and reasonable aspirations of their members.

AV Flyer

19th Dec 2010, 08:54

Your replies paint a depressing picture for BA CC, the working person and the current state of the Trade Union movement in general.

You are saying that an employee is unable to understand his/her employment contract terms and conditions so pays a union to provide representation while having neither any control over who runs that union nor the skills to determine whether the union's leaders are acting in the employee's interests or using the employee's money to follow their own political agendas.

Essentially this leaves the employee with no choice but to take a position of blind faith in the union.

Then, when I suggest that, given the uncontrolled lies, deception and other abuses we are currently seeing CC being subjected to at the hands of their trusted representatives, the employees need protection by stiffening the laws under which union leaders practice you seem very lukewarm in this regard.

Finally, there is a statement that BASSA may implode and be replaced by an organisation that becomes a cult with the even uglier connotations that situation would incur.

Have I misunderstood?

Perhaps CC would be better off saving their Union subscriptions and taking their chances at the hands of their so-called 'brutal' employer BA instead? Indeed. it appears so far that about 1000 or so who were not Union members have done just that and are very happy at their decision.

This entire state of affairs may well be the reason why a significant number of CC posters to this thread, upon discovering their leaders' self-absorbed behaviour, have described leaving the Union rather than even considering trying to stay and vote the current leadership out.

LD12986

19th Dec 2010, 09:23

Again, I do not believe that the company will sack any cabin crew who go on strike (if there is one). The potential for a backlash from within the rest of the company and outside the company is huge.

However, the union and the reps are exposing themselves if they call a legally dubious strike. If the company considers it has a strong enough case, then it would no doubt make a claim for damages and initiate gross misconduct charges on the union reps.

BetterByBoat

19th Dec 2010, 09:32

If 64% of CC who are members of BASSA voted for strike action (almost 4 times that that voted against strike action) then who is to say that BASSA are leading their members astray? Sounds more like CC getting what they asked for ... even if in the end it wasn't what they wanted. Further, suggesting that poor CC (BASSA members) are being misled seems to suggest that they are too stupid to think for themselves? Hmm .. not a very flattering assessment, especially for employees who are supposed to be able to think on their feet in an emergency. It is also a damning indictment of BA management that they are so appalling bad at getting their message across.

"This entire state of affairs may well be the reason why a significant number of CC posters to this thread, upon discovering its leaders' self-absorbed behaviour," - if, as you state, only 1000 CC have resigned from BASSA (I don't know how accurate this figure is), does it not also suggest that it isn't just the leaders self-absorbed behaviour. It is actually a significant proportion of CC as well. And that BASSA are actually representing their members?

Certainly the results of the next strike ballot will be interesting.
How many members have BASSA lost?
How many BASSA CC will vote for further strike action?But please, unless I'm mistaken (and please feel free to correct me on this). The majority of CC are BASSA \ Amicus \ Unite members. And the vast majority of those members voted for strike action last time.

Litebulbs

19th Dec 2010, 09:48

Your replies paint a depressing picture for BA CC, the working person and the current state of the Trade Union movement in general.

It does paint a bleak picture and the current Government will be only too aware of the apathy of the working man.

You are saying that an employee is unable to understand his/her employment contract terms and conditions so pays a union to provide representation while having neither any control over who runs that union nor the skills to determine whether the union's leaders are acting in the employee's interests or using the employee's money to follow their own political agendas.Terms and conditions are a dynamic entity and leave your original contract in the past, with every new agreement. Legislation determines who and how employees are represented, not the unions. Obviously, it is the unions by their own actions, show how well or badly they are doing.

Essentially this leaves the employee with no choice but to take a position of blind faith in the union.Not really. There are mass meetings and forums that you can engage your union and fellow worker at.

Then, when I suggest that, given the uncontrolled lies, deception and other abuses we are currently seeing CC being subjected to at the hands of their trusted representatives, the employees need protection by stiffening the laws under which union leaders practice you seem very lukewarm in this regard.The laws are there. Inciting, libel and slander should be used, but is getting staff travel back in five minutes any worse than market rate +10% for NF. Neither is true.

Finally, there is a statement that BASSA may implode and be replaced by an organisation that becomes a cult with the even uglier connotations that situation would incur.Who knows what will happen in the future, but I doubt this will be the case.

Have I misunderstood?I don't think you have misunderstood anything, this is just your view, which in some aspects differs from mine.

Perhaps CC would be better off saving their Union subscriptions and taking their chances at the hands of their so-called 'brutal' employer BA instead? Indeed. it appears so far that about 1000 or so have done just that and are very happy at their decision.That may very well be the case, but look at what BA offered to the new recruits without any negotiation.

This entire state of affairs may well be the reason why a significant number of CC posters to this thread, upon discovering its leaders' self-absorbed behaviour, have described leaving the Union rather than even considering trying to vote the current leadership out.That may be the case, but it is how you measure your word significant. It may be correct that many pprune posters have left, but as I have said previously, if Unites subs are deducted by BA's payroll, they will now exactly how many members Unite has. If that figure drops into the 50-60% area, I am sure we will hear about it.

Basil

19th Dec 2010, 10:00

BA cabin crew dispute - general information - British Airways (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/strike-ballot/public/en_gb?refevent=lfn_strike_ballot&gsLink)

Cabin crew dispute - latest information

Last updated 11:00 15 December 2010

Unite has informed us of its decision to ballot BA cabin crew members for further strike action.

The ballot will run between 21 December and 21 January. If the ballot result is in favour of industrial action, the earliest the
crew could go on strike would be 28 January.

Should there be any industrial action, we are determined to keep flying and will ensure our customers are looked after.

We have strong contingency plans in place and should industrial action take place:

* we will operate a normal schedule at London Gatwick and London City
* we will aim to fly 100 per cent of our longhaul operation at London Heathrow
* we will aim to fly a substantial proportion of our shorthaul operation at London Heathrow

In the meantime, all flights continue to operate as normal.

We will keep ba.com up-to-date with the latest information.

p.s. Despite the sneering remarks by John Humphrys and the abysmal BAA rep on Friday's Radio 4 'Today', British Airways appear to have called it absolutely correctly re the LHR snow closure.

AV Flyer

19th Dec 2010, 10:02

BBB - I did not say that 1000 or so resigned from BASSA as I agree with you that number is not known.

What I meant to say and have edited my previous post to clarify was that 1000 or so of those who were not Union members chose to sign-up for BA's offer.

While 64% voted in favour of strike action less than half of this number voted to reject BA's then current offer in the second ballot.

A new strike ballot result would be very interesting, however, the Union, for some equally interesting reasons, has been struggling for three months or so now to initiate that ballot to the extent that it has missed its prized Xmas period for another year.

rethymnon

19th Dec 2010, 12:43

AVFLYER raises interesting and relevant points regarding the attitudes and thought processes of cabin crew, particularly those who remain BASSA members.

cabin crew have been quite vociferous in pointing to the knowledge needs of their job, its safety functions and the arduous nature of their shift patterns.

yet, when it comes to understanding the terms and conditions of their employment and information given to them by BA and BASSA, it appears that the (vast) majority, are apathetic, unable to understand the written word or, blindly, delete information, on instruction from BASSA, given by BA.

frankly, you can't have it both ways. Either you are grossly overpaid and rewarded for doing a Noddy job that is just within your capacity or, you are grown up adult human beings who could and should be able to give mature consideration to information regarding your very demanding job- one that is rewarding in many ways and reflects your needs as a grown up, mature and intelligent human being.

life is full of contradictions but perhaps you, the cabin crew, can perhaps understand that outside of your ranks, these contradictions are hard to swallow.

Ancient Observer

19th Dec 2010, 14:51

Rethymnon,

a thoughtful and challenging post. Thank you for that.

From the outsider's perspective, you are spot on.

I suspect that until/unless the "moderate" and intelligent CC take over the bassa branch of unite, this dispute will run and run.

Meanwhile, in the UK, there are 5 million people on unemployment benefits of one sort or another. They would possibly like a job with BA...........

AV Flyer

19th Dec 2010, 15:42

I'm going to be a little frank and contentious here as, following our forum discussions, there is now no doubt in my mind that CC are choosing it in different ways and their voting patterns can be explained by them always taking the apathetically 'safe' or 'easy' position at the time of the ballot.

I would suggest that voting "yes" for strike action was easy in the first ballot as if push came to shove, and BA called the Union's bluff, there were always the 'outs' of hoping you were not rostered on the first strike day and seeing what played out, or throwing a sickie and claiming you didn't understand the doctor's note rule, or throwing a sickie and persuading a doctor to give you a note (bad back, etc.), or going into work and having car trouble on the way, or even just choosing to go into work. However, they felt there was a good chance that WW would fold having been "sent a message" and none of these 'outs' would be required. It was worth a shot. Given the ease in making a "yes" vote, frankly, a count of 64% did not show resoundingly high support for the Union.

In the second ballot things were not so easy. CC were actually put on the spot. Voting to reject an offer that was potentially the best they were going to get, especially on the back of a completely failed series of strikes, was a pretty terminal thing to do with no 'outs' whatsoever so the 'safe' way out this time was not to vote and see what played out. Hence the very low 30% vote to reject which, under these circumstances, probably indicates the true number of 'militants' i.e. around 3500. The surprising thing here was that as many as half this number, i.e. 15%, actually voted to accept BA's offer and settle the dispute - only 1700 votes different.

We can all dodge taking personal responsibility for our actions and play the victim card instead e.g. "I didn't have my lawyer handy to interpret the contract", "I was down-route and was too late back to return my ballot paper in time", etc., etc. But, there will be less easy outs from here on in as like-it-or-not this is a big boys' and girls' game of hard-ball with potentially severe consequences to the loser.

We're going to hear more whimpers of "I'm having a nervous break-down over this", "I want this to end", "life at work is terrible", "I didn't join BA for this", etc., etc., in which case I humbly suggest to these poor and down-trodden 'victims' that, if they feel so unable to rise-up and vote-out their chosen leaders, they simply resign their memberships to the Union that has 'unwittingly' dragged them into this so-called 'nightmare' and go seek some support over at the PCCC website, if needed. As Litebulbs has said on a couple of occasions we'll hear from BA soon enough if the Union membership level hits the 50% to 60% range.

To complete my magnum opus I'll now explain why I am taking what may appear to some as a hard line. UK law, in granting Unions and their members the opportunity to take lawful IA, albeit under controlled conditions, has given BA's CC the chance to inflict, and without any responsibility or liability to pay any compensation whatsoever, hundreds of millions (maybe even close to one billion by now) pounds in damages to BA, its Board, its shareholders, its fellow employees, its passengers (like us), its business suppliers (e.g. catering, fuel, landing fees, etc.), its airline code-sharing business partners, its business partner's passengers, etc., etc., all around the World. For the entire time that this dispute continues, and while CC are showing their apathy in deciding to sit on the fence seeking our sympathy as to how it's their Union's and not their fault they are in this mess, not one of them is stopping to think of the untold damages their apathy in not voting and resolving this dispute is causing the rest of the world at large.

I personally believe this is too much power placed in the hands of people who are thinking quite selfishly only of themselves, are not aware of the disruption they are causing to others, and the least the law could do in granting them this power is to make voting compulsory. It has been suggested that BA should incentivise CC to vote but this would do nothing more than reward the selfish and damaging behaviour further. Given the ability to wield this amount of power, CC should quite simply be forced to VOTE one way or the other so the rest of the World can cut the huge losses that CC's behaviour is causing and move on.

I'll place my hard-hat on now!