BASSA Branch Secretary ET Minutes Now in Public Domain

[VintageKrug]

British Airways’ cabin crew union is Unite; BASSA is the local branch of this union and is run by the Cabin Crew representatives.

The Branch Secretary of the BASSA branch was sacked by BA for gross misconduct. Unsurprisingly, he claimed this was unfair, and all about Union Busting.

The sacking was upheld by the Employment Tribunal. There was no evidence of “union-busting” presented.

The BASSA Branch Secretary’s Employment Tribunal Minutes are now in the public domain. Those BA passengers who have been implored by BASSA to support the actions of the BASSA leadership, and castigate BA Management’s handling of the strike, will find the minutes of the ET of interest:

http://www.mediafire.com/?t9jdr3ydm9pj9pu (http://www.mediafire.com/?t9jdr3ydm9pj9pu)

I understand that he is now receiving an £8,000 per month honorarium for his remaining months as Branch Secretary – so in effect works full time for Unite. £96,000 a year – not a bad deal at all.

Others in a similar position, egged on by their leader, have not been so lucky and continue to be without work.

Highlights:

---

"When summoned to a meeting with his manager, the claimant refused to attend"

"He said that as Branch Secretary he was afforded the same status as that of a senior BA manager"

"Ms XY contacted him by telephone on 16 Feb while he was on leave. He responded by sending a text message to her complaining that he was being harassed whilst on holiday. The text message read:

"No, I have already spoken to BAHS for 45 minutes last week. BAHS , with your involvement, are now making things much worse! Can't you idiots appreciate if someone is off sick the last thing they need is to be pestered by people like you."
---

It is important that this document has a wider audience so that contributors here can see the incompetence which lead to his own sacking, and the sacking of several other BA cabin crew who were BASSA members, went right to the very top of the organisation.

I trust this thread will be locked, but that free speech will be ensured by keeping the single post up, for those who have an interest in this matter.

[notlangley]

Please mods padlock this thread but keep it available to your readers.

[TightSlot]

Happy to leave open, provided that it doesn't become a new home for the usual tedious comments

[Ancient Observer]

Thanks for posting it.
It is worth noting that the ET were not unanimous...........
A Mr D Warburton agreed with Mr Holley. I do not know who that D Warburton is/was, but there used to be a David Warburton who was a GMB National Official.

[baggersup]

Having been stung a bit [financially as well as in disruptions] in the whole IA mess, was interested to read the entire ET report.

In the bit where the claimant is ordered on one occasion to pay some of BA's counsel's fees and expenses, due to an apparent snafu resulting in some lost court time caused by the claimant's attorneys, it says,

"Accordingly, as the claimant now works full-time for his union, we
order that he pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £4786."

Do they mean the alleged honorarium? Or an actual salaried job?

[ExXB]

Happy to leave open, provided that it doesn't become a new home for the usual tedious comments
Thanks TightSlot - I agree there is no reason to lock out SLF from commenting on this, I'm intrigued why the OP and the following post ask for it to be locked. I wonder if either would care to comment on this.

Having said that I'm not certain that this tread really belongs here. It doesn't seem to follow the raison d'être of the SLF forum. However given the (often tedious) threads that were put in SLF, following the restriction of threads in the CC forum relating to the BA CC, perhaps it is appropriate.

It does seem to me that we are seeing more and more CC posting here in SLF, not to answer our questions (which is much appreciated), but to provide us with their views and opinions. A few have been of interest, but not many. I'm not suggesting that these be censored, but perhaps they should be made in the CC forum.

[Betty girl]

ExEB
None of the above posters are cabin crew.

[VintageKrug]

...or even

"none of the above posters is cabin crew"

[Betty girl]

That just sums you up VK.

[Sygyzy]

Oooooooh....there'll be letters.....perhaps even at::EPrime Minister's Q's!!!

[TightSlot]

Oh goody - we're off to a fabulous start!

[wowzz]

My only view is that from this transcript, I would prefer not to be represented by some-one as out of touch with reality as Mr H appears to be!

[RealFish]

Interesting this.

As someone who is (sadly) involved in lots of these, it emphasises that someone needs to get a grip of our employment laws - it seems that every line manager needs to have an employment lawyer tucked away in a cuboard in case of emergencies.

That said, as an outsider, I think that BA have handled this in an exemplary manner given the difficulties that they were presented with - but do BA's disciplinary processes really need two appeals? Rod for back springs to mind.

The minority judgement is really puzzling - it seems to me DH was seeking martyrdom. And I am surprised that DH didn't make more of his 'pychological illness' and claim it as a disability that BA failed to take account of when they considerd his behaviour!! (I'm not sure how effective a CSD this would make him either???)

[Octopussy2]

I've followed the progress of the strike and Mr. Holley's involvement with huge interest. Unfortunately, my draconian computer system at work won't let me access the link; I've tried gooooogling to see if I can get the transcript from another source, but can't find it. Does anyone by any chance have another link that my computer won't take offence at?

[notlangley]

When I was a boy at a Public School I was taught that in some circumstances the subject and the object of the verb "to be" can be different in singularity/plurality.
I find support for find this on the Internet - link (http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/none-is-none-are-grammar-according-to-clarkson/)
Summary: None can be singular or plural, unless it quantifies a singular or mass noun . Don’t believe anyone who says none has to be singular because it’s a contraction of not one . Both none of the meals is and none of the meals are are okay, and both none is and none are are okay. *None of the stuff are is ungrammatical, though.

[VintageKrug]

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd trust a blog authored by "Gabe Doyle, a fourth-year graduate student in Linguistics at the University of California, San Diego".

There are plenty of sites out there (particularly US-based) which have a "come as you are" anti-prescriptivist attitude to grammar. Many of them perpetuate inaccuracies.

Just as it's equally grammatically correct to use -ize or -ise at the end of a word, the US English approach generally "favors" -ize and the UK English favours - ise.

It is still correct UK English to write "none of the authors is" and would be incorrect to write "none of the authors are".

Though I would much prefer some commentary on Duncan Holley's Employment Tribunal Judgement.

[notlangley]

This is on page 664 of Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage

Clearly none has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen in the 19th century. If in context it seems like a singular to you, use a singular verb; if it seems like a plural, use a plural verb. Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism.

[Ancient Observer]

I've had another look at the wording.
It seems to me that Mr Warburton has substituted his judgement for the judgement of the employer. This is not allowed.
The Tribunal must judge whether or not what BA did was within the range of what a reasonable employer would have done.

As to what was done, all us "experts" will tell you that the employer must find the "moral high ground" and find a means of dismissing awkward shop stewards that members of a Tribunal would understand.

Let's be clear - BA changed the habits of a lifetime by specifically refusing time off for Mr H. The trumped up excuse was the weather and the ensuing chaos. The background was "Operational requirements". They had never had those requirements before.........especially not when Mr H was running BA, with CC managers scared of his every action, so we experts will tell you that the "requirements" were found in order to fire Mr H.
The cock-up by Mr H was that he not only refused to turn up, he made it clear that he would not/never be bound by existing agreements.
That's the moral high ground that he gifted to BA.
As to his allegation that the HR bloke agreed it all (secretly) in advance with Unite................ He probably did, but even someone from BAe isn't daft enough to leave any evidence around.

Mr Warburton's "judgement" of what happened probably isn't wrong, but the rules don't let him put his judgement in place of BA's alleged judgement.

PS many years ago, the O & C Board gave me a grade "A" at A level. That does not mean that my grammar is any good as mine was/were the first year that did not need to know grammar to get an English A level.

[PAXboy]

PAXboy stares out of the window before going to work and muses quietly to himself, "For an honorarium of £8,000 per month, I could be someone's martyr. ANYONE's martyr ..."

Back to reality: What's done is done. The old situation could not continue - whichever side you side with - common sense in the 21st century told you that everything had changed.

The question is: Will this dismissal change anything? I know that I am the Cassandra of the forum but I suggest that: It will make no long term difference. The fate of BA was cast years ago and this change is minor by comparison to other factors. However, I do think that it had to be done and only wish that BA's earlier managers could be punished for their lack of backbone. But that's life!

[ExXB]

ExEB
None of the above posters are cabin crew.

Betty Girl, thank you. My comments were more related to posts on other threads rather than this one. Your comments in this forum are most welcome, I appreciate the information you have past on that has helped me understand the perspective of the CC - my comments were addressed to other posters.

Since this thread posts little interest to me, other than being curious why two posters wanted the mods to lock it, this is my final comment here. I repeat my invitation to VintageKrug and notlangly, why do you want this thread locked.

[notlangley]

I don’t want this thread padlocked.
I did want VintageKrug’s important posting to survive a casual sideswipe of a mod . We are now past that vulnerable moment.

[notlangley]

Hi ExXB, When Betty girl told you that none of the previous posters were cabin crew, she was giving you helpful information . Betty girl is cabin crew . I get the impression from various clues here and there that BA cabin crew are reluctant to say anything specific about the most recent i/r conflict . The wish for privacy is a good sign because generally people only talk about i/r disputes if they are current . I arrived in Melbourne a week ago and was not short of comments from Qantas cabin crew on what their management is allegedly doing wrong . When the Qantas arguments are settled I would expect their cabin crew to be tight-lipped.

[notlangley]

Octopussy2 saidDoes anyone by any chance have another link that my computer won't take offence at?
Try
http://www.h1932.com/A/
It is crude copy which has not been proof-read

[Octopussy2]

notlangley
that's very much appreciated, thank you!

[Betty girl]

ExXB,

I don't really think they wanted it locked to stop people posting.

What they were worried about is that it might be deleted completely and they were trying to request that rather than delete the whole thread, it just be locked instead.

Not Langley is correct, the vast majority of cabin crew do not talk about the dispute, most just want to get on with their lives and discussing it is now counter productive to a good working environment.

It seems to be others that still want to discuss it all the time and most don't have any conection with BA other than being interested passengers of ours.

[crewmeal]

I'm sure Tightslot will close the thread never mind lock it if it drifts into a slanging match, as per previous threads.

I sincerely hope everyone can move on and work together for the sake of the carrier and its passengers.

[VintageKrug]

It's important cabin crew have competent people representing them.

And it's also important that BA moves beyond the antagonism of the past.

However, it's paramount that the revisionism we have seen isn't perpetuated.

Having the facts of Duncan Holley's Employment Tribunal available for all to see - and on which people can make their own judgement - is a step towards the transparency which has so often been lacking in this dispute.

[LD12986]

The decision is an interesting insight into the BASSA mindset.

"Union members first, and BA employees second" seems to sum up the whole problem between BA and the BASSA membership.

[PAXboy]

"Union members first, and BA employees second"But that is what tribes do. All tribes protect themselves first and promote their interests. Whether the tribe is a family, a village, a football team, a union or a political party. Humans may belong to a number of tribes but the head of each tribe - has to put their tribe first.

[thameslinkboy]

Very interesting Vintage Krug and thanks for putting it up for all to see. Much appreciated. Whilst it was a long read, it was also sadly predictable. This guy single handedly tried, and still is, to bring BA to it's knees. I spoke to a colleague very high up in BA who told me they were ' spoilt' for choice on what to sack him for. After reading this, I now realise they were spot on. Well done BA for following this through. A lot of past senior managers and directors would have turned a blind eye to this, scarred of any repercussions.

I will never forget two very good friends whose families went through immense stress not knowing whether they would get away on their planned holiday at Xmas 2009 due to this guys ' 12 days of Christmas ' attempt at a strike. Fortunately he screwed the ballot up through his own arrogance.

He really is the bad side of trade unionism, and has done nothing for the
trade unions in general with his behaviour. And of course he is still there as
the BS collecting his union dues ( around 5k/month I believe ). As they say '
you really couldn't make it up ' :ugh::ugh:

[rethymnon]

it would be a shame if this thread were to be closed. the fact that the dispute is 'settled' doesn't mean that it has ceased to impact on BA staff or that there isn't room for further discussion of the issues involved. those issues not only affect BA and the staff but have echoes in other (transport) industries; the thread on tube drivers and their 'representation' is just one example.

i am old enough to appreciate well written contributions and do wince occasionally when confronted with a poorly written piece. it would be a shame if those who have something worthwhile to say felt inhibited in case their script were to be marked down by the examiner. john player's adverts used the slogan 'it's the tobacco that counts' and here our motto should be 'it's the content that counts'.

[vctenderness]

I agree entirely there is a whole lot more to come out regarding the dispute and it's effects on the airline.

There is at least one major court case due in 2012 and maybe more.


So please keep the thread open.

[Ancient Observer]

Do we know any more facts about the souces and uses of money by the bassa branch?
I'm not interested in rumours - pprune has had lots of them, but did anyone uncover the real facts?

[LD12986]

Judging by the latest communications by BASSA they have absolutely no intention of honouring the letter and spirit of the settlement agreement that communications must be accurate and balanced. Some of them have been highly personal and just plain nasty.

[BASSAwitch]

The interesting thing about this dispute and the revelations that are still coming out to this day, is that the truth is finally coming to light- even for those that were the staunchest BASSA supporters.

There is much disenchantment, many crew are finally realising that they've been sold a pup. I've always kept quiet onboard for fear of being lynched for being a strike breaker but more and more now I'm finding crew are saying they wish they had come to work themselves.

Witness those that have been sacked. I'm told only 3 of the 18 are currently employed, excluding of course all 3 sacked reps who are all employed by Unite- nice work if you can get it. Let them eat cake hey?

And what's become of some of the most vocal BASSA camp that managed to sneak away before they got into trouble? Well here's one, marketed at the time as a qualified lawyer and wise sage to the masses.

Now working as a RECEPTIONIST at a law firm (http://tinyurl.com/6t6guu3)

Not the high flying lawyer she and others portrayed her to be.

[VintageKrug]

Do we know any more facts about the sources and uses of money by the BASSA branch?

I'm not interested in rumours - PPRuNe has had lots of them, but did anyone uncover the real facts?

Could I suggest another thread is opened to discuss such matters.

My reason for requesting this thread be locked was to avoid the thread being hijacked by nefarious individuals (not you, AO) whose objective is to delete links such as that provided in the OP from public forums, with the aim of stifling debate.

Thankfully, this is not North Korea. Yet.

It would be splendid if this thread could now be locked by the moderator, to preserve it for posterity.

[TightSlot]

Thread stays open - content will be culled as necessary

[vctenderness]

Anyone have any updates on state of play with court cases etc?

[notlangley]

COURT 11

Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKES QC
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Friday, 20th January 2012
At half past 10
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/11/0894 Patel v Unite

[LD12986]

That seems to be a procedural matter rather than the substantive hearing.

[Dawdler]

This is an order to Unite to release contact details of certain posters to the branch forum. I believe that Unite have said they cannot/do not have details to release. Rumour is that the forum database was wiped/lost/corrupted. It would appear that Unite are opposing the appointment of a suitably qualified IT engineer to try to recover lost information. The truth of this has yet to be verified.

[TorC]

Seems the judgement is to be made tomorrow:

COURT 11
Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKES QC
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Thursday, 26th January 2012
At half past 10
FOR JUDGMENT
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/11/0894 Patel v Unite

[LD12986]

Patel v UNITE the Union [2012] EWHC 92 (QB) (27 January 2012) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/92.html)

[Ancient Observer]

LD
thank you for that. Interesting.
For a very boring reason, at one stage in my life I had a positively vetted security clearance. I was told during the process of obtaining that clearance that even if stuff I typed on my pc was cleaned/overwritten to some obscure MoD standard, someone else would come along who could read it.

[Fender Strat]

Interesting judgement. An unbiased view would be that the judge is giving Unite enough rope to hang themselves by. I can't see Unite putting up a very creditable opposition to an IT specialist proposed by the plaintiff. Reading the judgement the union doesn't seem to have an enormous amount of technical knowledge and is in no position to argue the toss on an individual's credentials. The expert witness for the plaintiff seems to be under no illusions about the ability to unearth the relevant data,

The piece about individuals swapping userids sounds like so much hogwash. I can't help but wonder if this is part of a concerted attempt to avoid being held responsible in court. The key will be the IP addresses of the offenders. That provides traceability to physical addresses. Of course there is still the 'it wasn't me, it was my brother' defence that was put up at one of the Employment Tribunals. I think I begin to hear a certain tonsil clearing exercise being made by a lady of ample proportions.

[Mack The Knife]

I assume it would be quite usual for Crew to live together. Most forums, including pprune, place a cookie on the computer enabling the manual logon & password routine to be avoided each time the forum is accessed. So the IP address may tell only part of the story.
It could be a case similar to original car speed camera fines, whereby companies (including Manchester United/Sir Alex Fergusson I recall) and families avoided fines and points as they claimed they could not identify who was driving the car at the time. Nowadays the cameras photograph the driver.

[Yellow Pen]

You'd need more than one BASSA member to have access to any specific IP address to play that particular defence. Given that it's likely the information is to be used to launch a grievance against the individuals with BA, a whole list of usernames with their home address, plus a reasonably detailed list of their global whereabouts on each occasion of posting, married with BA's historical roster data, should narrow it down to a particular individual fairly quickly.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Can we all be a little careful of speculating what might happen here. We don't want this thread closed down do we. Also PLEASE if the trolls come, just ignore them. The info on the 13 names will be found by the forensic scientists within a few weeks. Let's all be patient. Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but we've all seen how these posts can quickly get out of control. Im not saying dont post, just be careful what we put. Well done to the mods. I'm sure they will sort out any troublemakers quickly. I can wait a little longer for the truth to come out. 
Finally thankyou for all the links

[Emm4]

Without commenting on the outcome of Mr Holley's case, I have two observations:
Firstly, the whole, end-to-end procedure seems excessively rigorous to the extent that many employers & their managers would be dissuaded in taking action against an employee for serious misconduct. Common sense seems to go out of the window only to profit the legal profession.
Secondly, I find it bizarre that an employee can be granted time off for "trade union duties" when that work involves administrative tasks such as web site maintenance, making payments and updating lists. Surely, for such tasks, the trade union should employ its own staff and pay their wages. The employer's trade union rep could then concentrate on representing the members in disputes. With this approach, Mr Holley would not have needed so much time away from his airline duties. I am really surprised that BA is prepared to pay for a guy who effectively has a second job!

[rethymnon]

Totally agree with the previous poster regarding litigation. the legal profession is the only profession where it actually pays you to 'get it wrong' the first, second - or even the third time. each appeal racks up costs and adds to the anguish/false hope of those involved. i was once privileged (?) to stand in the corridor of the high court when one (losing) barrister put his arm round his opponent's shoulder and uttered the persuasive argument 'now come on barry, it is christmas'.

perhaps the legal aid fund should be limited to the costs of the first tribunal or trial: an appeal is entirely at your own risk. it should concentrate minds wonderfully!

[NearlyStol]

:rolleyes:

Discussion - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/The-Truth-About-BASSA?page=27#last_post)

[LD12986]

An interesting summary of the latest developments at the High Court:

Orders for inspection by IT experts: a new tool for the claimant's toolbox - International Law Office (http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=abd6ceb8-0ec0-4bca-83db-e9b31ce04a5f)

[rethymnon]

Fascinating commentary- thank you for that link LD12986. I particularly enjoyed the 'raised judicial eyebrow'!

If I were an insider and a betting man, I suspect I would want to have a flutter on the names that come to light if the search is successful. Shouldn't think laxative sales are very high in some areas at the moment.

It must raise potential problems in BA too with the prospect that they could be presented with strong evidence of wrongdoing meriting disciplinary action.

It is a strong reminder that bitter industrial disputes leave a lingering trail of recriminations behind them. ( That's not to say that they are never worth it.)

[thameslinkboy]

A slightly rhetorical question, but I've never quite understood how Unite put up with this from the BS of their biggest branch.
Anyway any news anyone on the forensic search? Wondered if anything had been posted on any legal sites?

[wiggy]

I've never quite understood how Unite put up with this from the BS of their biggest branch.


I would have thought he would fit in quite well if put in a line up of main stream Left wing Union leaders, and certainly wouldn't seem out of place at the local Labour Club ( do they still exist?). I can't see why UNITE would be at all concerned about him

The bigger question to me is how and why many moderate, hardworking, and reasonable BASSA members put up with the BS. Then again he got, or was allowed to get, results, so maybe the majority were quite happy with the way they were being led, and simply decided it was easiest to ignore some of the more outlandish facets of his leadership style.

[Litebulbs]

Hi All,

I just cannot believe it, £425m profit..................................

Redistribution of wealth complete.

[AlpineSkier]

£425m profit..................................

Redistribution of wealth complete

Well that's probably because they are not paying his salary and expenses any longer Litebulbs :E

[rethymnon]

Three main items of news in one day:

1. Two hostages killed during rescue attempt

2. Six British soldiers blown up by IED

3. Boris held hostage for £850/£1,000 per head by RMT

Wealth re-distribution indeed.

[LD12986]

£425m profit may seem a lot but as a profit margin it's still pretty thin and well below profits before the downturn. And if you look at cash (often viewed as a true measure of performance), that actually went down. Also, the long suffering shareholders are still not getting a dividend and have seen the share price nearly halved over the past year.

If you look at the vast number of airlines posting losses and the fact that almost every other legacy carrier in Europe is going through a major restructuring it's an absolute unequivocal vindication of the need for BA to go through permanent structural change.

[LD12986]

I see from elsewhere the GMB now claim to have representation for cabin crew:

http://www.gmbcabincrew.co.uk

[DeepDene]

I know this thread has been permitted to continue by the moderator, however, by definition "SLF" means that many of the readers and contributors to this part of PPrune are in fact BA CUSTOMERS ! Why on earth do you think it's a good idea to continue your tedious discussion on an internal industrial dispute in what is in many respects a passenger forum?

P.S. I have no connection with BA or any airline, other than to pay loads of money to fly around the World far more frequently than I would chose if it wasn't my livelihood.

[Dawdler]

I understand your point about you personally not being involved and therefore avoid showing any interest. This is primarily an airline staff forum upon which it is natural to discuss such matters. There are other passenger focused forums which it can be said ignore most personnell issues. The fact of the matter is that many ARE interested in natural justice and having it seen to be done.

On a related matter, I welcome the involvement of GMB in CC representation as it is my hope that a more measured approach will ensure a stable timetable can be adhered to in the future. This will benefit all, passengers and staff included.

[ExXB]

I understand your point about you personally not being involved and therefore avoid showing any interest. This is primarily an airline staff forum upon which it is natural to discuss such matters. There are other passenger focused forums which it can be said ignore most personnell issues. The fact of the matter is that many ARE interested in natural justice and having it seen to be done.

On a related matter, I welcome the involvement of GMB in CC representation as it is my hope that a more measured approach will ensure a stable timetable can be adhered to in the future. This will benefit all, passengers and staff included.

No this is not a airline staff forum, this is a passenger forum including some of us Ex-BA customers. The mods have tolerated this discussion here is because if it was posted in Cabin Crew there would be another war. If you guys want to blast BA or Unite go ahead, but you must realise that others will be reading your comments and making judgement on your wisdom and candour. This reflects on BA, Unite and yourself.

[wiggy]

From the top of the page:

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

[Dawdler]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself too clearly. I was referring to PPRuNe when I said this was primarily an airline staff forum.

That said I understand that some people are not interested in anything that does not directly (now) affect them. Others take a wider view.

[TrakBall]

It has been quiet now for almost two+ weeks. Any updates from the UK courts?

[vctenderness]

Well when I read the headline PREACHER OF HATE SENT TO JAIL I thought yippee they have finally caught up with the BASSA Branch Secretary but sadly not it was a different one!

[thameslinkboy]

Just to let everyone know, and to finally put this saga to bed once and for all, Bassa have announced the nominations for the forthcoming elections and thank goodness the current branch secretary is in fact stepping down in July. Hurrah! However, the current chair, who as many of us know resides in Los Angeles? is staying on. There were no other nominees for the chair position. So will there be any changes in the future? By the names who have put themselves forward, I sincerely doubt it. However Bassa has announced several new jobs/positions from July. This include a chief of staff, an industrial director, a deputy industrial director, a principal health and safety officer and an equalities officer. These were jobs/positions that never existed before, and have been filled unapposed by current reps. I really don't know what to say except 🇨🇳!!

It seems the current BS, who as we know was correctly sacked in May 2010 for his (in) actions the previous Xmas, was rewarded in the latest 'deal' done by Unite and BA, by being given compensation to the tune of many 1000's of pounds. Nobody knows the full details, but it was in Len McCluskey's words ' substantial'

To any of us that are maybe an IAG shareholder and/or an employee or pensioner of the airline , I'm sure like me they are totally disgusted to find this is where part of their money has gone. But thats politics for you. :ugh:

Finally despite many many requests over the years, nobody, members or not, managed to see the infamous accounts that this BS kept to himself. £2 million/year is an awful lot of money to account for. Oh well let's really hope the next BS is a little more open. It surely can't be worse.

[VintageKrug]

And now it seems Manish Patel has won his point and settled out of court against BASSA's leadership and Duncan Holley:

Legal action versus Unite the Union & others: Patel v Unite settled (http://tinyurl.com/cb2v5jp)


Splendid news for Captain Patel.

[rethymnon]

.. that this settled out of court.

in fairness, the vast majority of such actions do settle but it does mean that we, the public, are prevented from seeing the final, gory details.

there was a clear incentive to the union to settle, possibly with pressure from individual members as, had the forensic computer expert been successful in recovering data (how far had she got?), the sins of individual members would reflect badly on the union for hosting the comments. this would have been particularly so if the 'sinful' members were influential within the union.- quite apart from the prospect of individual civil damages actions and disciplinary actions against them. (is there a lawyer out there who can tell us whether a judge, as part of his judgement, could say/suggest that someone was not fit to hold union office?)

on the other side i suspect, capt patel's lawyers would reach the point where what was on offer was too good to refuse. they would tell him 'it ain't going to get any better than this - go on and you might get awarded less!' and, his reputation remains untarnished.

anyway, this brings down the curtain i suspect. someone, somewhere could be writing a sequel.

[Ancient Observer]

I suspect that there has to be a sequel. Whilst BA won in a strategic sense given that they now have MF established on a solid basis, in a tactical sense some of the dinosaurs are still too difficult for BA managers to manage. They have to be seen to go the way of the dinosaurs.

And, is anyone convinced that BA managers are any better at managing? That was what got them in to this mess in the first place......

[Omnipresent]

There won't be a sequel.

Soundings are that relations between BASSA and BA management are getting much better. Some may not have adjusted to the shift in the balance of power (which is already yielding benefits to passengers) and there are pockets of hostility to Mixed Fleet but there will always be a minority wanting to cause trouble (caused by a structural dependency on the company for career long earnings, not management) and the ability to point a gun at the company's head has gone forever.

Crew do also speak highly of Frank van Der Post and Keith "good cop" Williams.

The industrial dispute fundamentally broke the historical template of unions being able to point a gun at the company's head and it capitulating at the last minute with promises to all get along on the future. Any union rep that didn't heed the hard lessons from the dispute would be doing their members a grave disservice.

[Ancient Observer]

Whilst I agree that some of the dinosaurs are dependent on their relatively high salaries, I disagree about management.

Any management team gets the TUs that it deserves. BA managers got bassa. That was NOT bassa's fault - it was the fault of extremely weak management.

But this is boring, so I'll shut up now.

[wiggy]

A.O.

To some it may be boring, but not to me, and IMHO you are not wrong - I agree with many of the points you've raised.

OmniP.

Soundings are that relations between BASSA and BA management are getting much better.

Soundings? What soundings? My soundings (i.e. downroute conversations/fly on that wall) have led me to a less optimistic conclusion. FdP and others may be happy that BASSA's overt demands to management aren't quite as silly as they used to be and yes, in many areas their powers seem to have been diminished, but there are signs that BASSA are yet again starting to investigate the limits of acceptable behaviour and there's now increasing evidence that some have started to use BA's own disciplinary mechanisms to hamstrung members of the other main employee group they interact with.......(does the terms "S.A.S." ring a bell?)

There won't be a sequel.


Until the moderate's gain control of the union this isn't over, it will just move underground.

[Chuchinchow]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself too clearly.

Absolutely correct.


I was referring to PPRuNe when I said this was primarily an airline staff forum.

It might have been once, but (shock horror) they even let passengers in these days. Terrible, isn't it?

That said I understand that some people are not interested in anything that does not directly (now) affect them.

Excellent! You are clearly now on the right track.

Others take a wider view.

Maybe - but not here. Try the cabin crew section where you might (just) garner some sympathy.

We "SLF", as I understand you so disparagingly refer to your bread and butter, are thoroughly sick and tired of BA cabin crew shenanigans. Kindly wash your dirty linen elsewhere, please.

[ExXB]

Agree :ok: