BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

[VSOP Fables]

the handing over a pre-typed letter

What tosh - it implies that the letter was all done in the 'typing pool' (do companies still have those?) beforehand with a presumption of guilt. A company like BA will have had HR prepare the letters and had them vetted by Legal in advance when faced with a situation like this, i.e. strike added to history of behaviour of some during past strikes. There will also have been a 'you're cleared' letter. It's just a case of slotting in Dear [Your Name Here].

[notlangley]

Tomorrow is the first day of "or so", as inFailing a willingness by BA management to take its employment relations seriously and start negotiating, we would anticipate giving the company formal notice of this fresh ballot within the next ten days or so.
by Len McCluskey.

[fincastle84]

Tomorrow is the first day of "or so", as in

But tomorrow's Saturday. Len will be on the golf course & Duncan will be watching football!:ugh:

[MPN11]

Tsk tsk, Finky. You know Duncan has to pot on the tomato plants at this time of year.


Seriously, the "or so" uncertainty just adds more quasi-pressure on BA to come begging to their Union Masters to achieve a settlement. Whether there is actually any substantial effect of forward bookings will be an on-going mystery ... there are far too many other factors in play that have nothing to do with BASSA/Unite.

But my shiny sixpence is being laid on people basically getting on with their lives, and jobs, and booking with BA.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Does anyone else think it odd that there has not been a single posting on the other thread since 10.30 yesterday morning?

[MPN11]

Things have been very quiet generally, largely because most people have said what they want to say [on numerous occasions].

Until Planet BASSA has established a connection with The Big Giant Head at Unite, and obtained some sort of agreement to spend more money on another pointless ballot [90% of the remaining BASSA members voted YES to a Strike!!!] there is very little more to say.

There is, of course, the possibility that certain Legal people are also trying to establish communication with The Big Giant Head and explain how deep the sh 1t is potentially going to be. And The Big Giant Head might be wondering how he let Little Tomato Head get him into this situation in the first place.

Seriously, I would like to think that BASSA/Unite are actually doing some thinking and talking, instead of posturing and posting risible garbage for the rest of us to read. However, the SWP are probably drafting new poster designs in case this really IS the Great Revolution they've been waiting for.

[fincastle84]

Does anyone else think it odd that there has not been a single posting on the other thread since 10.30 yesterday morning?

I've just been watching a news report about the protests in Bahrain. Maybe the Bassa militants are over there in disguise having a practice for T5.:ok:

[Snas]

Does anyone else think it odd that there has not been a single posting on the other thread since 10.30 yesterday morning?


I think that’s because it’s all rather over for crew, for PAX perhaps not if all they see is news paper headlines about ballots causing them to worry about bookings.

My Partners perspective: she’s working to the new crewing compliments with no issues and has just received a pay rise. If there is a further ballot DH has already stated that it’s highly unlikely to result in a strike regardless of the vote.
In the unlikely event that there is actually a strike it won’t adversely impact her either, she will simply go to work as indeed most will.

I imagine many of the strikers also see things as simply by now.

[Litebulbs]

Why have BA not convinced the general mass that they will be ok? If they are ok, then it is easy.

[fincastle84]

Why have BA not convinced the general mass that they will be ok?

I'm not sure whether or not you're referring to CC or pax?

If the former then the vast majority of BA CC are working normally & will not take IA.

If the latter, BA's bookings continue to grow & the balance sheet is improving.

Bassa are on a hiding to nothing. Holley's last hope is that the tribunal will somehow find in his favour & thereby reinforce his campaign,

[notlangley]

I have booked a pair of seats on the BA0115 for 25 May and two seats on BA0174 for 9 June.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Here Here! Same here too.

2 F tickets to MIA, out May 27th.

Those thousands who have seen sense, made sacrifices and pulled together, warrant and deserve the continued support of the flying public.

Backing BA more than ever. :ok:

[GrahamO]

Why have BA not convinced the general mass that they will be ok? If they are ok, then it is easy.

Litebulbs - could I ask what makes you think the public don't think it's okay?

I am still flying BA if they fly the route. I don't see empty seats on the flights.

[Litebulbs]

Do I count as the general public? I don't work for BA, but have flown on them 20+ times in the last year.

[stroppy]

Is there a date published for the result of DH's Tribunal?

[LD12986]

Is there a date published for the result of DH's Tribunal?


I don't think there will be a published date for the result. The decision will be ready when the Tribunal has determined its verdict. I'm not familiar with the exact processes of the ET, but if other Tribunals are anything to go by, a draft decision will be given to both parties for a review (for factual accuracy, commercially sensitive information etc).

If, as expected, the decision does not go DH's way, then if history is anything to go by, lies and half-truths will circulate as to why.

[stroppy]

I still dont know what "FacePprune" is- - can anyone explain?

Does Pprune have a social networking add-on? :confused:

[GrahamO]

Do I count as the general public? I don't work for BA, but have flown on them 20+ times in the last year.

Of course. But you are just one of the many millions of the general public, however your post implied that the general public en masse are not convinced, if I have understood your original point.

My point was that the public en masse are convinced and while you may or may not be, your views are not that of the general population en masse, as flights are full and bookings are up.

I respect the views of the fringe/minority believers to hold unconventional or illogical beliefs such as the flat earth society. It does not mean however that until the last one of them admits they are wrong, that the world is in fact, flat.

[TightSlot]

FacePPRuNe is a word replacement - the software automatically filters out certain words in a posting - there is an option to replace them with something else - in this case, Danny has set up FacePPRuNe as a private mod-joke

Yeah - I know, but we find it funny - just ignore it.

[Alsacienne]

Well I'm one of the great unwashed in that I'm not yet convinced. I'm holding off booking longhaul BA for next Christmas for a family wedding, where the cancellation and subsequent rebooking of flights is not an option ....


................... but I live in hope.:)

[fruitbat]

100% of longhaul flights will depart even if there is another strike, which there won't be.

[notlangley]

is a word replacement - the software automatically filters out certain words in a posting. . . twitter

Try it and see if you don't believe me._ I fell foul of this because I wanted to refer to the system of communication that was used to "chatter on" by an former Joint Secretary.

[fincastle84]

Wimp! Come on mon brave, where's your Gallic backbone? We're off to GND next week, YUL in June, DEN in Sept. & will be booking CPT at the end of March. I have no worries whatsoever that our flights will be threatened.

BA are going from strength to strength. Rumour has it that one day they may even buy some new airframes.:O

[Betty girl]

Fincastle84,

You will get to try three different fleets.

Grenada is Gatwick,

Denver is Mixed Fleet

Montreal could be either WW or M/F as it is on the list to go but still WW at mo.

And Capetown is Worldwide.

Only one missing is E/F!! Mine of course!

Hope whatever happens you have good flights with all our fleets.

[yotty]

Fin... 787 due in Sep12 and the A380 a few months after. I get the impression that the 380 will arrive first! :ok:

[malcolmf]

We've just taken delivery of 777-300s and are putting the new First in most LH fleets.
Even during the strikes last year LH operated pretty normally, staff travel wasn't even cancelled.
Even if another strike is called there will still be enough crew turn up, so book with confidence!
The general public mostly don't even realise there's a dispute, the last announcement didn't make most of the papers which is probably why the "Brutish Airways" adverts were taken out.

[fruitbat]

And of course the T5C satellite opens at the end of May, so our 'home' is complete. The future's bright....:ok:

[fincastle84]

BG, we have always had good flights with BA. Both your ground staff & CC always give 100% wherever we are travelling. (Oops, & the 2 winged master race are, of course, brilliant.)

I'd forgotten, Mel is off to ARN in April so you might see her then. You'll probably hear her first :cool:

Thanks Yotty, I hadn't realised that they were so imminent. Yes, I wouldn't want to try to predict the arrival of the 787, tho' I think it'll be a goody.

[Betty girl]

Fin, that's really nice to hear.

Hope your Mel has a good flight too. Even on E/F a lot of flights operated during the IA as normal and if not the passengers were able to swap on to other flights, that were going that day, very easily.

One of my Gold card passengers last time, said it was his third flight that week, and all had been great.

Many thanks.
BG

[gr8tballsoffire]

Flew the 777-300 to Dubai in Clubworld a couple of weeks ago. Great experience with the new IFE. Outstanding sound.
..and a seemingly happy crew!!

[seat 13a]

I'm 50+ flights a year BA domestic plus half a dozen long haul each year in CW or WTP... So I am a fan.

But flew BA TATL in deeply discounted Y for the first time in years - and was hugely impressed.... Miles better product than I remember, way ahead of US rivals I have had to endure, LHR WW crew terrific, with no Bassa lanyards or yellow pens in sight.

Dispute - what dispute? :D

I will continue to book with confidence...

[MPN11]

I'll just join the "What Strike?" party by saying ...

Booked UK-USA in April.
Booked UK-USA in September.

ALSO looking for an additional holiday to fill the space ... trying to find a destination that suits us, flying with BA of course. I will NOT have my travel plans dictated to by rampaging Trade Unionists, thank you. I/we fly BA for a variety of well-considered reasons, and we will continue so to do ... and BA will, as usual, deliver us to our destination and bring us home again.

And HARRUMPH ;)

[Alsacienne]

Wimp! Come on mon brave, where's your Gallic backbone?

Now now Fincastle!! :D My Gallic backbone is in great shape, but my wallet has more moths than notes due to the recession! Wimp I'm certainly not, but don't have enough to buy tickets twice or pay extra to connect via LHR ...

But I'll still keep my eye on BA before making a final decision and spending those dwindling Euros!

[MPN11]

Cher Alsacienne, plus petit courage. ;)


By the time you book the flights will cost more anyway!!
Do you have travel insurance?

[Landroger]

I'm on BA295 to ORD on Friday. I know that's 777, but no idea what fleet that is. Interestingly, it'll be 294 on the way back two weeks later and that'll be 744. I haven't been on a 74' in simply ages. :ok:

Roger.

[Betty girl]

Landroger,
That will be with Worldwide fleet both ways.

It is on the list to go to Mixed Fleet in the future but has not gone yet.

Have a great time.
BG.

[anoraknophobia]

Ladies and gentlemen,is the dispute a dead parrot?

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT

[ChicoG]

anoraknophobia,

Did Threshers have a special on Asti Spumante?

:E

[Landroger]

That will be with Worldwide fleet both ways.

Thanks BG - I hope I do. :)

Roger.

[ottergirl]

MPN11 ALSO looking for an additional holiday to fill the space ... trying to find a destination that suits us, flying with BA of course.
We have a new route starting soon to San Diego. It is a fantastic city with the loveliest climate and great for a holiday!

[anoraknophobia]

ChicoG

I think you may have been out of the country to long.Threshers went in to administration over a year ago,and you can't even get pick and mix from Woolworths any more,they have gone to. Which proves the point that no matter how established the brand economic realities will prevail.

[ChicoG]

Nice save to keep it on topic. No more pick 'n' mix? The country's gone to the dogs.

:uhoh:

[TightSlot]

Just a reminder... If you are going to accuse any group/person/organisation of behaving illegally you must work on the assumption that PPRuNe will hand over your IP address and whatever details we have on your account when the inevitable lawyers letter arrives - Try and demonstrate both care and common-sense please folks.


:)

[WillDAQ]

Well the reply to BASSAswitch is certainly intriguing.

I assume his reply will point out that the very act of attempting to with hold accounts from a former member is legally speaking a financial irregularity, hence justifying the "campaign on various discussion forums".

BASSAswitch could presumably not reply to the letter and just let the 21 days elapse, although I can think of a few choice comments for the reply...

[VintageKrug]

BASSA's reponse to BASSAwitch's enquiry for visibility of the Branch Accounts:

BASSA wrote:

Dear XXXXXX,

Your request for the audited accounts of the BASSA branch of Unite have been forwarded to me by XXXXX XXXXX. I have now had a chance to make enquiries on your behalf.

We have been made aware of a campaign on various discussion forums to expose alleged financial irregularity involving this branch. Your correspondence appears to repeat these insinuations. I can assure you that these allegations are completely baseless and potentially libellous.We cannot agree with your assertion that these branch accounts have been requested by "many members". In fact your request is the first such made to the best of my knowledge.

We have been told by the branch secretary that the accounts you are seeking are not available at this time. If at any time in the future they do become available for members and ex members to view, we will endeavour to make that known to you. As is common practice we will always insist that you view such accounts unaccompanied on Unite premises and in the strictest confidence.

If there are any further queries you have on the accounts of this branch please get back in touch with me directly.

In the meantime I thank you for your concern and for your continued support of Unite the Union.

In solidarity,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Well, I would try and remain calm in the face of that response. :)

They will of course be monitoring this forum, and annoyance will of course be music to their ears. :yuk:

It's a shame, but hardly a surprise, that BASSA hasn't taken this opportunity to demonstrate its transparency.

BASSA is perfectly entitled to wait 28 days from formal request to permitting access, and so until that period has passed there is no issue whatsoever with BASSA withholding the information. It's a very different story after that period expires. So in your response:

1. It's well worth confirming back to BASSA the date on which you made the formal request of Unite to provide such accounts, and also explicitly stated the day on which you believe the 28 day period will expire.

2. I would also ask BASSA for any evidence/belief they may have of any "insinuations" made by you about alleged impropriety; no accounting irregularities have been alleged, and indeed this is an opportunity for transparency to put paid to any such allegations which may emanate from other parties. It's important you make that absolutely explicit.

3. Quote what you believe to be their responsibilities under section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, 1992.

4. I would copy your response (including a copy of the correspondence to date) to:

1. Unite
2. HW Fisher & Sons
3. Hard Dowdy
4. BASSA's own auditors (if different from the above)
5. The Certificating Officer
6. TUC


Best to call ahead and get actual names for the correct people/Audit Partners to write to in order to avoid delay.


Unite's auditors:

HW Fisher & Sons
http://www.hwfisher.co.uk/site/cms/c...p?category=256 (http://www.hwfisher.co.uk/site/cms/contentCategoryView.asp?category=256)

Hard Dowdy
www.harddowdy.co.uk (http://www.harddowdy.co.uk/)

It is not clear to me whether BASSA itself has engaged auditors to produce its own accounts; these may differ from the names above, as those relate to Unite's accounts (of which BASSA's numbers form a not inconsiderable part).

What is significant is that if the accounts cannot be produced in a timely fashion, then that is a most serious breach of Trade Union law, for which there could be significant legal repercussions.


Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/32)


That is the real issue at hand, not whether there has been any financial impropriety.

I think any accounts shown to you will be extremely high level, so I would not expect you to be able to glean anything of much interest from them, even when/if you do get access. But all this obfuscation does put paid to the oft-made statement that BASSA's account are freely available for inspection at any time by any member who chooses to see them.

I am genuinely amazed that you are the only one of the alleged 8,975 members who wants to understand where their £1.5m-£2m per annum goes....!

I cannot see any requirement for you to sign a confidentiality agreement, and you appear to have the right to take copies of the document with you.

It's obviously worth mugging up on the whole of Chapter 3, which also deals with membership records as well as elections. You (or others) may wish to make similar enquiries about those aspects of BASSA's administration.

Section 30 governs your rights to view the branch accounts, and I have copied them below:

HM Government:

30 Right of access to accounting records.E+W+S

(1)A member of a trade union has a right to request access to any accounting records of the union which are available for inspection and relate to periods including a time when he was a member of the union.
In the case of records relating to a branch or section of the union, it is immaterial whether he was a member of that branch or section.

(2)Where such access is requested the union shall—

(a)make arrangements with the member for him to be allowed to inspect the records requested before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day the request was made,

(b)allow him and any accountant accompanying him for the purpose to inspect the records at the time and place arranged, and

(c)secure that at the time of the inspection he is allowed to take, or is supplied with, any copies of, or of extracts from, records inspected by him which he requires.

(3)The inspection shall be at a reasonable hour and at the place where the records are normally kept, unless the parties to the arrangements agree otherwise.

(4)An “accountant” means a person who is eligible for appointment as a [F1 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/30#commentary-c2041368)statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006].

(5)The union need not allow the member to be accompanied by an accountant if the accountant fails to enter into such agreement as the union may reasonably require for protecting the confidentiality of the records.

(6)Where a member who makes a request for access to a union’s accounting records is informed by the union, before any arrangements are made in pursuance of the request—

(a)of the union’s intention to charge for allowing him to inspect the records to which the request relates, for allowing him to take copies of, or extracts from, those records or for supplying any such copies, and

(b)of the principles in accordance with which its charges will be determined, then, where the union complies with the request, he is liable to pay the union on demand such amount, not exceeding the reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the union in complying with the request, as is determined in accordance with those principles.

(7)In this section “member”, in relation to a trade union consisting wholly or partly of, or of representatives of, constituent or affiliated organisations, includes a member of any of the constituent or affiliated organisations.

If BASSA fails to comply, you can then make a formal application to the Certification Officer to obtain a "declaration" to that effect, and then after that there is a court remedy if required.

Here is the information about the Certification Office:

www.certoffice.org/ (http://www.certoffice.org/)

It would be a sensible plan to speak now to a qualified accountant who you may wish to accompany you in due course.

[AlpineSkier]

VK

Can you see any logical reason why the union can require the accountant to sign a non-disclosure agreement but the member is allowed to take ( as many ?) copies as requested and there is no mention of applying non-disclosure to him/her.

This member could then ask an(other) accountant to review said documents.

P.S. Is Krug worth the investment ?

[Litebulbs]

It is strange, but at least these were pre 97 rules, so maybe Thatcher was a secret trade unionist, or was it Major then?

[VintageKrug]

Major 1990-1997.


P.S. Is Krug worth the investment ?

Absolutely!!

---

I see BASSA very much stalling here...after the late summer's elections the current leadership team will no longer be in position. It's important that getting the accounts to the membership happens before the current leadership move on. It's a legal requirement.

You should certainly acknowledge the letter and ensure you are specific about requesting accounts used to support Unite's accounting statement dated 31 December 2009 and the three previous years, as it may be that they could claim they misunderstood your request, assuming it to relate to the more recent two years' of accounts whoch may (perfectly legally) still be in production/not yet signed off by the auditors.

Involving the auditors now by copying them in to correspondence is essential in order to expedite matters at the 28 day point.

Any sign of a ballot - that ten day McKluskey ultimatum is well past......:ugh:

[notlangley]

Notice
Take notice that on THURSDAY, 24 FEBRUARY, 2011 in COURT 70, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.
APPEAL

From Appeal Tribunals
(Employment Appeal Tribunal)

FINAL DECISIONS

A2/2010/0305 British Airways Plc -v- Mak and Ors.
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.

[Mr Optimistic]

The company I used to work for routinely failed tribunals, I think on the basis that it costs more to defend than pay up the limited compensation. Think that may even be factored in to the anticipated cost. So what significance is this ? From an employee's point of view it is pretty meagre stuff isn't it, and from the employers. irrelevant.

Yours, in solidarity

[Betty girl]

Actually Mr Optomistic, BA has been fighting this one really hard.

BA makes some of our International crew retire at 45, not all, it depends on the destination they come from and the law in those countries.

This tribunal, if won by Miss Mak would mean that they have to pay her compensation but it will also mean that ALL International crew will have to be allowed to retire at the UK retirement age, which for some reason BA doesn't like.

So for me it is quite interesting as I personally feel it is unfair that they are made to leave at 45 and I thank notlangley for pointing it out that this case is in it's final stage.

Before equal opportunities, back only a few decades, BA used to make all female cabin crew retire at 35 while men could carry on until normal retirement. In this day and age that seems very strange and so does making Hong Kong crew retire early!! In my humble opinion.

I have to say that this is one good thing that Unite have done. In this, they are representing a member in a good way and how a union should be representing its members, for a change!!!

[notlangley]

Carol Ng, chair of the British Airways Hong Kong International Cabin Crew Association said over a year agoUnite has shown our members unquestioned support over many years in their struggle for justice. This proves that ordinary people can fight injustices with the help of their union - and that strong solidarity across nations can help win for workers against employers like BA who mistreat their workforce.
link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/court_ruling_shames_ba_for_cab.aspx)

[Betty girl]

VK,

You are right it is not connected to the strike but the two people involved in this case, BA and Unite, are the same people involved in the strike!

Interestingly the Cabin Crew thread about BA and Bassa is called ''CC and BA Industrial relations'' and so is not only about the strike.

Thank you for your grammar lesson.

[MPN11]

Oh, good. Unite speaks ....

Unite gives notice to BA of a new ballot of cabin crew members (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/unite_gives_notice_to_ba_of_a.aspx)

There's a surprise. Better luck next time, eh?

We have made every effort in prolonged negotiations to resolve this dispute. Throughout we have been guided by our representatives. If we could achieve a settlement then peace would at long last be at hand.

hahahahahahaha ... more fool you, then.

[ChicoG]

"BA management needs to understand that it will never break the spirit of cabin crew, and that customer uncertainty and confusion will continue until it starts listening to its staff."

Len McLacklustre needs to understand that no-one, including BA management and customers, is interested in his dull and repetitive whinging any more. Still, at least he's at last got bored using his favourite buzzword, "macho".

BA said "apart from a tiny minority of hard-liners" everyone wanted the dispute to end. "Should there be any further industrial action, we will implement our well-established contingency plans," a spokesman said.

It's great for BA"s PR department, they don't even have to type new press releases, they can just change the dates on the old ones and send them out.

:}

[notlangley]

VintageKrug you have the reputation of someone who can dig out information.
Can you find out what "purpose" will be put to Unite members?_ By purpose I mean something that is not a continuation of the dispute that belongs or is attached to the strike that took place just over twelve months ago.
Here is a quote (made a few weeks ago) from the GuardianBA argued to the Electoral Reform Services body, which oversaw the ballot, that Unite was breaching the Trade Union Act Labour Relations (Consolidation) 1992 by launching a ballot whose purpose was "unclear".
link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/13/ba-strike-unlikely-royal-wedding)

[Mariner9]

They want to strike - let them. The promulgated BASSA view that they are working for an evil, bullying employer that dismisses BASSA members for trivial reasons should apparently be ignored when voting for what is likely to be unprotected strike action.

Perhaps they are relying on BASSA to save them. Good luck with that. They might ask themselves how many of the 80 dismissals (including the Branch Secretary no less) have BASSA thus far been able to save?

[Ancient Observer]

On the assumption that bassa is run by something like a "branch cttee" or a "branch exec", how many of the current members of that cttee are actually employed by BA, and how many are ex- or never- employed by BA?

Someone out there must know......

I wonder if they have bothered to read Unite's Rule Book?

[VintageKrug]

"Strikers are deluded if they think they can win". And that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of Derek Simpson, Unite General Secretary:

www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20902 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20902)

[LD12986]

AO, The last list of BASSA reps put into the public domain listed about 30 BASSA reps. See the last page of this:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/AMICUS_News_Oct2009.pdf

Yesterday, Unite said that there had been 18 sackings and of these a third of the local union leadership had been sacked.

Aside from Duncan's well publicised sacking, the last estimate I heard was that about 7 reps had also been sacked.

The BASSA rule book is not available publicly.

[VintageKrug]

Shouldn’t BASSA be ultimately governed by the Unite Rule Book?

Is that available publicly?

[VintageKrug]

There are actually a few legal issues which could scupper this ballot:

1a. Are the records used for the ballot accurate to a reasonable level?

I believe the Electoral Reform Service (who administered the ballot on behalf of Unite) had concerns on this front from the start, evidenced by the fact that in the most recent ballot, ERS never actually released a statement on their notepaper setting out the results of the ballot; if you notice, the thrid ballot announcement was on ERS notepaper, the latest (fourth) ballot result was published on Unite notepaper:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BA_ballot_result_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf (http://redirectingat.com/?id=546X877&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Funiteba.com%2FESW%2FFiles%2FBA_ballot_resul t_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesstraveller.com%2Fdiscussion%2Ft opic%2FBASSA-Unite-Latest-Ballot-Just-43-percent-of-BA-Cabin-Crew-Support-Action%23last_post)

The latest confirmation was communicated by Unite directly to its membership:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BAllot_result_21jan2011.pdf

It will be telling on what notepaper the ballot result is publicised this time round (which I think shall be known as the “fourth” ballot).

Last time round there was anecdotal evidence that non-members were balloted, and that multiple ballots were sent to a number of people, certainly including those who were no longer union members and possibly permitting duplicate votes by those who were current members. This would have skewed the results materially.

Though BA passed on the evidence for these breaches to ERS (classed as a “legal blitz” by Unite) it was ERS which refused to support the ballot, not BA’s legal activities, as BA never took this issue to court. There was no recourse to the courts/legal challenge as has been implied in several Unite Press Releases.

It has been alleged that the BASSA rep responsible for the recordkeeping (and, apparently, paid to do so through membership subscriptions) had “outsourced” that function to another person. It is enough for BASSA to demonstrate they have a robust methodology for keeping accurate records, there is no compulsion for 100% accuracy.

“Reasonableness” is the only benchmark they have to satisfy. Far from the law being pitched against successful ballots, many other unions have held successful ballots in recent times (RMT for Tube Drivers, I think the Post Office had a strike recently, though no-one noticed) and BASSA was not able to manage this very fundamental task. This is a shocking indictment of their abilities to administrate their own records (which is a legal requirement under Chapter 3 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992), and would justify a motion of censure from the Certification Officer, should a BASSA member choose to take this up with that CO.

It appears from posts here that Unite itself has now taken over the administration of BASSA records, with letters having been sent to confirm BASSA membership which arrived between 18th-22nd February. That exercise would probably be enough to demonstrate a robust process, but as to the actual outcome especially with BA’s peripatetic employee lifestyle, it will still be a challenge to properly ensure accuracy, especially if members are away on longer trips over the next few days. I personally do not believe the objectives of this mailshot will be realisable to the extent required prior to the commencement of the ballot on March 1st.

This is further complicated by Holley’s statement on 23 January telling the 6,500 Union members who did not vote for Industrial Action to leave Unite/BASSA/Amicus, which will no doubt have created a moving target for BASSA’s own membership records:

Holley

Now BA's plans are in the open I would like to send this message to everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not voted. You have been given your say and the majority has spoken. If you have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.

Don't sit back and see if your brave colleagues who voted YES can fight your fight for you. That is cowardice, you have made your bed and now you must lie in it, alongside Bill. Good Luck, it has been nice knowing you.


www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

So while I believe Unite should be in a position to demonstrate it has “taken in hand” BASSA’s recordkeeping, I do not believe there is reason to believe those records will be in any better state by 1 March than they were last time round, principally due to the moving target created by DH himself.

1.b. Failure to Administrate the Branch Properly

The keeping of accurate membership records is a legal responsibility of the Branch and Union, similar to the requirement to keep audited accounts and grant access to members to such records:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/part/I/chapter/III)

BASSAwitch has recently had a formal request for visibility of the accounts denied (see the previous page of the forum for BASSA’s response). I think the deadline is 15 March 2011; I hope BASSAwitch has by now copied the derisory response to BASSA’s auditors (does anyone know who they are? It’s possibly Northover Bennett & Co in Eastleigh Hants, as they set up the “BASSA Ltd” entity in January this year as the holding company for BASSA subscriptions?), Unite’s auditors, The Certification Officer and the TUC so that any censure will happen at the earliest opportunity once the 28 day deadline has passed; let’s hope BASSA are in a position to release its historical accounts to its own membership and demonstrates both its administrative effectiveness and its transparency.

While this is not a reason to stop action, any concern about the effectiveness of the branch administration ( accounting, membership AND related to the election of officials, which hasn’t really been challenged to date) could adversely affect a range of serious issues which would harm BASSA’s credibility.

2. That the Reason for Industrial action was “unclear”

Simple really, BASSA needs to give one, clear reason to ballot; any more than that is a problem as it opens up multiple areas for potential challenge.

In the most recent ballot, DH set out four reasons, with an extra fifth tagged on by Unite. The fifth reason (introduction of Mixed Fleet) was an attempt to make this ballot unconnected to previous ballots. But it wasn’t unconnected, and did not succeed in that endeavour. I think as that ballot was declared invalid (not *illegal*, as Unite would have you believe!) they could possibly used the Mixed Fleet (MF) argument again, and this would be their strongest suit – even that could easily be defeated. HOWEVER, BA has already won the right to introduce changes in its workforce, here is the court report setting that out:

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/302.html)

and it is similarly clear that BA did indeed consult BASSA on MF several years ago, and it was offered a solution which avoided MF but declined, so it should be quite easy to gain an injunction if that is the reason on which they ballot.

3. That the Reason for the Ballot Continues Previous Action

It is my understanding that Unions are permitted 12 weeks within which to conclude their dispute; they must demonstrate they have made proactive effort to negotiate. If they fail to reach a negotiated settlement, the dispute is effectively over and the Union has failed in its attempt to change the employer’s stance.

No further withdrawal of labour may occur for reasons connected with the initial dispute, and while a strike is possible it remains outside the “protection” of the Trade and Industrial Relations Act 1992, which means BASSA members are exposed to having their employment terminated with minimal compensation if they choose to withdraw their labour. You can read more about this here:

www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_179248 (http://redirectingat.com/?id=546X877&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.direct.gov.uk%2Fen%2FEmployment%2FTrade Unions%2FIndustrialaction%2FDG_179248&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesstraveller.com%2Fdiscussion%2Ft opic%2FBASSA-Unite-Latest-Ballot-Just-43-percent-of-BA-Cabin-Crew-Support-Action%23last_post)

It's important to emphasise that the criterion for unprotected action IS NOT that the reason for the strike is "the same as previous ballots". The evidential tests for unprotected action are set out below:

Dismissal and unprotected industrial action. Official industrial action organised by a trade union is 'unprotected' if:

1. the trade union has failed to hold a postal ballot in-line with the law

2. the trade union has not told the employer, in-line with the law, about the industrial action ahead of a ballot or ahead of the industrial action

3. it has been disowned by the trade union (eg because someone without authority called for the action, or because the trade union considers the dispute to be resolved), sometimes called 'repudiated action'

4. it is secondary industrial action (in support of workers of another employer), sometimes called 'sympathy action'

5. it promotes ‘union labour only’ practices (also known as a ‘closed shop’)

6. it is in support of any workers who have been dismissed for taking unofficial action

7. other aspects of industrial action law have been breached by the trade union

If you are dismissed while taking part in unprotected industrial action called for by your trade union, you cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if all the other employees taking part are dismissed as well.

BASSA has never set out to its membership the risks of unprotected action; it has a moral obligation, especially if it believes it is covered, to set out these risks to its membership.

As an aside, BA has already sent a detailed repudiation on the issues around both Disciplinaries and Sick Pay while Striking to Unite in December 2011:

http://freepdfhosting.com/7a5b9147a5.pdf

AND

http://freepdfhosting.com/3382e93952.pdf (http://redirectingat.com/?id=546X877&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepdfhosting.com%2F3382e93952.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesstraveller.com%2Fdiscussion%2Ft opic%2FBASSA-Unite-Latest-Ballot-Just-43-percent-of-BA-Cabin-Crew-Support-Action)

So it’s unlikely Unite could use those reasons for industrial action with any certainty of success.

4. Incitement to Secondary Action

There is possibly something in LM’s recent plea for other Unite members to join in the action:

LM: I want to be very clear in my statement to all members of our union. I expect all members to support our cabin crew members taking industrial action.

Just for one minute put yourselves in the position of those involved in the dispute. They have been villified [sic], harassed and victimised, all for standing up to maintain terms of employment and agreements. It's a disgrace and I expect all our members to recognise and respect this.

This is unclear to me, and I am not certain it represents “incitement to secondary action”. The plea begged other Unite members to join the action; I would assume this would be at LHR, but it is not clear to me that you can strike if you haven’t actually taken part in a ballot, unless it is their intention to ballot all Unite members within British Airways, and not just BASSA/Amicus Cabin Crew; given the strength of the VCC response, I wouldn’t imagine they’d get much traction. The issues of unprotected action would still remain for any others who chose to withdraw their labour.

5. Previous Industrial Action was illegal and that Unite may therefore be compelled to compensate BA for losses

I understand there is a court case scheduled for 15 March in which the further appeal will be heard as to whether the injunction against BA’s attempt to stop the first strike was legal; if it is found in BA’s favour then Unite would be in significant financial difficulty, with a “profit” of under £500k last year and assets of around £80m and a potential claim in the £100s of millions. The only evidence I have for such an action is somewhat tentative:

www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?task=download&option=com_flexicontent&cid=6917&id=948&fid=22&Itemid=92 (http://www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?task=download&option=com_flexicontent&cid=6917&id=948&fid=22&Itemid=92)

"• In what appears to be an increasingly bitter battle, the British
Airways plc v Unite dispute will go to trial at the High Court
in March [2011]. BA is claiming damages in respect of the strikes in
March last year. It is the most high-profile example of a trend of
employers using the courts to stop industrial action. We may see
further examples with industrial unrest expected in 2011."

[VintageKrug]

DH has already clearly stated that he has no intention of actually calling a strike, rather using ballots to serially frustrate the airline, and that they are actually rather hoping BA challenges every aspect in the courts as this will allow them to portray themselves as victims of big, bad capitalists.

Holley: “This is a different phase of the dispute that we are now in, it’s no longer about rushing into strike dates; it is all about sending a message..….You no longer need actual strikes to pressure the company - ballots can have the same effect, since they carry the threat of strikes. It would now appear that a simple, well-placed cross on the ballot paper removes some of the need to actually lose money and stand on picket lines.”

It should also be remembered that BA has not:

1. Made any of its cabin crew compulsorily redundant throughout this dispute

2. Resorted to change of contract, which can be imposed with three months’ notice;

3. Invoked dismissal for Some Other Significant Reason (SOSR)

All of which are options BA could pursue at this stage, with most serious repercussions for vary many hard working, if poorly informed, cabin crew.

BASSA has continually misrepresented to its workforce that BA is potentially offering the Mixed Fleet contract to existing crew; this is absolutely not the case: this is the offer which has in the past been made available to those cabin crew not in the union, including a 2.9% pay rise this year, 3% in 2012 and assurances that current T&Cs will remain:

www.uniteba.com/ESW/Files/151010_Revised_Offer_Collectivev6.doc

BASSA has a history of causing a fuss over silly issues, such as the infamous Hot TowelGate:

LGW/LHR - 29/01/09 Hot Towels in WT+ (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWLHRhottowels.html)

I had a good deal of sympathy for Cabin Crew when this negotiation first kicked off; it’s important in cyclical lower paid industries such as aviation that employees have effective representation; that representation should be pragmatic and business-minded. After all the Union Branch cannot exist without the employer, while the reverse is not true.

And most large firms need a single entity with which it can negotiate; I am not certain if that single entity may no longer be relevant now we have significantly better communication methods and it may well be that BA could be a model for a new way of conducting industrial relations, after all many large multinational firms exist without a significantly unionised workforce, with the workforce incentivised to excel and go the extra mile to do their part to deliver profits with financial incentives if those targets are achieved, rather than the rather negative “lowest common denominator” approach espoused by some Unions of the 1970s persuasion.

There cannot be any truth in the allegation of “union-busting” as BA continues to have positive engagement with its other Unions, even including Unite, most recently having come to agreement on the Pensions Deficit, averted a Ground Crew strike, not to mention the Settlement Unite agreed with Willie Walsh on this very dispute, then reneged on, last year.

My regular experience as a passenger is that most BA crew are superb; they go the extra miles (one anecdote: I left my watch in the lounge after boarding the aircraft, and he scooted off to retrieve it for me as I was not permitted to re-enter the terminal myself) and for the generally good humour and peculiarly British mix of informality and professionalism which is not matched by many other international airlines out there.

Having said that, it is clear to me that the enormous amount of stress BASSA has inflicted on its membership and non-members with the vitriol and personalised way it has run this dispute is affecting morale, and I have noticed a significant upturn in the number of grumpy crew in my longhaul flights over the past few months (less so on shorthaul, for some reason).

However, I am equally certain that the ability to exhibit those traits is not directly correlated to the amount of money paid, nor to the length of service, nor membership or non-membership of a Union.

On that qualified basis, I now have very little sympathy for cabin crew who remain within BASSA (they can still leave BASSA and re-join TU membership with Unite directly if they prefer); BASSA is plainly a dysfunctional organisation, led largely by people who no longer work for BA, selfishly motivated to protect only their own interests and not that of the wider membership, intent on anarchic anti-capitalist style revenge on British Airways.

Having failed in its industrial action it is now hoping to tie up BA in the courts for decades as it’s only remaining weapon, yet legal engagement is a double edge sword, and as history has proven, BA has a repeatedly runs rings around the Unite legal team, and with BA’s HR dept. now part of the Legal Dept. there should be little opportunity for BASSA to attack.

Symptomatic of its bankrupt arguments, BASSA has a history of deploying frankly abhorrent Nazi imagery to ram its perverse message home:

http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/0dmM91Edndabg/610x.jpg

And again a BASSA propaganda sheet littered with references paralleling this "struggle" to the Holocaust:

http://bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/NewsArticlePDFFile-785.pdf

They also have a penchant for using children to make their point, which is deeply unpleasant, reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s “Human Shield”:

www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/94c16cff08.jpg

BASSA is impotent to affect BA’s operations, and those heading off for weddings, honeymoon and funerals as well as businesspeople know that BA will better its previous capacity to deliver a normal operation during a “strike” if indeed there is a next time, by operating all but a handful of exLHR shorthaul flights.

Whatever your thoughts on Unions are, they are democratic organisations. It is time the majority of BASSA membership asserted their voice, demanded access to accounts, demanded access to membership records, demanded an explanation of the reasons why no elections for BASSA officials have taken place for some considerable time, and were made aware of how they can extricate themselves, and the company that pays their wages (and their ex-colleagues’ pensions) from this mess into which their Union Branch has led them. BA is not going to relent, and continued dispute is harming cabin crew both professionally and personally, as well as damaging the reputation of Unionism in general.

Enough is enough.

--------

I should make it entirely clear that I (and anyone connected with me) do not, nor ever have had, any professional connection with any aspect of the travel industry, or (for the avoidance of any doubt any entity similar to the Burke Group) and what I set out here is my personal understanding from a close reading of the available public sources, and occasional discussions with BA employees in my capacity as a regular passenger.

I am more than more than happy to have any of the statements I have made critically challenged; please do challenge my posts, but don’t criticise me personally, as it does nothing to add to the debate!

[VintageKrug]

...and if anyone can identify the single (deliberate!) misuse of the word "it's" in there, I'd be pleased to hear of it.....over to you BettyGirl ;) (and thanks for going the extra mile to make me happy :ok:)

[MPN11]

VintageKrug, I have read that once, and will do so several times more.

Thank you sincerely for the effort you have put in to providing that [long] summary.



One small favour ... would you edit out all those font instructions? It's a bit confusing! ;)

[davidexba]

VintageKrug

Small point re number 4. Wasn't it Len M rather than Liz M that made that call to arms?

I could be wrong though!

[notlangley]

Thank you so much VintageKrug._ A very thorough and worthwhile analysis.
It may seem trivial to focus on one part of your analysis which is. . . cabin crew who remain within BASSA (they can still leave BASSA and retain TU membership with Unite directly if they prefer)
these words are about halfway through__link (http://www.pprune.org/6265694-post563.html)

This possibility has intrigued and confused me for some time._ Can I ask a member of cabin crew to respond?
Have you actually done this - left BASSA but stayed within Unite?_ I am happy to widen this to "Has your spouse left BASSA but stayed with Unite?"._ But no friends please - because we are then into the unreliability of here-say.

[notlangley]

. . because if ex-BASSA members are within Unite, then why is the no vote so low?
link (http://www.pprune.org/6193937-post1585.html)

[Betty girl]

VK,
I can't see it!

Notlangley,
Don't know if you can join without joining Bassa or Amicus.

The Unite website does let you but they may well allocate you into one of those branches, if you did join.

Without trying I could not tell you and I would expect all of us that left, would not have wanted to rejoin Unite, not just yet anyway. Most of us have signed the individual offer and that is only possible if you are not a member of Unite.

Not much help I am afraid.

[PleasureFlyer]

Possibly the best summary of the whole situation that I have seen, written extremely well and very readable - it was almost like a good book.:D


I think I found your deliberate mistake.....do I win anything ??:ok:
""Having failed in its industrial action it is now hoping to tie up BA in the courts for decades as it’s only remaining weapon,""

[LD12986]

Interesting post VintageKrug. The next ballot will be interesting. However, I don't think anyone is any doubt that there will be a sizeable Yes vote.

On past form, another legal challenge is inevitable. I just wonder when the "tipping point" will be when the membership give up on BASSA and its credibility amongst even the strongest hardliners is lost, or will a substantial minority of members still "keep the faith".

[notlangley]

It seems to me that it is possible for 41% of cabin crew to belong to PCCC while at the same time 76% of cabin crew to belong to BASSA._ This is because cabin crew can belong to both PCCC and BASSA.

However because PCCC have passed the 40% threshold, PCCC could then apply to British Airways for "recognition"._ As I understand it, British Airways has no option - it must recognise PCCC.
(This is the question) Then what happens? - I don’t know.

Maybe it is automatic for Unite to welcome PCCC into the fold._ Then Betty girl and others would have the option to rejoin Unite by means of the PCCC intermediary.

[Litebulbs]

I think that the PCCC will have to be recognised as an independent trade union first.

Funnily enough, I was looking into this today for a course I am on. I think this might be relevant to the discussions -

Finance

While it is exceptional to find evidence of a direct subsidy from employer sources, a union with weak finances and inadequate reserves is obviously more likely to be vulnerable to employer interference than one whose financial position is strong.

Particular attention is therefore paid to such questions as the main sources of the unions income, whether this matches its expenditure, the level of its subscription rate and the state of its reserves.

This is taken from the Certification Officers website.

[Entaxei]

Particular attention is therefore paid to such questions as the main sources of the unions income, whether this matches its expenditure, the level of its subscription rate and the state of its reserves.

I know its slightly away from your original direction, but I can't help wondering how this criteria will stack up with the Bassa situation at the end of the month, if figures/accounts are found to be wanting. Who/what official organisation could/would be responsible for investigating, and how fast could/would they react - outside of Unite, as they could be held to be too close to the problem to be impartial.

NotLangley - Why on earth would PCCC want to join Unite with Len Mcluck in charge with his declared STAND PROUD backing for BASSA, and can you imagine Len Mcluck's response to PCCC. In any event it would wreck any attempt by PCCC and BA to possibly usher in a new stance in union/employer relationships, to find ways of working for the benefit of both parties - 21st Century style - not 1970's style.

[notlangley]

The answer is pragmatismIn a letter sent to all the union's members at BA, Unite general secretary Len McCluskey writes.

"Throughout we have been guided by our representatives."
link (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

[notlangley]

Len McCluskey says
We believe that the total number of your employees who will be entitled to vote in the ballot (both check-off and non check-off) is therefore 9824

link (http://freepdfhosting.com/287a681774.pdf)

[notlangley]

Brendan Gold writes

The items of dispute are as follow.

1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken.
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 the company in relation to this.
5. The immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including; victimisation, intimidation and exclusion.
6. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union.
7. The discrimination applied to union members in the allocation of part time contracts and transfers in breach of the Op’s and Choice framework.
8. The company’s continued and specific disregard for necessary union agreement in advance of any application of the disruption agreement.
9. The continued use of volunteer and/or temporary crew from outside the recognised NSP on both the Eurofleet and worldwide fleets and their employment on terms and arrangements outside of existing agreements between BA and the union.
10. The company’s offer of a separate pay settlement and variations to terms and conditions for those willing to accept non-negotiated changes to their contracts

link (http://freepdfhosting.com/9a2aad3f14.pdf)

[VintageKrug]

I think BASSAwitch requested the accounts info on 15 February; the accounts must therefore be produced by 15 March 2011, right in the middle of the ballot.

I hope BASSAwitch has already alerted The Certification Officer to BASSA's shocking refusal to produce such accounts, which goes against the Trade and Labour Relations Act:

BASSA wrote:

Dear XXXXXX,

Your request for the audited accounts of the BASSA branch of Unite have been forwarded to me by XXXXX XXXXX.
...
We have been told by the branch secretary that the accounts you are seeking are not available at this time. If at any time in the future they do become available for members and ex members to view, we will endeavour to make that known to you. As is common practice we will always insist that you view such accounts unaccompanied on Unite premises and in the strictest confidence......

In solidarity,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX


The Latest Issues from Bassa -
http://freepdfhosting.com/9a2aad3f14.pdf


as set out above

Many of those reasons are connected to previous ballots (some are, indeed, exactly the same) so this action is certain to be "unprotected" and further could be illegal given that BA has already won a case for its right to impose a the "one less crewmember" the parallels with the imposition of Mixed Fleet after BASSA refused to negotiate on the issue are very similar indeed.

Intention to Ballot -
http://freepdfhosting.com/287a681774.pdf

Looks like Unite have at last attempted to get to grips with the BASSA recordkeeping.

Quite shocking that in the previous ballot 10,220 were balloted, having obviously gone to some effort to get the membership records under control, the number which will now be balloted is just 9,824.

That means 396 fewer or around 4% of the total, and certainly a material number.

It is likely that this is already out of date as many will have resigned from BASSA having being told to do so by Duncan Holley himself in his blog of 23 January 2011:

www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

As Unite has used data sourced from BA on 27 January, it is likely these records will not reflect any who resigned from BASSA following that outburst.

And, as a little bonus, proof, if proof were needed, that BASSA is stuck in the 1970s, a screenshot posted on another site of the BASSA forum after they wiped it clean to stop dissenting posts:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3184/bassa.jpg

I would agree with JT's post below that the latest membership record methodology does seem to be "reasonable", which should satisfy the ERS.

[Juan Tugoh]

I think that the law requires that all reasonable measures to establish membership numbers are made. I think that this latest does meet this requirement. The DH rant is a red herring in the sense that there will always be changes to the union membership numbers form month to month. There has to be a snapshot date on which union membership numbers are taken to be correct for the purposes of a ballot. UNITE seem to have done this, the DH variation can be discounted as post the snapshot date, which is only a month old. This meets the reasonableness test.

[LD12986]

The penny hasn't dropped yet has it?

Just in the same way many of the previous grievances wouldn't have arisen had negotiated and there hadn't been a strike, the additional new grievances wouldn't have arisen had BASSA reached an agreement with the company.

The original call to strike was to "send a message" to BA. And BA has duly sent one back to BASSA that it will carry on without you.

In other news: Brent crude hit $119 a barrel this morning.

If the oil price carries on increasing, there may be more "impositions" for BASSA to wail about.

[Hipennine]

I find it interesting that Brendan Gold's letter to BA states that they will be balloting all Unite members employed as CC within BA, to include LGW, and MF.

This would seem to be in contradiction to the BASSA strategy to restrict to LHR "legacy" only, and does the inclusion of MF provide a further legal objection to the validity of the ballot, in that the MF work group is not involved in the dispute ?

[WillDAQ]

Don't put the line "related to the original dispute." in a ballot which must not be related to the previous dispute to be protected...

Muppets.

[MPN11]

It seems clear to me that Unite are trying to hold an "unchallengeable' ballot by providing those membership numbers. I think it's a perfectly valid attempt to get things right this time, and most reasonable people would accept that it's impossible to get it 100% correct when the Union's membership is constantly changing [both up and down, although probably more of the latter].

As to the inclusion of MF crew, I think again this is a fair move. The fact that IA has not been an issue there should not be a reason for excluding BASSA/Unite members on MF from participating in the ballot. How would people comment if ballot papers were only sent to those who had already supported IA? IMO this has to be a 'global' ballot if it is to have any credibility.


The crunch point is surely the list of "Items of Dispute". Doesn't that list represent a list of previous demands, and thus create a 'continuation dispute'? However, I can only assume that Unite and their legal people have considered that aspect ... and determined it is safe to go ahead with what may well be, for striking CC, 'unprotected IA'.

My money would be on the BA Legal Team being more competent when the inevitable Court case ensues.

[VintageKrug]

Will the result of the ballot be announced on April Fool's Day...? :ugh::hmm:

You couldn't make it up.....:rolleyes:

[Betty girl]

MPN11,
Those M/F crew are probably main crew that moved over to take up new jobs on Mixed Fleet.

As I have posted previously, some main crew striked and supported Bassa but went for promotion at Mixed Fleet to take up the CSM position and almost double their basic pay.
Also some of the Temps from last year moved over to Mixed Fleet and a lot of them were Bassa members.

However Bassa does not have bargaining rights, at present, for Mixed Fleet crew (or previously the Temps) although separate bargaining for Mixed Fleet was offered in the negotiations .

I guess they feel they have no choice but to include Mixed Fleet crew, firstly to keep their number high and secondly because if they are members, they should get a vote. I do feel however it must upset Bassa because I very much doubt Mixed Fleet crew would vote to Strike!!! Even if some did vote to strike, I doubt any would actually feel able to strike.

These are my views and not those of my employer BA.

[Hipennine]

Genuine question:

Can any Union member of a workgroup which currently does not have any Union recognition with the employer, participate in legally protected strike action, or is this considered secondary action ?

[notlangley]

The e-mail from Brendan Gold about numbers uncovers an uncomfortable fact.._I look at the Heathrow (Worldwide Fleet) - and my sole reason is that the numbers are bigger here

Cabin Services Director__94
Main Crew _____- _____345
Purser_______________187
Grand total_____-_____ 906


So for every purser there are fewer than 2 main crew._ How astonishing!_ All aircraft I have flown on have a higher ratio of main staff._ Can it be that the rank and file of Cabin Crew are deserting Unite?_ I see that within the 45 members (Heathrow Worldwide Fleet) who have recently left, there are 7 main crew to 1 purser.


Are Amicus and BASSA becoming more elitist?_ Maybe they should rename themselves BAESSA. How about the main crew, words like plebeian and comrade come to mind._ How about
Plebeian Cabin Crew Comrades

[MPN11]

Thanks, Betty ... another complicated dimension to the whole thing!!

Notlangley ... interesting indeed, although perhaps not surprising. Is it not the case that the militancy is centered on the more senior legacy crews, who are being cruelly asked to do a bit of work for a change?

[notlangley]

Eliza Mak wins legal appeal
link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/184.html)

[Hipennine]

notlanley,

the numbers you refer to are those who pay subsciptions directly to Unite, and are therefore more likely to be CC89/Amicus. This tallies with the total of non-check off members of 906, which is rumoured to be something around the numbers of CC89 members in total. It could go some way to explaining the recent hard-line adopted by CC89, including them harping back to the original reason for the dispute - ie WW CSDs having to participate in the service.

It would be interesting though to know the total numbers of CSDs, pursers and main-crew by fleet and compare with the Unite membership breakdown, but I don't think that can be compiled from any currently available info.

[Ancient Observer]

In the legal case about HKG employees, a Superior Court of the UK has held that it has jurisdiction to hear their cases. - "The decision was based principally on the ground that they did their work partly in Great Britain"

" There was no error of law in the ET's ruling that Ms Mak did "her work partly" in Great Britain"

I look forward to the Inland Revenue chasing Ms Mak and her colleagues for their taxes and NI for all their years of employment. Getting some Chinese folk to pay UK taxes might save some UK public sector jobs.

I wonder how much of this is due to superannuated judges thinking that although the UK no longer rules HKG, it bl**dy well ought to. If I were the Chinese Government, i would be livid about this Colonial interference with my Country's laws.

Also, for that part of their work that British CC do in HKG, they must be subject to HKG and Chinese laws.

How do BA CC feel about being subject to Chinese law for that part of their time spent on HKG flights and layovers? Getting sozzled in the New World Harbour View (or wherever) is unlawful..................

All this stuff is just work for lawyers.

[Jarvy]

And for Unites pr department!

[notlangley]

You are absolutely correct, I apologize for misleading readers of this thread._ I do now accept that all the numbers that I quoted are Amicus (AKA cc89)._ And of course what really matters is the larger numbers that would correspond to BASSA._What a pity!, I thought I had found something - but Amicus are only one tenth of the total._ Also the pattern may be totally different for BASSA.

[notlangley]

a) Unite did a good job for most sectors and work groups within British Airways._ BASSA+Amicus is the exception.

b) Unite have had two invalid cabin crew strike ballots so far, and most observers blame BASSA+Amicus for this.

c) What the MAK case says to me is
1) Unions are necessary to prevent the exploitation of the labour force - this is not deliberate exploitation - but it just happens - standards slip with time - organisations become too large and an organisation loses its humanity.
2) Unite can win legal cases if the case is just.
3) Justice takes a long time, Eliza was dismissed in 2007.

[gobfa]

Cabin Services Director__94
Main Crew _____- _____345
Purser_______________187
Grand total_____-_____ 906 (Try 626)


Another example of "Creative Accounting" with the membership totals ?

[MPN11]

BWAHAHAHA ... and almost well spotted.

Just one small/LARGE problem ... that Grand Total represents all the figures on that tabulation, which equals 906.


So, moving on ....

[notlangley]

Gobfa, what can I say?
I mean thank you Gobfa it is very good of you to point this out.

Why do I have this insane sense of humour?_ I was so keen on making a joke about Proletariat Cabin Crew Comrades that my critical faculties were beaten down into passive submission.

I must not make jokes._ I must not make jokes._ I must not make jokes.

[VintageKrug]

Did this point ever get cleared up?

notlangleyThis possibility has intrigued and confused me for some time._ Can I ask a member of cabin crew to respond?

Have you actually done this - left BASSA but stayed within Unite?_ I am happy to widen this to "Has your spouse left BASSA but stayed with Unite?"._ But no friends please - because we are then into the unreliability of here-say.

PS I think it's "hearsay" as in "I heard someone say", rather than here-say

[Northern Flights]

From the "Strikebreakers rewarded" posting of 24th February on uniteba.com:


Unite's determination will count for nothing without you, we continue to need your help. We want to talk; British Airways management does not.
They have made no contact whatsoever for months, snubbing even Lenny McCluskey's personal approaches. Therefore we continue to have no alternative; we want to meet to solve things, but there is no willingness to do so, let alone compromise.


Quite breathtaking, considering Unite agreed a deal which cabin crew weren't then even given the opportunity to vote on.

[LD12986]

Regarding the "strikebreakers rewarded" post by Unite, when is the penny going to drop that by prolonging this dispute Unite has only made matters worse for their members and BA is not going to put everything on hold for them (see part time offers for crew who've accepted the offer)?

[Entaxei]

Why ????

Because that is when DH & LaLa have the ability to draw their union pension - how do I know this - because DH stated this in one of his posts about 18 months ago.

He will not change anything at present except to insure that no agreement is reached - hence when Woodley issued the last offer from BA for members approval, stating that this was the best that could be negotiated - which included the caveat from BA that the offer stood good for 90 days, provided no IA was called for - DH immediately issued a call for IA, listing proposed strike dates, which led to BA withdrawing the offer.
Woodley then issued a statement that as BASSA did not agree with the offer, neither would Unite. All of which argues that BASSA is not a normal branch operation.

The reason DH does not wish to reach any agreement, is that around 2009, BASSA altered its own rule book to state that when there is a dispute on, no elections for any positions in BASSA will be held until the dispute is over, also that BASSA will have sole authority to agree a dispute. As a result neither he nor LaLa can be replaced as officers, no reps can be appointed to replace those who have left for any reason, this is why he called for volunteer unpaid reps some while ago and of course, nobody can call a motion to cancel the pensions of himself and LaLa, before they commence - nor challenge any statements made or actions taken - stalemate!!

In the meantime about the only thing that prospers are the Toma-toes.
Should anyone feel that this is being very harsh on BASSA, DH or LaLa, may I suggest that you simply get a copy of the BASSA (not Unite) regulations and branch minutes from beginning of 2009 to date and check - also read all of DH's posts on these two threads over the same period, although a number have now been deleted.

[strikemaster82]

Who is LH?

[MPN11]

I think it's clear that the poster means DH, The Small Tomato Head and Gen Sec of BASSA.

It is entirely in his personal interest to prolong this dispute.

As ever, my sympathies go to his followers, who will eventually [and painfully] discover how well they have been led.

[Entaxei]

Thank you gentlemen, LH now changed to DH.

[LD12986]

From the CC thread.

Now WW has moved on (and taken, from BASSA's perspective, some of the personal aspect of this dispute out of it), I can entirely see the logic of KW doing this to try and draw a line under the affair and move on.

It's a very measured note (with a thinly veiled statement to Unite that they have achieved precisely nothing) but will it make any difference to sentiment amongst the BASSA hardcore?


To all cabin crew:

A personal message from Keith Williams, CEO

As the new chief executive of British Airways, I wanted to write to you personally to give my view of how things stand in the long-running dispute with Unite. I know this issue is of great concern to you, and I hope you will take a couple of minutes to read this letter.

I want my time in this job to be marked more than anything by the extra focus we place on customers – and you play a massive part in determining how good our customers feel about flying with BA.

I continually receive reports of how cabin crew have gone out of their way to make customers’ journeys more enjoyable or relaxing. You are at the absolute heart of our brand.

In any kind of dispute, words can be said which give vent to anger or frustration. I want us to put such things behind us and find a new language that reflects our common purpose in helping each other create the best possible experience for customers.

Despite the tough times we face, I have protected funds to invest for the benefit of customers. We are purchasing new aircraft, introducing new cabins, preparing to bring in improved catering, strengthening our premium service training and using new technologies to offer better entertainment in the air and less hassle on the ground.

I have brought in a new managing director for brands and customer experience, Frank van der Post. He has spent many years in the luxury hotel sector, striving – as we do – to achieve supreme standards of service for a very discerning international clientele.

Frank has been extremely impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm he has found among crew and, with Bill Francis, has many ideas for how we can make it easier for you to provide an excellent experience for customers every time they fly.

I have also authorised a bonus for last year for all cabin crew, even if they went on strike, in recognition of your work over the year as a whole.

If you belong to Unite, I am sure you know by now that the union is balloting for a fourth time for strike action. That is more ballots than in any dispute in the UK in living memory.

Despite allegations to the contrary in some quarters, I have made myself available for talks with Unite – and I want such talks to bring a successful conclusion.

I do not want more confrontation. But everyone knows that if Unite calls a strike again, we will again implement our well-rehearsed contingency plans, which this time will include flying 100 per cent of longhaul. And this time, I would not approve any bonus for anyone joining a strike.

Unite seems to have run out of ideas – it is stuck in a groove and keeps turning to outdated union tactics because it doesn’t know what else to do.

I am asking you to turn away from supporting another grim cycle of strikes and recrimination.

Voting for a strike, even if you privately intend to work normally, causes uncertainty for customers and damages our airline. It brings more divisiveness on board and prolongs the anxieties I know you feel.

I am the new chief executive and I want a new start. I want a positive relationship with all cabin crew whether in Unite or not. And I want a brilliant future for you.

I know that with new investment and your professionalism and expertise, we can completely outshine the competition and make this airline the best in the world – both for customers and for you. That is the prize. Let us look to the future and seize it.

With best wishes,

[RTR]

Apparently from Holley;

Exactly XXXXX - BA have my mobile nos, they have YYYYY and they have ZZZZZZ's.
Keith has not yet provided his to us.
Everyone and anyone in BASSA will meet him anytime, anywhere - all he has to do is dial one of our numbers.

Holley must remember that KW will ignore him, he doesn't work for BA and is persona no grata. And would he really call ANYONE in BASSA after they flatly refused to negotiate time after time. KW has not mentioned BASSA - only Unite, which kinda kicks Holley over his own line - another own goal!

KW has succinctly put his thoughts on paper and it is now up to Unite to grasp the nettle and get in touch. But another but....since it would appear that Holley is pulling his strings how can McCluskey do anything that is meaningful? Holley would refuse to accept it, whatever it was

That letter is great rallying call to the cabin crew and they should stand behind KW. Its all over for Holley after living in world that for him does not exist anymore. Now is the time for PCCC to stand up and be counted.

One more thing. Holley/Unite still have to answer BASSAwitch's request.

[strikemaster82]

I don't think DH has realised that when Keith says he'll talk to UNITE, he means UNITE, not BASSA....

[notlangley]

On 19 February 2010, Sir Christopher Holland sitting as a Judge of the High Court saidThe BASSA and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms. Despite the efforts of ACAS they could not be persuaded to join forces for a meeting with BA. The latter raised the possibility of separate agreements with the respective factions but, understandably, that did not appeal.paragraph 21 ix) of___link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/302.html)

[Ancient Observer]

Why on Earth would the incoming CEO of a middle sized Co like BA want to start his job by talking to a bunch of ex-employees?

I would much rather talk to people who represent the future, like PC3, not failures from the past.

[notlangley]

British Airways cabin crew are hard working and conscientious.
The terrible thing is that the struggle by BASSA and Amicus for managerial control over the workforce is bound to affect the good spirit and job satisfaction of the worthy cabin crew.

[AlpineSkier]

@Litebulbs re yry cc response


'Officially' striking for just one day may actually be interpreted by BA as several days unavailable for work, depending on when an individual striker actually next turned up for duty! And that interpretation may turn out to be unlawful.[/QUOTE]

Please acknowledge Litebulbs that it may turn out to be lawful and that you have no idea until the court has delivered its verdict.

[Litebulbs]

Absolutely acknowledge, hence may.

[hellsbrink]

To go along the "'Officially' striking for just one day may actually be interpreted by BA as several days unavailable for work, depending on when an individual striker actually next turned up for duty!" line, how would it sit if someone "pulled a sickie" or refused to show because their roster had them on longhaul before/after the strike date. So one day would be "striking", when they would not be working, but since they would be in, say, Hong Kong on the strike date with no way of getting back home, etc, they took a day or three "off" unofficially, due to the timing of the strike, then surely the result would be that it is "interpreted by BA as several days unavailable for work" and disciplinary action could legally be taken as appropriate....


Litebulbs, it's over to you.

[Litebulbs]

Not over to me in any way. BA have acted and it is being challenged. It may be lawful, it may not. No doubt it will be based on something along the lines of your assumption and the courts will look at if that assumption was a reasonable response.

[Neptunus Rex]

From "that other place:"
I'm told a number of members of the Leadership Team were against awarding the bonus to strikers but were overruled by KW who felt that as it wasn't a previously stated sanction it would be unfair to deny them it. I suppose he needs to be seen to be scrupulously fair.How sad. KW is trying to placate strikers who seem intent on ruining BA, or at least furthering BASSA's intent of interfering in the running of the company.

KW should have excluded the strikers from one penny of bonus payment, let them bleat and moan, and probably make complete fools of themselves in the courts, yet again.

It is beyond time when BA management should say "enough, already!"

[Yellow Pen]

How sad. KW is trying to placate strikers who seem intent on ruining BA, or at least furthering BASSA's intent of interfering in the running of the company

I disagree. Denying them the bonus is easy. Hawkish behaviour merely plays into BASSAs hands. BA are playing a very straight bat. There are no sanctions they have not warned of in advance. Every sanction they have warned of has been imposed. BA are showing they are good to their word. BASSA are letting slip their duplicitous behaviour. I don't think this dispute will be won by BA with a final felling blow. It will end when the BASSA leadership lead a walk out and discover there's nobody behind them.

[LD12986]

I can see both sides of the argument and I suspect paying the bonus to strikers was the least worst option.

Everything BA has done in the past (impose changes, remove staff travel, calculate deduction of pay for strikers) has been done with a clear prior warning (though, sadly, many thought BA was bluffing).

If the bonus was withdrawn without warning from strikers, all that will do is rile some strikers even more and giving BASSA something else to bleat about.

KW's e-mail and the payment of the bonus (with a warning that this year's won't be paid to any strikers this year) is a test for BASSA. It's time they took the lead from BA and made a gesture towards settlement. If they carry on with the puerile personal attacks on management (see the post of 12 February below) then BA may as well carry on the running the business ignoring the thorn in its side and allow BASSA to continue its slow self-destruction.


"Arise" Sir William of Waterside

It's interesting to note that in recent communication, our erstwhile and revered leader has gone from the more formal, Bill Francis, head of IFCE to just simple "Bill"; whether we should read anything into this is unclear.

So what has happened to inspire this exercise in moniker shortening? Is he preparing himself in readiness to join "Sir" Martin in the next New Years Honours list?

Probably not.

It could be nothing more than the fact that the Bill Francis "brand name"
is now so utterly bereft of any value whatsoever, and to be frank, held in such complete and utter contempt by the vast majority of crew, that he has simply decided to "re-brand" himself as just plain old "Bill".

Let's face it; it does sound a little chummier, "matey" if you will. It fits perfectly with "Bill's a good lad" or "that Bill's a nice bloke"
perhaps. Virtually everybody has an uncle Bill, and without exception they are usually nice! Perhaps he hopes some of that fondness that people usually have for a "good old Uncle Bill" will finally rub off on him.

Or maybe he just hopes that you will just think it's somebody else called "Bill" so his recent, ill-judged statements and crass comments such as it's an "exciting time to come to work in IFCE if we could all forget the dispute" or "we are investing more than ever in the customer experience"
wouldn't sound quite so hollow. Or even that there is a slim chance that the diminishing number of "real" crew may just take him seriously.

Because let's face it, these words could not seriously come from the real current head of IFCE, could they? Not the man who presides over a department where his own people sit on a car park bus in near silence, only speaking to those they know and can trust, afraid to look at, or even strike up a conversation with colleagues that they don't know just in case they say the wrong thing or glance at somebody the "wrong way". Where the value of CRM has completely and utterly gone, as the majority of crew turn their backs on pilot colleagues for turning their backs on us. Then, when they finally get to work, spend a substantial amount of that time apologising to our actual customers for the ever-diminishing product we have to offer?

Those words could not come from "that" Bill surely?

A far more likely theory could be that he realises nobody but a handful of his chosen acolytes actually ever read his stuff anyway, and that these are so few in number that he is more than likely on first name terms with them anyway.

Let's be honest, rather than trying to curry favour with a name change, perhaps a simple show of hands would have sufficed to obtain the credibility amongst crew that he so desperately chases...

Hands up all those who think that good old Bill "exciting place to work"
Francis is doing a great job and should be duly recognised for his sterling work?

Hmmm, maybe he should stick with "William" after all...hello? Hello? Bill?
Bill?

[Neptunus Rex]

Yellow Pen and LD 12968,

Good points and soundly made.

Respect!

[MPN11]

If they carry on with the puerile personal attacks on management (see the post of 12 February below) ....

Indeed ... both sad and juvenile.

I have the greatest sympathy for BA management who are having to deal with these people. "Top executives in a major plc v. The 5th Form" ... no wonder this just drags on - and on - and on - and on - ... ..

[west lakes]

'Officially' striking for just one day may actually be interpreted by BA as several days unavailable for work, depending on when an individual striker actually next turned up for duty!

From memory, cabin crew were warned this could/would happen if they went on strike, as far as I recall it did!

[Mariner9]

So KW has started his tenure by imposing a bonus on the CC ;)

If nothing else, it will annoy DH. He will get bu88er all.

[fincastle84]

Whilst Dh & his Bassa weasels are contemplating their navels, real, professional aircrew have just rescued 150 civilians from the Libyan desert.

Enough said about Bassa, before I get banned (again)!

Well done to the military.:ok:

[Joao da Silva]

Thought I would drop by again and see what has happened on the forum over the past few weeks.

I see that we are now comparing a military special forces extraction to the day to day operation of an airline.

Keep taking the pills.

Bye again.

[VintageKrug]

I think you should read this JdS to realise there have been some very substantive discussions posted in the past week:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/441165-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iv-29.html

It is clear that BASSA has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory during the course of this dispute due to its administrative incompetence, refusal to engage in negotiation, and elitist senior longhaul CSD-centric agenda.

BASSA now faces censure from the Certification Officer, a possible High Court challenge for maladministration (the costs of which would be borne by BASSA's officers), and Unite itself could be liable for the full costs incurred by BA as a consequence of this strike.

Any future withdrawal of labour will not have any significant effect on passengers, and BASSA is not having a significant effect on forward bookings.

As an aside, it appears Holley's Employment Tribunal hearing judgement will be released tomorrow (Monday). Whatever the outcome, he will never work for BA again.

[LD12986]

As an aside, it appears Holley's Employment Tribunal hearing judgement will be released tomorrow (Monday). Whatever the outcome, he will never work for BA again.

Where has this been confirmed? The decision should make for interesting reading!

[mrpony]

There is a move on the part of Bassa to donate bonuses to something called Crewdefence. If 4000 strikers donated an average of 500 quid that would be 2 million!

I visited Crewdefence's web site. No accounts , no management named, nothing. What happens to money given and how is it, or how should it be, regulated?

I ask you because you seem to have a grasp of the legal niceties and I haven't got a clue.

With such large sums potentially being involved i'd have thought that there should be some sort of regulatory structure - otherwise you are not sure that you might just as well be sending your money to a long lost Nigerian relative who's tracked you down on the interweb.

Also, the web site says:

'CrewDefence exists to support your official union representation and the cabin crew community as a whole, with access to the very best solicitors and legal advocates.'

Surely the branch funds are there to carry this burden and Unite have a very large budget to play with? Furthermore I question the use of the term 'Legal Advocate' - that is something that could be applied to anyone.

[Litebulbs]

It is genuinely nice to see somebody concerned with how union members in dispute, potentially spend a company supplied bonus.

[mrpony]

Are you being sarcastic?

[Litebulbs]

Not if you are concerned..........

[Betty girl]

mrpony,

I very much doubt that a large number of Bassa members will donate their bonus to this cause. Some may but I expect the vast majority will just spend it like anyone else would.

[mrpony]

I'd be concerned if you were being sarcastic.

Bettygirl

You know better than I about how CC might spend bonuses.


Still, who are crewdefence and how is spending allocated and recorded?

[Litebulbs]

I am sure there are posters on here who will contact the hyperlinked legal and financial sites displayed on the website. If they are happy, then I am sure the Bassa membership will be too.

[mrpony]

Yes, I thought that for a moment but those are just links to sites that don't legitimise Crewdefence in any way.

If people are willing to part with their money at the end of the day it is their lookout. I just think it seems unattributable and unregulated. At least BASSA's accounts are meant to be operated according to a set of rules and it can be called into line if failing to do so.

[Betty girl]

I think, and I am not an expert so may be wrong, that Crew Defence was set up by some cabin crew and not Bassa mainly because some of them wanted to finance some kind of test case against BA about the sackings and removal of staff travel and deductions of extra days pay.

If they want to waist their money, who are we to stop them.

These are my views and not those of BA.

[mrpony]

I'm sure you are right. But that seems even curiouser to me.

1.Why would members of a branch of a Union that gets 1.5 million plus annually, and has the backing of UNITE, resort to finding their own legal funds?

2.For costs directly related to action taken at the behest of and with encouragement from its leadership?

3.Which legal cases are being funded by the Union?

All very bloomin' strange if you ask me. The only rational explanation is that Crewdefence is set up to fund those legal costs that the Union will not stump up for because the cases are too weak. In which case why say it is to support the 'official union representation', because it isn't! The lack of clarity about who they are and what they do and how and why leaves loads of questions about Crewdefence.

That's all.

[Betty girl]

Look, as I say I am no expert, and my understanding may be wrong, but I believe it was started at around the time that DS and TW asked for the BA agreement to be put to cabin crew (the one that never was) and part of that agreement required Unite to agree to not take legal action against BA with regard to staff travel and disciplinaries.

So I believe that some crew were upset by this and set up Crew Defence but as I said I am not completely sure of my facts, so please do not assume I have got all the facts completely right.

These are my views and they may be completely wrong and they are definitely not those of my employer BA.

[mrpony]

Sorry to drag this part a wider debate on. I didn't mean to imply that you knew what the score was and that could have been better expressed as, "I'm sure you might be right".

[pencisely]

Having in the last 4 days travelled BA CW from Rio to London and then continued my journey to Mumbai Via Dubai on Emirates business class I am in a good position to review the 2 services.


Equipment - Got off an ageing BA 777 onto a pretty new Emirates 777 300 ER. The Emirates fit out was way ahead of the BA cabin with nice touches like wireless ICE control, electric blinds and the toilet bag provision was superior to that provided in BA's 1st. On a personal note I found the BA bed more comfortable to sleep in even though Emirates provide a mattress to lie on.
Service - Emirates win here - Young, energised and keen to help Versus BA matronly seen it all before and lets get the blinds closed and get you all of to sleep approach. I found myself wondering how BASSA would react to having to manage mattresses in CW. Did Emirates management have to negotiate with the cabin crew union before introducing this touch? The prepare cabin for landing task was a pretty major undertaking on Emirates and they were given 15 minutes warning into Dubai but did it with a smile nevertheless.
Cost - Well the reason I was on Emirates down to Mumbai was it because it came at less than half the price of BA CW.


This is the scale of the mountain BA have to climb, the management know it but BASSA are still of the belief that they are the custodians of the premier airline service. Time to wake up, the world has moved on and BA need to move with it and cannot possibly do it with the old BASSA millstone around its neck.

[Litebulbs]

"....young, energised vs matronly...." would probably be seen as discriminatory by the Equality Act 2010 in a combined age/sex claim, in my view.

[AlpineSkier]

"....young, energised vs matronly...." would probably be seen as discriminatory by the Equality Act 2010 in a combined age/sex claim, in my view. "

Why did you post this LB - just felt like stirring it ?

You are , of course , correct that a company saying this would be liable, but this is a private individual expressing his/her thoughts as an opinion and therefore not subject to this legislation.

So once again, why ?

[VintageKrug]

It’s a shame Lightbulbs says such things, as many of his/her posts are relatively balanced and well reasoned. There’s nothing wrong with holding a contrary view on something, as long as you can back it up.

The poster above sets out a perfectly valid personal perspective; it may not be PC, but it is a passenger perspective. The age of crew isn’t really the issue, though it is the one you seized on, Lightbulbs. The issue is that many new airlines offer a terrific product, at a great price and many of these airlines’ international crew do indeed work considerably harder for less, and do so willingly. This is the real threat to your job, not BA Management and one you hear not one jot of discussion about by those aligning themselves with BASSA. It is not BA Management who are the enemy here.

Do I think BA should treat its crew as Emirates treats its crew? No.

But as a passenger, I need BA to offer a competitively priced, innovative product, with new aircraft (some are on the way!), great people, and enough available to spend on the passenger experience (bussing gates/AVOD which works/decent amenity kit/great lounges and above all, a smile); increasingly my experience on longhaul is that some BA crew are very much not happy to be there, and make that position quite clearly known to me as a passenger.

That is neither good for me or good for BA.

In my view, this is largely to do with the divisive and unrealistic expectations BASSA has nurtured amongst cabin crew; not mainly about salary or T&CS, though they have done that, but about cabin crew’s role in “managing” the airline and also about the means by which product improvements can be brought about.

BASSA contends that by maintaining cabin crew costs at 1990s levels, the passenger experience will improve. In fact, there is no correlation between wages and service delivered. There is a very high correlation between unrealistic expectations and a bad attitude in the workplace. BA has a finite income source, and cabin crew do indeed create a loyalty – not least amongst me personally – which keep me coming back. But that loyalty should not be overestimated.

If income is finite and costs elsewhere are increasing, a structural re-alignment is required; BA has tried very hard to achieve this with minimal impact on the cabin crew community via part time working, VR and other “passive” means. Costs need to come down, or there simply won’t be the cash out there to invest in improved “hard product” – BA was lucky it invested in flat beds a decade ahead of most other carriers, and crew have benefited from this foresight as the hard product has kept passengers coming back.

The bottom line is that other airlines now offer an almost equivalent, if not better, hard product and if I can cocoon myself with electronic check in, a decent lounge, jetway boarding, a flat bed, decent AVOD/laptop power and food cooked in a steam oven with three or four drinks passes, most passengers are happy most of the time. They can offer this at a price which wither undercuts or is competitive with BA.

There does seem to be a perspective amongst many Union members that dissention is a crime, and that anyone who holds an opposing view must either be an employee/former employee/closely connected person of BA Management. I am none of these, never have been. Nonetheless the BASSA “forum lice” are happy to repeatedly accuse posters such as myself with a credible, carefully considered perspective as being part of BA Management/Burke Group, simply for setting out the position as we see it, and referencing the position usually with either impartial “horse’s mouth” information or using BASSA/Unite sources to demonstrate the truth of the matter.

The truth is, they are scared to read some of what is posted, for it exposes their intellectual vacuity and demonstrates the immorality of some of what they have espoused..

In order for the Union’s view to be granted the respect it expects, it is incumbent on those supporting the Union position to grant the same respect to others who support a different view even if that view may be uncomfortable for them to read.

Today will indeed be an interesting day.

[Ancient Observer]

Litebulbs took exception to a passenger's impression of service.
"....young, energised vs matronly...."

There are many things different in both the Pacific World (Asia) and the Southern Med world. Attitudes to age are better in Asia - but not due to stuff about "human rights". ..............but due to Respect.
Arguably, looking across the world, there is no such thing as "human rights". All humans can expect is "socially defined rights for our people". (Or more accurately, job creation for lawyers).

I first travelled routinely to Asia in 1989. In the UK, that was in the days of State monopolies, and weeks of waiting for a phone line.
In places like Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore services worked.

They did not have "democracy" - and it was carefully explained to me that they did not want it. They wanted the "right" to improve their standard of living. They did not want the right to vote. They wanted economic freedom and increased incomes. Governments such as Lee Kwan Yew's delivered.

In brief - Litebulbs has a socially defined right to comment, and a socially defined right to a view about "age".
Don't expect that others in the world have the same view.
..............and it is those others in the world that will eventually, (in the long run) bankrupt BA and the other legacy carriers, as most customers prefer better service to employee rights.

[Tigger4Me]

BASSA contends that by maintaining cabin crew costs at 1990s levels, the passenger experience will improve.

I'm sorry BASSA but it will take a considerable improvement in CC behaviour to get me back on board following my 1990s experience. I have only flown four sectors with BA and with each there has been a problem either with on board service, catering workers or Customer Services.

The final straw was a sector from SIN to LHR where our seating allocation was messed up at check in. Once on board we were served by CC who clearly had no interest in customer service at all. Once dinner was out of the way, it was lights out and fend for yourselves as no crew were to be seen until we were well over northern Europe when breakfast was brought round. Not served but delivered three high at the end of each block of seats for us to help ouselves. Reading through these two threads for the last couple of years I am now getting some understanding of why we so badly served on that flight.

I have always worked on the principle that if you are not happy in a job then you have probably chosen the wrong career. Time to move on for some of them I think.

[Avionker]

As an aside, does anyone else find it amusing when BASSA supporters claim to be dismayed about the decline of "product" offered to passengers and lay the blame squarely on management? Weren't BASSA the the ones who blocked hot towels in WT Plus by claiming that an extra crew member was required for that onerous task?

[PAXboy]

pencisely
This is the scale of the mountain BA have to climb, the management know it but BASSA are still of the belief that they are the custodians of the premier airline service. Time to wake up, the world has moved on and BA need to move with it and cannot possibly do it with the old BASSA millstone around its neck.I think this question is more usually taken in the 'Brickbats' thread, so I shall answer briefly - not least as I repeat myself for regular readers ...

I am certain (as near as can be stated) that the mountain cannot be climbed. BA is in the last phase of it's life. You cannot undo 90 + years of company history, behaviour, culture etc. I should be fascinated to hear of any other large, international company that has recovered their service and profitability from this low ebb. For the record, I have never worked in the airline world.

On the topic of strikes, my sister-in-law and I were discussing long haul trips and I spoke of one planned for autumn of 2012 and that I will use BA (redemption flight) she said, "Would you book them with all those strikes?" So, despite that this dispute fizzling out, folks still think that BA is unreliable. Recover from this?

[Joao da Silva]

For the benefit of those huffing and puffing about Litebulb's (one in particular, who seems a little pompous, or should I say gassy?)

I think, knowing Litebulb's style, it is likely that he is referring indirectly to the Mak and Ors v BA tribunal last week, which of course BA lost, as well as a raft of other UK legislation.

Therefore 'young and energetic' is not an option available to BA, but very much so to EK, who comply with different regulations - bravo to Ancient Observer for eloquently posting around that theme.

Now I am going again, back to the Strategic Management Society forum where there is rather more logic than in some of these posts.

Safe travels everyone.

[pwalhx]

With reference to the poster not being PC, having also flown on BA and EK recently I would put the experience more simplistically.

EK - Interested in making your flight a more pleasant experience.

BA - Having to deal with you is an inconvenience.

[Joao da Silva]

pwalhx

What you see is your truth and I'm sure it will influence your future purchases.

However, don't forget the part 'management by fear' plays behind the EK smiles; I lived and worked in the UAE for a while and the dice are loaded heavily in favour of the employer.

I don't judge the UAE, it is the way they do things there.

[Mariner9]

By way of balance, I personally think the service and food is better on BA than it is on EK, and much prefer the Club/First cabins on the BA 777's to the EK777's.

However the EK A380 is superb. I can fly First with them for less money than the BA Club World fully flex fare to the same destination.

Consequently, I now have an EK Gold card. My BA card declined to silver 2 years ago and I'm about to be demoted back to blue.

BA have to address the factors that leads them to charge so much more than their competitors. No amount of bleating by BASSA can change that.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Joao,

However, don't forget the part 'management by fear' plays behind the EK smiles; I lived and worked in the UAE for a while and the dice are loaded heavily in favour of the employer

You are totally right IMO. I have spoken to a number of people who haved worked for Emirates, and certainly amongst the CC, its strictly 'managing by fear'. The problem is that with BA ( I'm CC with them), there has been NO fear at all in the past thanks to Bassa stamping thier footprint over everything. There needs to be a balance as in all things

Entaxei wrote


Forecast - This Dispute will end around Q4/2011
Why ????

Because that is when DH & LaLa have the ability to draw their union pension - how do I know this - because DH stated this in one of his posts about 18 months ago.

He will not change anything at present except to insure that no agreement is reached - hence when Woodley issued the last offer from BA for members approval, stating that this was the best that could be negotiated - which included the caveat from BA that the offer stood good for 90 days, provided no IA was called for - DH immediately issued a call for IA, listing proposed strike dates, which led to BA withdrawing the offer.
Woodley then issued a statement that as BASSA did not agree with the offer, neither would Unite. All of which argues that BASSA is not a normal branch operation.

The reason DH does not wish to reach any agreement, is that around 2009, BASSA altered its own rule book to state that when there is a dispute on, no elections for any positions in BASSA will be held until the dispute is over, also that BASSA will have sole authority to agree a dispute. As a result neither he nor LaLa can be replaced as officers, no reps can be appointed to replace those who have left for any reason, this is why he called for volunteer unpaid reps some while ago and of course, nobody can call a motion to cancel the pensions of himself and LaLa, before they commence - nor challenge any statements made or actions taken - stalemate!!

In the meantime about the only thing that prospers are the Toma-toes.
Should anyone feel that this is being very harsh on BASSA, DH or LaLa, may I suggest that you simply get a copy of the BASSA (not Unite) regulations and branch minutes from beginning of 2009 to date and check - also read all of DH's posts on these two threads over the same period, although a number have now been deleted.


Firstly have to agree on everything you have said. I have known DH and LaLa for a very long time ( Hi Dunc ) and DH in particular will keep this going for ever if allowed. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if he changed the Bassa constitution again ( another show of hands at the Jockey club) to allow him to stay on beyond Nov 2011. Lets be honest 5% of Bassa's contributions into his back pocket is a nice little earner when you have 'retired' from your old job. This guy, and I know from experiance, could start a fight in an empty room. Has sadly done it for years, whether at meetings with BA, or with some of the members. He has sent a number of texts to long serving crew who have left Bassa with the simple message - cock. Charming. I could say more but don't want to give myself away. This is not character assasignation, but simply and sadly the truth. NONE of what he has done in the last 2 years has surprised me at all, whether outing crew on the Bassa forum, sending abusive texts or telling Bassa members who don't PLAY the party line to b****r off. I'm just pleased that everything I've known has now come into the public view.

As for LaLa, my bet is she will simply fly off back to California never to return. Nothing in it for her anymore past Nov.

One final question to Entexei, what do you mean by ' A Union Pension'. Surely they don't get one of those, as they are only running the branch. Happy to be put right

[Lord Bracken]

Not content with veto-ing the hot towels in WTP, BASSA also scuppered the service levels on the London City - New York flight - BA originally wanted to have a 'dine on demand' service and pitch the offering a more of a "Club Seat, First Service" product.

[fincastle84]

BA have to address the factors that leads them to charge so much more than their competitors

Competing against EK is a very difficult task due to their ability to buy their fuel at an advantageous price when operating out of or through DXB.

[Mariner9]

Competing against EK is a very difficult task due to their ability to buy their fuel at an advantageous price when operating out of or through DXB.

Fair point to a degree Fin, though the price of Jet A-1 in Mideast Gulf is typically only 3-5% cheaper than NW Europe.

Argus Global Markets average price 4th Quarter 2010:

Mideast Gulf: $761/ton
NW Europe: $788/ton

An interesting figure for BASSA members to chew over when contemplating further action is the 7-10th Feb price (the last one I've got access to):

Mideast Gulf: $901/ton
NW Europe: $939/ton

I recall BASSA bleating in the early stages of this dispute about BA's fuel hedging strategy costing the company millions in a year when prices fell. Have they anything to say on the subject now?

[Ancient Observer]

Can you change service levels?

Paxboy asked whether or not service levels can be fundamentally changed.

My experience as a customer tells me that they can be changed. I'll give a number of examples where Co.s have tried.
1. The British Passport Agency. They were truly awful a few years ago. it was so bad that a number of Brit. newspapers ran campaigns against the whole agency. New management, training, and new targets changed it. Whilst they are not perfect, they are sooooo much better.
2. British Telecomms. Again, pre-privatisation and post-privatisation they were awful. You had to wait weeks for a phone line.
Back in 1986 I moved in to a flat (in the North west of UK), but I had to move out again as BT said it would take over 3 months before I got a phone line!
Again, not perfect now, and not cheap, but doing sooooo much better.
3. BA. Anyone else remember the step change in customer service around the early 90's when they ran PPF1 and PPF2? Either the CEO or the Chair attended every programme across the world.

Morale from these, and others, is that
1. The senior managers have to be Truly committed, people who are not "on board" need to be fired, and
2. The energy for the change needs to be more than the energy against the change, and
3. It is no good doing it "once". The energy for excellent customer service needs to be perpetual.

.................AND, yes, there needs to be a modest amount of fear. .........fear that if I deliver poor customer service, I will be fired.................whether I am CC or whether I am the CC Manager.

As regular readers know, I would fire about half of the BA CC managers.

[JUAN TRIPP]

.................AND, yes, there needs to be a modest amount of fear. .........fear that if I deliver poor customer service, I will be fired.................whether I am CC or whether I am the CC Manager.

As regular readers know, I would fire about half of the BA CC managers.

Yes thats it, a modest amount, also proportianal. Are you including CSD's in that 'CC managers' part. I'd get rid of around 20-30% of CSD's, especially those who couldn't run a bath never mind an a/c:ugh:

[ChicoG]

Fair point to a degree Fin, though the price of Jet A-1 in Mideast Gulf is typically only 3-5% cheaper than NW Europe.

Not to their national carriers it isn't! (and I see the bills for one of them that are continually written off).

[vctenderness]

On the subject of DH/Lady LaLa's pensions.

They are not entitled to a union pension - they are both lay-reps.

DH claimed his BA pension before he was dismissed.

[fincastle84]

Not to their national carriers it isn't! (and I see the bills for one of them that are continually written off).

Exactly. That's the problem, EK are subsidised to the hilt which creates a very bumpy playing field.

I'm out of here for a couple of weeks for some sunshine. LGW-GND tomorrow in J, with BA obviously. Is it too much to hope that progress will have been made sorting out Bassa by the time I return?

[ZimmerFly]

Time for BASSA/UNITE to wake up. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

The airline sector did particularly badly in the survey. British Airways, hampered by union strikes and bad weather, slumped from eight in 2010 to No 48. Virgin Atlantic's credibility also dropped significantly, falling from fourth position in 2010 to 14th

Engines run smoothly again as Rolls-Royce is named top brand - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/engines-run-smoothly-again-as-rollsroyce-is-named-top-brand-2227589.html)

[Betty girl]

Have a lovely holiday fincastle.
BG

[VintageKrug]

Lord Bracken Not content with veto-ing the hot towels in WTP, BASSA also scuppered the service levels on the London City - New York flight.

BA originally wanted to have a 'dine on demand' service and pitch the offering a more of a "Club Seat, First Service" product.


In fact BA has done very well, using LGW crew to deliver a top notch service, with delicious catering by South London eatery "Roast", despite BASSA's attempts to dictate service levels.

Still seems odd to me that crew must report to LGW first before shuttling to LCY; not very pragmatic.

Here is the HotTowelGate link:

. LGW/LHR - 29/01/09 Hot Towels (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWLHRhottowels.html)

And here is ClubWorldLondonCityGate:

. LGW - 24/07/09 - Fisher - LCY Update (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWfisherupdate240709.html)

you can see that BA originally wanted a la carte dining for London City, but it "wouldn't work" according to BASSA.

Here:

. LGW - 27/07/09 - Fisher - Failure to Agree (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWfisherFTA270709.html)

you can see that Unite originally wanted Cabin Crew to have 24 hours rest in Ireland after operating the arduous (less than one hour!) LCY-SNN service.

It's just no way to operate a modern business.

[Landroger]

Have a lovely holiday fincastle.
BG

That was a nice thought BG. :)

295 to ORD the other day, well mixed crew, lots of smiles. Couldn't really do more and they all did it with a smile. Had to refuse drinks later in the flight as they were round so often to keep us hydrated and this is in 'steerage'. :ok:

Aeroplane obviously getting on, but not broke or dirty - I thought all BA 777s had Rollers? This one had GE90s!:ugh: Very smooth though and ended up at FL400 and either early or bang on time - wasn't sure.

As an aside, I vote ORD as the fastest port of entry into USA. Cabin to rental in 32 minutes and I once did it - a couple of years ago and in to a friends car - in fourteen minutes. :D I've taken >90 mins at Atlanta and almost that in Miami. :ugh:

Roger.

[SeenItAll]

I have not posted on this (long) thread because I don't travel via BA. But the issues presented are not too dissimilar to those faced by legacy airlines around the world. I wish to note, though, that while financial shackles may yet determine the destiny of these airlines, employee attitude and management performance are fixable.

Because of my home airport(s), I have been a frequent flyer on Continental for the last 20+ years. It is well-known that this airline was in the dumps during the early '90s as its merger with People's Express and its acquisition of certain Eastern Airlines' assets imploded, and it went into bankruptcy. All of the telltale signs were there: dirty old planes, unmotivated crew and clueless management.

But in the mid-'90s, management began to turn around. Under Gordon Bethune, Continental made a deal with Boeing to refurbish its fleet (on credit) and established increased financial rewards to staff based on operational and customer performance. The rest is history. (Read, Amazon.com: From Worst to First: Behind the Scenes of Continental's Remarkable Comeback (9780471356523): Gordon Bethune: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Worst-First-Continentals-Remarkable-Comeback/dp/0471356522/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298918295&sr=8-1) .)

So based on a joint effort, you can turn around an airline. What is needed is to stop the emphasis on blaming your partners, and start to try to work with them for the common good. Sadly, though, I remain worried that as the result of the recent merger between Continental and United, it is possible to backtrack, too. The next year will tell as operations become truly integrated.

[fincastle84]

Thanks for your kind thoughts.

As ever I'm sure it will be a great pleasure to spend 9 hours in the company of your excellent colleagues.

Fly safely & keep smiling.:ok:

[PAXboy]

Ancient Observer Takes up my challenge
My experience as a customer tells me that they can be changed.

1. The British Passport Agency.
True, but not an international company. No shareholders and all elements within direct control of the boss (Home Secretary) who is based in the same city.
2. British Telecom.
I was involved in telecommunications from 1979 to 2003 and so I saw all of this although, again, would draw the caveat that their operations are in the UK, overseas units are not quite the same but I will grant you!
3. BA. Anyone else remember the step change in customer service around the early 90's when they ran PPF1 and PPF2? Either the CEO or the Chair attended every programme across the world.

Yes - exactly so! And, as you say, they then let it go. Why? My guess is Money. After the 1989-92 recession, all companies clamped down on their costs and never let up. Good - except for the well know fact that many companies now got run by people from outside the business and ones who had not grown up through the business. I won't go back over all of that but you sometimes HAVE to spend money on the not obvious things. Lastly, this was the time when outsourcing hit the big time but that is all about saving money too.

If you doubt the problems of outsourcing, look at what happened once govt started doing it too!

SeenItAll I could not agree more, I often cite Bethune and that book in this forum. BUT, the difference with CO then was that they were bankrupt. They had reached the very bottom and had nowhere else to go and that focus' minds. Until BA reaches that stage, I suggest that serious change cannot happen.

[MCOflyer]

Continental did indeed raise themselves from the ashes. What will be most interesting is if their managemant can pull United up to their level. United has been trying but just hasn't got it right just yet.

[Litebulbs]

Why did you post this LB - just felt like stirring it ?

You are , of course , correct that a company saying this would be liable, but this is a private individual expressing his/her thoughts as an opinion and therefore not subject to this legislation.

So once again, why ?

The post suggests young is better than old. I do not agree with that. You may, which is your choice.

[Litebulbs]

[SIZE=3]It’s a shame Lightbulbs says such things, as many of his/her posts are relatively balanced and well reasoned. There’s nothing wrong with holding a contrary view on something, as long as you can back it up.

Back what up exactly? I believe the post to be discriminatory. If that is too PC, then there is nothing I can say.

[VintageKrug]

"young, energised vs. matronly" is not discriminatory.

But anyway, the age issue is a sideshow to the real issue which is that many airlines pay less, treat their crews very poorly, and yet those individuals still deliver top notch service. More evidence that wages to not correlate with service delivered.

So, back to the matter of the missing BASSA accounts. I have looked into this further, there is no need to go via the certification officer with a complaint, or indeed wait until the 28 day period has elapsed.

The member can go directly to the High Court:

Quote:

31 Remedy for failure to comply with request for access.E+W+S

(1)A person who claims that a trade union has failed in any respect to comply with a request made by him under section 30 may apply to the court [F2or to the Certification Officer].

(2)Where [F3on an application to it] the court is satisfied that the claim is well-founded, it shall make such order as it considers appropriate for ensuring that [F4the applicant]—

(a)is allowed to inspect the records requested,

(b)is allowed to be accompanied by an accountant when making the inspection of those records, and

(c)is allowed to take, or is supplied with, such copies of, or of extracts from, the records as he may require.


Write a letter to the union asking for access to the accounts within 28 days of the original request, and explain that if access (as permitted by the legislation) is not granted within that time ask the High Court for an order that access is granted.

The legislation requires that:

Quote:
(2)Where such access is requested the union shall—

(a)make arrangements with the member for him to be allowed to inspect the records requested before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day the request was made,

(b)allow him and any accountant accompanying him for the purpose to inspect the records at the time and place arranged, and

(c)secure that at the time of the inspection he is allowed to take, or is supplied with, any copies of, or of extracts from, records inspected by him which he requires.

(3)The inspection shall be at a reasonable hour and at the place where the records are normally kept, unless the parties to the arrangements agree otherwise.

[notlangley]

VintageKrug saidA person who claims that a trade union has failed in any respect to comply with a request . . .
Perhaps BASSA is not a trade union, but is a lodge or chapel?_ I don’t know.

[TightSlot]

Still seems odd to me that crew must report to LGW first before shuttling to LCY; not very pragmatic.

Just FYI - This is AFAIK standard practise in all airlines i.e. that Crew (CC & Pilots) will report to their home base prior to work.

Not all crew trips start and end at the same place. It's the responsibility of the airline to position you around to meet the aircraft wherever it may be, and to pay you for the time taken to do so.

If this were not the case, it would be difficult to correctly calculate Duty Periods (which start and end at home base) and could result in abuse by the employer i.e. your trip today starts at Manchester and you will operate back into Aberdeen tomorrow - the following day your report will be in Cardiff!

The LGW crew can report at LGW because they are "in hours" to position to LCY and then operate - their Duty Hours calculation will start from report time at LGW, their Flying Duty Hours calculation will start from arrival at LCY.

Hope this helps

[StudentInDebt]

The LGW crew can report at LGW because they are "in hours" to position to LCY and then operate - their Duty Hours calculation will start from report time at LGW, their Flying Duty Hours calculation will start from arrival at LCY.If the positioning is to be immediately followed by a flying duty then both the Flying Duty Period and duty time start at report for the positioning sector. However, the positioning does not count as a sector for determining the maximum allowable FDP so if they do LGW-LCY-SNN-JFK the maximum FDP will be that for a 2 sector day rather than 3 - for an 0800-1259 start 14:15 instead of 13:30. If positioning after a flight then that would be counted as a duty but not included as part of the FDP. :8

[Richard228]

Not all crew trips start and end at the same place. It's the responsibility of the airline to position you around to meet the aircraft wherever it may be, and to pay you for the time taken to do so.Interesting Tightslot, thanks, i never knew that.

Sorry if this is straying OT, but could I ask if staff have the choice to report directly to LCY?

For example if you had a member of staff who resided in Canary Wharf, can they report directly to LCY, or do they have to go down to LGW, only to then be bussed back to LCY by BA?

[TightSlot]

StudentInDebt - Thanks, you are correct of course. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible - I'm familiar with the situation from my charter days, where positioning pre/post flight was the norm - It's all coming back to me now! :{

Richard228 - Normally, the report would have to be at home base. The crew need to assemble, possibly brief, and standbys to be called out for no-shows. Should an inbound aircraft divert, then the crew would be all together for transport to somewhere else.

That said, exceptions can be made on an ad-hoc basis, usually with prior agreement from the crewing department, and if the individual is known and trusted, but officially... No

[Litebulbs]

I am shocked that you would suggest that discrimination is a side show. Using the word matronly verses young is to suggest an old female. Just because it is not as glaringly obvious as other forms, does not mean that it is any less discriminatory.

As to taking the Bassa accounts issue through the courts; I believe the claim to be well founded will only happen after the 28 days.

[binsleepen]

R228,

In my company we can 'self position' The company assumes that you live close to your home base so your duty will start at the time that your taxi or hire car would leave your home base to go to your place of duty i.e. another base. If you live closer to this 'other place of duty' it would obviously madness to make you go to your home base first so the company allows you to get to this temp base under your own steam.

This seems entirely logical and reasonable but then there are no unions involved.

Regards

[Hipennine]

To my mind, the word "Matronly" suggests somebody with a particular attitude to the workplace and their "customers" (as in patients). Being old enough to remember hospital matrons, some of them were quite young, but nevertheless very matronly. It is a very apt description of the outward persona of quite a few BA CC (and a few other carriers, AC comes to mind) in my experience.

Most Matrons were extremely well motivated to the technical care of their patients, and this may well be the case with the aforementioned CC, but their patients were unlikely to find them a source of joy and happiness !

[Litebulbs]

The comment was young vs matronly. Just using matronly suggests it is the older women, not male crew.

It appears that BA have tried and failed to discriminate in this way in the Mak case as Joao states. If I read that case correctly, the discrimination part was accepted, it was the jusitiction of the case that was called into question.

[VintageKrug]

This discussion about so-called discrimination is a complete distraction from the real issue which is BA's lack of competitiveness in the global aviation market. Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

[Snas]

This current thread suggests that BA has a history of discrimination and is generally a rather poor employer. I would humbly suggest that in my own observations this isn’t the case whatsoever. Indeed I would contest that BA has been /is far more gay, mother, race, age, [insert minority group of your choice here] friendly that a great many UK employers.

With regards to the Mak case there were international considerations there that make it somewhat different and not in my view an indicator of the companies attitude generally.

Edit : Vintage beat me to it, but I agree totally...

[Litebulbs]

I agree that BA are not discriminatory, but are some suggesting it should be. That is the core of my point. I am not asking anyone to agree, it is just my view from what I read on here.

[notlangley]

Welcoming this Len McCluskey says:Of course, the time it has taken for the company to acknowledge its crew is concerning. When a company deems it an acceptable strategy to wage an all-out PR war against its own front line employees, the end result will always be disastrous. Being valued and having respect and dignity at work is what crew have been fighting for, so I am pleased at the tone of this changed approach.

Mr Williams goes on to say that he wants the angry words of the past put behind us so that we can find a language to reflect a common purpose and indicates that he is prepared to meet to seek a successful conclusion to your dispute.

This is music to my ears because we have been seeking such a meeting for some time. I have assured him that this union, and every single one of our Unite cabin crew members, would also like nothing better than to put this dispute behind them, and not only look into the future but also to “seize it”, as he rightly suggests. However, the solution and ability to seize the opportunities before us must rest equally with the company, not just cabin crew. We remain willing, but BA must also have the ‘will’.

The fact that this dispute has had more ballots than any other in recent memory should serve to tell the company something. Clearly something is wrong in the way that the company is being managed but also led.”

Len McCluskey goes on to stress that Unite’s commitment to finding a common solution to the dispute is such that he will make himself available to meet with Keith Williams at anytime:Today, I call upon Keith Williams, the new CEO of BA to meet me and cabin crew representatives anywhere, anytime to see if we can reach agreement. As the new CEO of BA, it is he, more than any single cabin crew member, that can play the biggest part in achieving this goal.

We have consistently said that negotiation not litigation or intimidation is the only way to resolve this dispute.

The spirit of the cabin crew will never be broken. Many remain in fear, not only of work moving to mixed fleet over time and the obvious implications of that, but also to simply be themselves in a company that has sacked 18 crew and suspended 70 more simply for supporting their union. For BA to have created a workplace where good people are genuinely frightened to talk to each other, in case they say the wrong thing to the wrong person is plainly wrong.”
However, Mr McCluskey also warns Keith Williams that he should set aside careworn BA lines about running a full flight schedule should industrial action follow this fresh ballot:


Keith re‐states the line that the company will run 100 per cent of flights and any action taken will have no effect. How he can say that, I don’t know. He has no way of knowing what weird and wondrous initiatives we might take should we engage in industrial action. I’m afraid in this regard his thinking is outmoded.
It also gives weight to those who argue that his letter to crew is disingenuous. I hope not, but we shall see.
If BA is serious in its intent to resolve matters between us I am of course eager to move forward. It is the case that Keith Williams has never had the opportunity to meet a single one of our excellent cabin crew representatives. I am proud of them and I am firmly of the view that it could only be a positive step for him to now do so.
I will have my team ready and able to meet today. BA have my number – all they have to do is simply call me.”

________link (http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/03/as-new-strike-ballot-gets-underway-unite-tells-ba-%E2%80%98were-ready-to-meet-are-you%E2%80%99/)

[Ancient Observer]

Can BA afford to be UK based?

One of the "Western" views of business is that all businesses should meet all "Western" laws.
That's fine, it is how Westerners have been brought up.

However, with the real growth in business - and Aviation - now in Asia, should legacy carriers who do not have a profitable business model remain in Europe at all? Ryaniar has a working business model for Europe, but the big legacy carriers struggle, especially when compared to the Asian carriers. Asian carriers also have an equally good safety record, and newer planes.
Asian carriers are not burdened with Westerners rules and laws, but meet and exceed the important ones (ICAO).

They also appear to pay all their staff much less, (other than the top team).

Maybe the most successful of the legacy carriers will be the ones that move their centre of operations out to Asia?

[VintageKrug]

A very good point, Ancient Observer.

I would anticipate IAG eyeing acquisitions in the East with considerable interest.

BASSA must balance the need to protect workers with the obvious availability of foreign based crew working for subsidiary companies. British Airways Asia springs to mind....(though it was set up for different reasons).

[R2D2-LHR]

I think Len might be waiting by the phone for a long time, has he forgotten that BA stated that Willie Walsh will still be in charge of negotiations with Unite?

[notlangley]

Ancient Observer saidAsian carriers are not burdened with Westerners rules and laws, but meet and exceed the important ones.
So all that an oil state subsidised airline need do is buy landing and takeoff slots at JFK & Heathrow and use their low paid early retiring staff to cut costs and bring spritely service and thereby obtain a threatening toe-hold on the Atlantic route._ Please someone tell me why this can’t be done - but only if you can quote a source.

[notlangley]

No-one has come up with anything authoritative to explain why a lodge or chapel which has different powers and responsibilities to a Union should be bound by Trade Union legislation.
Are we reliant on hearsay?

[mrpony]

Keith re‐states the line that the company will run 100 per cent of flights and any action taken will have no effect. How he can say that, I don’t know. He has no way of knowing what weird and wondrous initiatives we might take should we engage in industrial action. I’m afraid in this regard his thinking is outmoded.
It also gives weight to those who argue that his letter to crew is disingenuous. I hope not, but we shall see.
”

BA have never stated that they would run 100% nor that IA would have no effect. Len, you are wrong.

What your statement gives weight to is the fact that you have a problem processing simple english without mangling it into a new version that suits your aims.

[Yellow Pen]

So all that an oil state subsidised airline need do is buy landing and takeoff slots at JFK & Heathrow and use their low paid early retiring staff to cut costs and bring spritely service and thereby obtain a threatening toe-hold on the Atlantic route._ Please someone tell me why this can’t be done - but only if you can quote a source.

I can't quote you an actual source but if the airline was middle east owned and domiciled they would need fifth freedom rights to fly passengers between the EU and the USA. As far as I know none of the Middle East carriers have those rights, and I'd certainly hope the EU wouldn't grant them.

[Ancient Observer]

............er, yes, those rights are now freely available. Only requires a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" govt to govt deal.

Easy to do as CAA (UK) says it is good for UK.

Look, for instance, at Air New Zealand, who fly from UK to USA.

[Yellow Pen]

Yes, and Qantas from LHR to HKG, and BA from SIN and BKK to SYD, and Air India who have fifth freedom rights to fly from London to the USA along with Kuwaiti Airlines. Fifth freedom rights can be granted (but by the EU these days I believe), but so far they have not been granted to any Middle East airlines. Given the increasingly vocal opposition to those carriers expansion from the head of Air France - KLM and the head of IAG I think it'll be a long time before the EU grants them fifth freedom. There's certainly nothing in it for EU carriers.

[jetset lady]

And here is ClubWorldLondonCityGate:

. LGW - 24/07/09 - Fisher - LCY Update

you can see that BA originally wanted a la carte dining for London City, but it "wouldn't work" according to BASSA.

It is correct that BA did originally want to offer a la carte dining but it wasn't dropped because BASSA didn't agree. It was dropped because it didn't work in the trials for a variety of reasons.

Here:

. LGW - 27/07/09 - Fisher - Failure to Agree

you can see that Unite originally wanted Cabin Crew to have 24 hours rest in Ireland after operating the arduous (less than one hour!) LCY-SNN service.

The reason the union wanted the night stop to be at Shannon, along with the flight crew, was nothing to do with the "arduous LCY-SNN" service but instead due to a disagreement whether the stop at Shannon was a seperate sector or just a tech stop. According to our MOA, which BA agreed, you can not link a shorthaul sector with a long haul sector. However, BA took the position that as the stop was a tech stop, it didn't count. Sadly, the union refused to negotiate the LCY route until they had settled a completely different matter, so became more or less irrelevant in the planning and the route has evolved as it has purely through trials and feedback from both crew and passengers.

With regards the report at LGW, Tightslot has pretty much said it all. We report there as there are no facilities at LCY for us to check in, get the paperwork etc. We also brief at LGW. In very rare circumstances, crew are allowed to report directly to the hotel at LCY but the only time I have seen it happen was during the recent bad weather.

[Chuchinchow]

Pardon me for going off track, but what was the Employment Tribunal's verdict in the Duncan Holley case?

Or is no one else interested - apart from DH himself?

[notlangley]

Thanks for the tip Yellow PenThe unofficial seventh freedom is a variation of the fifth freedom. It is the right to carry passengers or cargo between two foreign countries without any continuing service to one's own country . . . . . . . On 2 October 2007, the United Kingdom and Singapore signed an agreement that will allow unlimited seventh freedom rights from 30 March 2008 (along with a full exchange of other freedoms of the air).
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air)

[VintageKrug]

A good point, and one we hadn't fully closed off.

notlangley wrote:

No-one has come up with anything authoritative to explain why a lodge or chapel which has different powers and responsibilities to a Union should be bound by Trade Union legislation.
Are we reliant on hearsay?


No need for hearsay. Unite has specifically been censured for denying access to branches of the Union itself:

1: on or around 3 May 2006
the Union breached section 30 of the 1992 Act by
failing to provide Mr G King & Mr M King with access to the accounting records of the 1/230 branch (http://www.employees.org.uk/accounts-tgwu.html#Unite-TGW-union-complaint-1)
of the union

2: on or around 6 December 2005 the
1/230 branch of the TGWU in breach of rule 10.4(a) of the rules of the union
failed to elect the members of the Cab Trade Advisory Committee (http://www.employees.org.uk/accounts-tgwu.html#Unite-TGW-union-complaint-2)

Here is the ruling:


Upon application by Mr G King and Mr M King (“the Claimants”) under Section 31(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”)(Complaint 1) and upon application by the Claimants under Section 108A(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”)(Complaints 2 and 3):


1. I declare that the Transport and General Workers Union (“TGWU”, “the Union”) failed to comply with the Claimant’s request for access to the accounting records of the 1/230 branch of the T&G Union, made on or around 3 May 2006, in breach of section 30 of the 1992 Act.


2. Where I am satisfied that the claim is well-founded I am required by section 31(2B) of the 1992 Act to make an appropriate enforcement order. I make the following order:
(a) The Transport and General Workers Union is ordered to give the Claimants access to inspect the accounting records of branch 1/230 in the form of The Quarterly Returns to the Transport and Generwal Workers Union’s Region 1 going back to 1 January 2005, or from whenever such returns were first made, whichever is the shorter period. The Claimants are to be given access to those records no later than 28 January 2007.

(b) The Transport and General Workers Union shall allow the Claimants to be accompanied at the inspection by an accountant (being a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor under section 25 of the Companies Act 1989). The Union need not allow the Claimants to be accompanied by an accountant if the accountant fails to enter into such agreement as the Union may reasonably require for protecting the confidentiality of the records.

(c) The Transport and General Workers Union shall allow the Claimants to take or will supply to the Claimants such copies or extracts from the accounting records as they may request.

(d) The Transport and General Workers Union may charge the Claimants for allowing them to inspect the records to which they have had access, for allowing them to take copies of, or extracts from, those records or for supplying any such copies. If such charges are required, before any arrangements are made for the inspection the Transport and General Workers Union shall notify the Claimants of the principles in accordance with which its charges will be determined. Such charges are not to exceed the reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the Union in complying with this order. The Claimants shall be liable to pay such sum upon demand by the Transport and General Workers Union, after having inspected and, if appropriate having been provided with copies of the records to which they have had access pursuant to this order.

Unite - Transport and General Workers Union accounts - investigation by the TGW Union Certification Officer into a branch accounts (http://www.employees.org.uk/accounts-tgwu.html)

[PAXboy]

Ancient ObserverCan BA afford to be UK based?As I understand it, on current legislation, they have no choice. This is a hangover from the full-on protectionism of the 20th Century.

I shall repeat one of my long held prognostications ... Once the legacy carriers prove to their govts that they cannot continue in the present legislative format - then they will be allowed to make global deals (not just the Euro cross-border ones already in place).

These deals will coalesce around the existing alliances of OneWorld/Star/FlyTeam etc. Eventually, that will bring about some half dozen global units that sub-contract their ops to member carriers.

Of course, before that can happen, more carriers have to fail financially because the only thing that changes laws are deaths and money. Cynical? No, just been watching the world go round for more than 50 years.

[notlangley]

Excellent information VintageKrug.
At least this should prevent BASSA members from approaching BASSA - because it is Unite that is obliged to release the information.

[LD12986]

I don't think the decision if the Employment Tribnal has been issued yet. If Holley actually wins, I'm sure we'll hear about it!

And Len, when Keith Williams refers to the language if this dispute, I think he may have been referring to your friend Mr Holley.

Also, if by "weird and wondrous initiatives" you're referring to the idea of crew reporting for duty and then walking off the job at the last minute, this has already been kicked into touch.

PDF of Len's letter:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/Lens_letter_to_members_28feb2011.pdf

[VintageKrug]

Quite right. It is Unite which is legally responsible for BASSA keeping correct accounts; if it can be proven that no accounts existed, or Unite cannot produce them, then all of Unite's accounts can be said to be potentially in breach of audit, which is most serious both for the auditors and for UNITE.

But it is the Branch Secretary's responsibility to keep such records, both as part of Unite's own rulebook, and part of the 1992 Act.

The fact that BASSA has stated the accounts are not currently available should be immediately escalated, including BASSA's response, to:

1. Unite's Auditors (both of them)
2. BASSA's auditors
3. The Certification Officer
4. The TUC
5. Len McCluskey at Unite

[notlangley]

It seems to me that until the person does contact Unite to ask to see the accounts, then BASSA can play cat & mouse with the ill-advised complainant for months and months.

[VintageKrug]

The original complainant did apply to Unite directly, and was referred to BASSA.

This is why the dismissive and illegal response provided by BASSA needs to be referred back to Unite, and escalated to the auditors.

[notlangley]

I would imagine from the information you have given me that your thread poster does not use the wordsacting on the advice of my solicitor

[Neptunus Rex]

The fact that this dispute has had more ballots than any other in recent memory should serve to tell the company something. Clearly something is wrong in the way that the company is being managed but also led.It could not possibly be the incompetence and intransigence of Bassa/Unite, could it?

[Colonel White]

It seems to me that until the person does contact Unite to ask to see the accounts, then BASSA can play cat & mouse with the ill-advised complainant for months and months. Notlangley

I'm fascinated by your choice of words - illadvised complainant ? Are you suggesting that BASSAWitch should drop her request to see BASSA's accounts ? Or are you implying that she has not been in reciept of good advice as to how to approach this subject ? If the latter I'm sure she would benefit from any pearls of wisdom you could bestow. From the sidelines I would say that it is very interesting understanding how a multi-million enterprise like the BASSA branch of Unite can get away with such an appalling lack of transparency in its accounting. I would have thought that in the spirit of an open organisation such as a trade union, the branch would have had accounts ready for inspection by the membership. After all, isn't that what socialism is supposed to be about - nobody exploits the workers. :rolleyes: I can't believe that any of the reps or branch officials have been making unjustified demands for expenses and that every last penny is accounted for.

I rather think that since a request has been lodged to view the books, that the clock has started ticking regardless. BASSA may choose to ignore it, but then the branch executive's grasp of the law is not that great - I could cite the specifics but that would be boring. Unite may take a slightly different view.

[notlangley]

Colonel White saidIf the latter I'm sure she would benefit from any pearls of wisdom you could bestow.
My pearls of wisdom to her are to see a solicitor, take his advice (and ignore the "wisdom" that is abundant on chat rooms)

[VintageKrug]

No need whatsoever for a solicitor at this stage, although now you mention it, it would be interesting to submit an application to CrewDefence for formal legal advice on the matter.

The legislation is crystal clear on this matter; branches MUST release accounting information to members of their affiliated Union within 28 days of a request to do so by a member of that Union.

End of.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/30)

[Colonel White]

NotLangley

Sorry. your reply whilst undoubtedly providing good advice, hedged around the question. Is it your contention that ex members of BASSA should not ask to see that accounts for the years that they were a member, or is it that you believe the individual requesting this information has not been well advised on how to go about it ?

BTW I totally agree that at some juncture it might be advisable to engage the services of a solicitor, but only at the point at which the union are pretty much in flagrant breach of their obligations.

[notlangley]

But restricted to those that are availableA member of a trade union has a right to request access to any accounting records of the union which are available for inspection

IMO She should have talked to a solicitor right at the very beginning.

[pencisely]

I fully concede that my last post was Non PC but I was just relaying a business (man) perspective on the contrast of the 2 offerings. A later post highlighting the level of interference from BASSA at every attempt at BA management to respond to the market demand is astounding.

I have personal input from a former BA regional Captain who recalls how when they were occasionally allocated mainline CC he would experience the following -


The senior CC often earned more than him
The CC had special food as per their union agreement whilst he had his home made sandwiches
At turnaround he and the FO had to move the business class curtain as this was outside the agreement for CC
3 was usually whilst CC were sat enjoying their special food as per agreementBASSA more than anything else have contributed to the demise of the BA service. BA need to kill and kill it now and it looks like they pretty much have. BA can never move forward with that load on it.

Continuing the theme I am now in the EK Biz lounge at Mumbai. Not a shared effort like most of BA's outside of LHR but a dedicated full service oasis in the middle of chaos. I will now get on a new 777 300 ER and then onto the A380 800 into LHR - once again at less than half the price of BA CW!

Have also just done some internals in India and even those CC are in my opinion offering a far superior service ethic to the BASSA dinosaurs. Did I feel less safe? yes but that is mainly due to the increasing reports of Indian aircrew finding their way onto the flight deck with forged papers.

[RTR]

It would IMHO be wise to step softly and wisely in pursuing the BASSA accounts. I have NO doubts it is the right course of action, absolutely none. But now a suggestion for a solicitor could/should/might be engaged is going to cost. My immediate point is - who will pay? Will it be BASSAwitch as the obvious choice. Or someone else? Either way I am sure you can see the point I make. I worry that Bw might get bitten - but then again she be very willing - but it should not be taken for granted.

VK has demonstrated a healthy knowledge of the whys and wherefore's. From there we must make sure that Bw is not going to do something she later regrets if a fat cost gets slapped on her.

Interesting days are ahead now that Unite will have to provide the accounts or face very serious consequences. BASSA should be worried too if they cannot be provided in the mandatory 28 days. The ballot might be distraction. It might even have to be withdrawn if the compliance is not met.

After reading the typical patronizing letter from McC to KW it is easy to deduce that he still living in a lifetime that was rife 40/50 years ago! He was a militant luddite then and is still one.

[notlangley]

VintageKrug gave a link to the "Trade Union and Labour relations Consolidation Act 1992" which contains these wordsA member of a trade union has a right to request access to any accounting records of the union which are available for inspection

So I checked the reply that BASSAwitch had received and it contains these wordsWe have been told by the branch secretary that the accounts you are seeking are not available at this time. If at any time in the future they do become available for members and ex members to view, we will endeavour to make that known to you.The bold type is by me to bring attention to the word "available".
IMO this means that the "28 days" is not something that will be met.
I apologise if I am the bringer of disappointing information.

[cdtaylor_nats]

You also need to read sections 28 and 29 which specify which records are required to be kept.

The "which are available" refers to records older than 6 years which are not required to be kept.


29 Duty to keep records available for inspection.

(1)A trade union shall keep available for inspection from their creation until the end of the period of six years beginning with the 1st January following the end of the period to which they relate such of the records of the union, or of any branch or section of the union, as are, or purport to be, records required to be kept by the union under section 28.

This does not apply to records relating to periods before 1st January 1988.
(2)In section 30 (right of member to access to accounting records)—

(a)references to a union’s accounting records are to any such records as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, and

(b)references to records available for inspection are to records which the union is required by that subsection to keep available for inspection.

(3)The expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (1) above does not affect the duty of a trade union to comply with a request for access made under section 30 before the end of that period.

[ChicoG]

The fact that this dispute has had more ballots than any other in recent memory should serve to tell the company something.

Trust me Len, it most certainly does, just not what you want it to.

:}

[notlangley]

cdtaylor_nats saidYou also need to read sections 28 and 29 which specify which records are required to be kept.
With respect, I fundamentally disagree._ I would employ a solicitor for this job.

Since, as I understand it, "You" refers to Notlangley, then I rely on the dictumA person who is his own solicitor has a fool for a client.

[Northern Flights]

Haymaker:

He doesn't seem too distraught with the current situation. Remember, the extension to his term of office (authorised by a 'democratic' show of hands) and therefore his branch remuneration only lasts as long as the dispute does. He would then have to seek re-election, which he cannot do as he is no longer a BA employee.

Apologies if this point has been raised before (but I couldn't see it, on a quick search).

We have all been reminded many times that there must be different reasons for a fresh ballot so, technically, has the initial dispute ended, enabling BASSA now to hold their elections?

Alternatively, is this an indication that the current ballot is connected to previous ones?

[Hipennine]

As a slight aside, I have spent many hours of life in commerce correcting the advice and suggested actions by Solicitors. Finding a solicitor expert in the intricacies of this legislation who could provide reliable advice will be like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. I have no idea, and can't be bothered to trawl though the TU Consolidation Act to take a view on the precise legal process on inspection of "available" union accounts.

However, even if there is a legal technicality that a court found obviated the requirement for BASSA to produce accounts on demand to a Unite member, the PR disaster that would potentially ensue from failing to be transparent (which IMO is the only moral approach) would be potentially fatal. If the BASSA committee had concerns about certain tabloid reporting during the strike, they ain't seem nothing yet if this goes a certain way. DH in particular was not backward in overtly attacking certain reporters, and the media can have a long memory.

[mrpony]

My experience mirrors yours somewhat. I ended up thinking Solicitor only when Professional Indemnity insurance was a necessity and banned them except in extremis otherwise. The thinking instead was, 'we can't afford one'. Never had a problem personally.

The excerpts on this thread make everything very clear in my view:

1. Union need to have accounting records available as defined.
2. Members can look at available records.
3. Union have admitted they are in default of 1. above.
4. Proceed directly to Certification Officer, Auditors etc. due to 3. above.

It is that simple.

[Litebulbs]

I know it may disappoint you VintageKrug, but as of today Bassa are well within the law.

[mrpony]

Please explain how admitting not having accounting records available in accordance with the rules keeps BASSA within the law?

[Litebulbs]

If they had said that they would never have accounting records available, then yes. As it stands it is about the number 28 and that number has not passed yet.

If and when the forum member who asked for disclosure visits the branch in question after 28 days and is still not shown the requested information, then that will be a different situation.

[mrpony]

Sorry to disagree.

Union are required to have records available for inspection but have apparently confirmed that:

We have been told by the branch secretary that the accounts you are seeking are not available.........

Union are in default now, there is no question about it if they have confirmed the above.

I think you are confusing the period of 28 days that the Union has to produce the available records for inspection with the separate need to have the records available. Note that the requirement for availability of the records is not qualified in any respect - without qualification the requirement is absolute. Look at the words.

Clause 29 is headed:Duty to keep records available for inspection.

Clause 30 is headed:Right of access to accounting records.

[Ancient Observer]

Having used a number of solicitors and barristers in the world of Employee Relations, Hipennine is right. Ones who know their way through Employment law properly are rare. Ones who know the issues connected with TU and TU disclosure law are even more rare.
There are very few TU disclosure cases.
Further, in much of employment law, many of the individuals and firms that call themselves either "lawyers" or "advocates" are not actually solicitors.
A solicitor has to be 1. Qualified, 2. Admitted and 3. Practising.
The term "lawyer" has no legal meaning in the UK. I'm a lawyer - you are a lawyer.
If I were pursuing Unite, bassa and its "Auditors" I would follow the letter of the law, (as described above) and then pursue the auditors. Use paper letters with proof of posting, collect copies of everything, and then go for the auditors - using The Sun or some other reputable media firm as your helper.

[Litebulbs]

I didn't think of it that way. Your conclusion is correct.

[mrpony]

It was cdtaylor nats who pointed it out above on page 36.

[rethymnon]

Whether this is a pejorative term is surely age related? When you get to a certain age yourself (I have) ' matronly' is far from unattractive!

[Dawdler]

What is the masculine of "Matronly"?

[mrpony]

Further to the above:

BASSAswitch should avail themselves immediately of the power of the Certification Officer as described in clauses 37A and 37B of the Act.

37A
(1)The Certification Officer may at any time, if he thinks there is good reason to do so, give directions to a trade union, or a branch or section of a trade union, requiring it to produce such relevant documents as may be specified in the directions; and the documents shall be produced at such time and place as may be so specified.

In subsections (1) and (2) “relevant documents”, in relation to a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union, means accounting documents, and documents of any other description, which may be relevant in considering the financial affairs of the trade union.

37B
(1)The Certification Officer may appoint one or more members of his staff or other persons as an inspector or inspectors to investigate the financial affairs of a trade union and to report on them in such manner as he may direct.

(2)The Certification Officer may only make such an appointment if it appears to him that there are circumstances suggesting—

(c)that the trade union has failed to comply with any duty imposed on it by this Act in relation to its financial affairs

If Unite/Bassa has failed to keep accounting records available in accordance with the Act as described earlier by myself and others then it has given good reason for invoking 37A or circumstances suggesting failure to comply as per 37B. If it hasn't, no harm is done.

Slam dunk.

[Litebulbs]

It will be interesting to see if BASSAwitch subsequently asked why the relevant documents were not available.

[mrpony]

I don't know why that would be relevant?

As far as I can make out, if the statement that the accounts are not available has been made, the Union has made it clear that it is not complying with the Act. It isn't necessary for questions like why or when or how - this would have been the case if the request had been answered with something like 'we are establishing the availability of these documents and will revert back to you'.

I'm not going to go any further with this as I am already boring myself so must be boring others.

In researching this I got through to the Certification Officer's web site tab 'complaints':

Certification Officer - Complaints (http://www.certoffice.org/Nav/Complaints.aspx)

A complaint can be made anonymously at the discretion of the CO.

PS In fact anyone can make a complaint in accordance with the document headed Financial irregularities here at tab 'forms and guidance':

Certification Officer - Guidance & Forms (http://www.certoffice.org/Nav/Guidance---Forms.aspx)


I'm not inclined to but anyone could if they have grounds to believe that Union is not complying with the ACT. Look:

WHO CAN COMPLAIN
A member of a trade union or employers' association may tell the Certification Officer
of circumstances suggesting one or more of the situations described above. However,
the Certification Officer can also receive approaches from any other source and will
consider these on their merits. In addition Certification Office staff will watch out for
references in the media to situations which suggest that the relevant set of
circumstances exist in the financial affairs of either a trade union or an employers'
association.

Right that's enough of that.

[Litebulbs]

So you would not ask why? It would be a reasonable question and one that the CO will no doubt ask.

[mrpony]

And finally.

Yes it is of course a reasonable question. I thought, wrongly, that you were implying that the question was a necessary one; that the information request needed to be pursued more vigorously before making a complaint. But you weren't implying anything.

I would ask all the questions you probably would unless I had an urgent need to get to grips with Bassa's finances in which case I would go straight for the jugular via a complaint to the CO.

[Litebulbs]

It is a difficult point for me. I agree with the Bassa supporters that BA has been overtly and covertly forceful in it's dealings, but if it turns out that Bassa finances are not squared off, then the individuals concerned deserve all they get.

However, if when asked formally (courts or CO), the accounts are fine, then I will not be holding my breath for the flood of apologies on here.

My heart is hoping that pprune will have to find another approach to Bassa bash, but my head................

[mrpony]

It's the lack of accountability that is the real problem. If it turns out that BASSA have been guilty of protectiveness rather than obfuscation I'll happily grovel. It wouldn't be the first time.

[ChicoG]

It is a difficult point for me. I agree with the Bassa supporters that BA has been overtly and covertly forceful in it's dealings, but if it turns out that Bassa finances are not squared off, then the individuals concerned deserve all they get.

However, if when asked formally (courts or CO), the accounts are fine, then I will not be holding my breath for the flood of apologies on here.

My heart is hoping that pprune will have to find another approach to Bassa bash, but my head................

Given that the Branch Secretary is in a position that he should no longer hold, and yet may still be getting paid, I think BASSA members have every right to query how their money is being spent. Whether it's a legal matter or not is irrelevant, the point is that BASSA appears to be run for the benefit of its leadership and not the full membership.

For example, I'd like to know how much, if any, of the Bedfont bar bill was paid by BASSA, and on whom it was spent.

:}

[JUAN TRIPP]

For example, I'd like to know how much, if any, of the Bedfont bar bill was paid by BASSA, and on whom it was spent

And thats just the start. DH said on record that he'd picked up the tab for 100's of bacon sarnies on the first few strike days. ( The idea was those that got to Bedfont before 1000 got a free sarnie!) Also who and how much did the bouncy castle, music systems for Billy Bragg and all the other parafanelia cost? Then there's the cost of hiring out the race courses. Oh yes and who santioned the £5000 given to santascrew at xmas. I could go on and on, but you get my drift.

Most importantly, I want to make very clear I'm not saying there are any fiddles going on, just where are the accounts for the members to see. Over to you Bassawitch

[VintageKrug]

I would be very surprised indeed if the accounts released by BASSA gave anything more than a high level consolidated view.

The issue is not that anyone believes there has been any fraud – there is no evidence or even hearsay which supports that position.

The reason why it’s important for BASSA to release its accounts is to demonstrate:

1. that proper records are indeed being kept

2. compliance with the law

3. transparency to its membership (and former membership)

4. ensure the membership understand the size of the budget and, at a high level (including remuneration of officers), where the money is going

If releasing such information prompts further enquiries it is for the membership as a whole to ask more questions. After all, as we are continually told, “BASSA is run by and for its membership”.

Many BASSA members have no concept of the large budget (approx £1.5m-£2m per annum) collected by BASSA, don’t know how much the Reps and Branch Secretary get paid/take as fees and have no ability to influence or see how any of this gets spent; by any measure that is appalling.

An individual BASSA member/former member should not have to resort to potentially costly legal avenues to extract information; the requirements of the legislation are clear, and Unite itself should support its own members and former members in facilitating access – there is at this stage no need to involve “professionals”. Its auditors also have a serious professional responsibility to ensure Unite and BASSA comply with legislation.

The possible creation of “BASSA Ltd.” is also something which should be brought to members’ attention, if indeed it is a connected entity, as well as the similarly opaque accounting of CrewDefence, both of which may not be covered by the legislation.

Beyond the issue of the accounts, there is also the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 (except in cases where the election is uncontested, though the process which led to the “show of hands” is not clear to me).

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/46)

That is a more complex area for which some form of legal advice might be helpful; nonetheless before contesting the Branch elections, the first stage should be release of the historic accounts, as required by the legislation.

If indeed it is proven that the BASSA Branch Committee Elections were not properly held (the need to hold another election being overridden by a show of hands at a meeting of under 1000 of the 9,000+ membership) then that is most serious, as the officers are effectively receiving their income without complying with the requirement to hold a proper election.

It still concerns, but doesn't surprise, me that there is such a lack of interest on the part of BASSA members on these matters.

[Ancient Observer]

What management would allow this???

When I go in to a phone shop to buy a phone, or when I go in to a tv shop to buy a tv, I expect to speak to a shop person who knows what they are talking about,and who is keen to meet my needs.
I do not want to be served by the person who has chosen to sell tvs due to their "seniority". That's about the last person I want to be serving me.

Over in the other place, the Crew are pointing out that in "who decides where I work on the plane" debate, apparently bassa and seniority decide.

That is a disgrace.

No-one wants to work in Club, (why??? Perhaps it involves doing some work?) - so the temps, VCC, and lowest service staff "end up" in Club.

BA - what are you thinking about??? Club is an extremely expensive product. To staff it with those who get the duties that no-one wants to do is crazy.

The CSDs must be instructed to allocate tasks to maximise customer service - not to satisfy bassa...................

[MPN11]

@ Ancient Observer ... indeed, and I was wondering when that CC topic would be raised over here!

It certainly offers a partial explanation for the marked variability of service standards in CW. Perhaps the popularity of working in WT+/WT is related to the simpler "beef or chicken ... here's your foil dish" style of service? Minimum work for those on the highest rates of pay, due to their seniority?

There are a couple of FlyerTalk threads going at the moment on that very subject ... great crew in CW in one direction, and poor going the other way. For SLF paying premium prices for premium cabins, it seems bizarre [but typical] that the least senior/experienced staff aren't providing services there.

[Betty girl]

I think you are both twisting what has been said.

The reason some crew choose not to work in Club is because it is not a good product at the moment.

All the worldwide crew are experienced, so even if a CSD was allocating positions, it would make no difference. BA want good crew across all the cabins and in most cases that is what you get. Making someone work in Club who loves to work in World Traveller and visa verse, someone who loves Club work in Traveller makes no sense. There are literally thousands of crew ( there must be over 7000 or more on Worldwide) and a CSD is likely to have only flown with a handful before so would have no idea of which crew are good in which cabin.

When I was on Worldwide the club cabin was always a very popular place to work but over the last few years this new service has been introduced and as I have said, I am sure it will get revamped very soon.. It is because they feel that the offering is not as good as it could be that some crew might avoid it, not for any other reason. Seniority varies wildly from flight to flight so people invariably work in all cabins across a full month of work.

Anyway, only a few posts ago some of you were saying that you WANTED to be served by the younger crew, obviously the LESS senior you are the more likely you are to be young!! So you should be happy! No!!Or is it just that some of you will never be happy!!! Just joking!!

Hopes that helps you understand.

These are my own views and I do not speak on behalf of BA

[Ancient Observer]

Betty Girl,

I do not like to disagree with you as I like and respect your opinions on both threads. However, from a customer service perspective I would suggest that your reply is both completely normal/typical of those I met in Aviation, and is wrong. It is not that you, personally, are wrong, it is that Aviation is way behind the game on measuring and improving customer service.

Service standards, and the measurement of those standards, is an area where the know-how has moved on massively over the last 10 years.
Some retailers and others providing services can measure the contribution that everyone in the team makes - and use those measures as predictors of profitability, or whatever the targets are.
Even old fuddy-duddy corporates like BP can measure the team leaders' impact on a team, and how that will impact whatever the key metrics are.

BA's methods of measuring Customer Service are out of date and are too dependent on whoever hands out the forms.
I do hope that BA fix this whole area soonest.
I would go on and on about this...................but I'd better not!

[mrpony]

I think BASSA may already be in default on clause 28 because they have apparently said that records are not available. Small point you are entitled to ignore.

The 'elections section' of your post describes a potential minefield with added anthrax, cluster bombs, and GPS-guided bunker-busting missiles for BASSA if they haven't observed the detailed requirements of the Act.

Has the market in administrative ineptitude been cornered? Possibly.

[Betty girl]

Ancient Observer,

I think some of your information, about how BA survey our customers now, is a bit out of date.

We have not been handing out survey forms for two or even three years or more now. Which is great because on E/F our business passengers used to find it very annoying.

We do them electronically by sending them to our passengers homes by email now and so the figures I quoted on the other thread have had no intervention from the cabin crew at all.

Also as a senior crew member I have my own set of figures which are based on ONLY my flights. So BA are very aware of which senior crews are performing well and as a matter of fact, Mixed Fleet crew receive a bonus based on how they as senior crew perform and how their fleet as a whole performs.

My personal scores are well above the average and I am very proud of this and it, along with the desire to give good customer service, motivates me a lot.

So I think, understandably, you may be a bit out of date with your information.

These are my own personal views

[MPN11]

@ Betty girl ... I'm not trying to stir, I assure you, but I'm trying to get my head round this crew position aspect.

As I read it, you are saying that the more senior crew avoid working in CW because "it's not a good product at the moment". Does that mean they're embarrassed to be involved with it? Or that the CC side of things in the galley is difficult to make work?

Can you elaborate a bit further? The more SLF understand the issues, the more sympathetic they're likely to be [I hope]. ;)

[Betty girl]

A bit of both really.

It is a messy service to do and does not flow well and takes a lot longer than some of our previous club services for no apparent reason other than it was not thought out well, as I have said it is bound to be revamped soon because of this.

Crew do get embarrassed to constantly be having to apologise re wine selection and running out of the main meal choice too and this does happen sometimes, well every day really, in the Club cabin.

The crewing levels on BA aircraft are tight if the cabin is full and although crew understand why the CSD needs to work in the cabin and for many of us it is a good thing because standards are usually very high from our CSD community, so it is good that they serve our customers and set standards for other crew to emulate, but if they get called away to sort out a problem with IFE or a disgruntled passenger etc etc. it can cause the club service to slow down and take longer to complete if it is a full load of passengers.

Just, human nature that some will avoid this but of course there are some crew that enjoy working there and as I have said on every aircraft, in every airline there are always some more popular positions to work but generally crew do work in all different cabins because it varies so much from day to day how far up the list you are anyway.

Hope that helps.

These are my personal views and not those of BA

[ChicoG]

I do find it odd in this day and age you can shop online for all manner of things, but you can't select your choice of meal when you purchase your seat (or at any time up to a few days before the flight).

Surely this would make things easier all round, and probably cheaper because you could then load only the F&B you actually require?

I realise there would be the exception to the rule (missed flights, etc.), but surely it would benefit everyone if the CC had a list of the people in Club identifying exactly which meal and choice of drink they would prefer before they got on the plane?

If my company is anything to go by, the IT department and the business units have trouble communicating, mainly because the IT people don't understand the sharp end of the business, and the sharp end business people don't understand IT.

Does BA have a suggestion scheme?

[Snas]

I’ve flown with BA on many occasions and in all cabins (bar First). What I’ve read on here is at completely at odds with my experience of a dedicated, experienced, engaging and intelligent workforce.


Without exception?

We all have our own experience, mine is very much a mixed bag from the very best to the very worst of service.

[Betty girl]

I think it would be very hard to administer your idea and many passengers miss their flights due to weather, connections etc. etc and some people can't predict what they will feel like eating the day before.

All passengers can order a special meal if they have a dietary requirement such as vegetarian or diabetic etc and this can be done on manage my booking up to 48 hours before flying.

Are you asking if there is a suggestion scheme for staff. No we used to have one but now we all have the ability to let our managers know our ideas and there are forums that you can post ideas on that our managers look at and often respond on.

If you mean for passengers. Yes. You can log on to BA.com and at the very bottom of the front page there is a link where you can forward comments to BA on.

These are my own views

[moses30u]

Without exception. I've arrived onboard extremely frustrated at times. However, I can honestly say, I've never had any problem with a single person from BA cabin crew who I find incredibly patient and welcoming. I've had plenty to gripe about KLM and AirFrance crew however.

Have no doubts about it, the service in BA Club has gone downhill over the past 4/5 years. The planes are old, the in flight entertainment constantly breaks down - nothing to do with the cabin crew however.

As said before, I find them intelligent and engaging, BA should be proud of them.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Betty Girl
At the risk of contradicting you, I flew to Budapest last week in Club and was indeed asked to complete a feedback form (perhaps this differs from the old questionnaire). The flight was operated by MF and apart from the CSM there was another CC working, On the return the CSM was on her own throughout. .
Food was excellent on both sectors.

Oddly enough, or perhaps not, travelling in CW as a staff passenger I was given the old questionnaire on at least 3 ocassions. This kind of confirms your view that full fare paying passengers did not like being asked.

I understood that the forms should have been given out according to seat number. My guess is that CC chose me due to the fact that they knew I was staff AND am always appreciative of the service I am getting. That MAY also account for the fact that I have rarely received poor service.

[Betty girl]

moses,

Thanks for that lovely comment, you don't know how good that is to hear.

I know that you often get, the disenchanted posting on threads like this because most people that are happy, have nothing much to say, so don't bother seeking out these kind of sites.

I would not be hear myself if it wasn't for this silly IA stuff going on.

I know that the vast majority of my passengers seen very happy but I sometimes want to slash my wrists! after reading some of the comments on hear and it is really nice to hear your positive comments for a change.

Thanks BG.