BA and Project Columbus III

[wobble2plank]

Sorry, I didn't make my post very clear. I was trying to perceive a future where there has already been a catastrophic shift in the CC t's & c's and then the influx of temporary crew who might have been working over the term of a dispute.

I have a feeling that many who would like such a post may also be thinking of that scenario.

I agree wholeheartedly that the temp contract crew were/are a pleasure to work with.

[PC767]

No arguments zebedee.

But Walsh has said that 2000 hce will go from IfCE, whether that is by VR or CR. The VR is offered at a once only best offer, so hopefully it will be worthwhile to 2000 hce crew. It is a win win situation. Should the offer not appeal, then there should be legal consultation with unions for CR. I also believe, though I do not have the full legislation with me, that to make crew compulsarily redundant then employ new crew within a specific time frame (2yrs?) would not be possible.

That being the case, then Walsh & Co will also need an agreement soon to allow new fleet to go ahead soon, as VR depends on an agreement being found.

[Glamgirl]

I can't remember now, but has there at any point been published by the company that New Fleet would operate to scheme and CAP371? Or was this an assumption made by unions and crew?

Gg

[Da Dog]

pc768

There may be 500 ex temps in the pool, but I fear there could be a high attrition rate.

Do you except that BASSAs claim of 2000 crew in the hold pool is accurate or not?

In an email answer from a friend of mine,(HR Director, large High Street Bank) "recruiting people after making CR is possible but fraught with difficulties and open to legal challenges"

[zebedeee]

In redundancy the job that the employee is doing "disappears". You can still take on new staff but not to do the work the redundant employee was doing.

However, if business conditions change, ie if BA increases flying capacity or suddenly needs more crew, they are legally able to start recruiting crew again. There is no time limit set by law, they would just have to demonstrate that the need for more crew had arisen.

Zeb (studying employment law at uni!!)

[nuigini]

I can't remember now, but has there at any point been published by the company that New Fleet would operate to scheme and CAP371? Or was this an assumption made by unions and crew?

No. Assumptions made by unions and crew who constantly keep saying minimum rest downroute. How are you supposed to have minimum rest in Entebbe with a thrice weekly service or in Nairobi with a daily service?

In Europe it will most likely be minimum rest at most destinations but almost every airline does it and don't keep their crew downroute longer than necessary.

[PC767]

The reference to scheme was originally made in the 32 points for discussion revealled in March 2009. You are correct that current details are not know. The point is if the new fleet works to scheme and pays the same as other companies, where is the incentive. I await the 30th to see actual facts before any further discussion.

Da Dog, that is correct and it may be that BA has built the cost of compensation for unfair dismissal into its accounts for new fleet. Of course an individual would need to take BA to tribunal in the first instance.

I would however note that such an obvious abuse of legislation could be a public relations disaster, more so than Walsh telling the world BA was going bust, and also could be legally taken further. The legislation is to protect workers, not to allow companies to refinance change.

Anyhow this is all speculative. Roll on the 30th and hopefully an agreement.

[wobble2plank]

I seem to remember from my dim and distant past the there was a 6 month moratorium on employing personnel into a previously compulsory redundant position.

As Zebedeee has said, if the company can come up with extenuating circumstances as to why the time frame should be reduced then they can apply to the Department for Work and Pensions for dispensation.

As has been said, hopefully an agreement will be reached by the 30th and we can all get on with our work.

[PC767]

Zebedee is correct. There is no time limit now.

Here is an interesting point though. The company is planning new fleet now. Planning how to employ new crew on new terms and conditions. Before it removes 2000 hce from the books. Thats fine if the 2000 reduction is voluntary, but how can the company ask for any dispensation from legislation if it makes 2000 jobs compulsarily redundant. The argument that business takes an exceptional upturn in the later part of the year cannot be pre-announced. If so why legally lose the jobs in the first place.

[Glamgirl]

There's always the possibility of if it comes to CR, that the company could turn round and say to the CR crew "you can keep your job if you join New Fleet". It doesn't make it compulsary to join New Fleet, but the company would give them a "choice".

For the record, I think this would be a sneaky way of doing it, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Gg

[Andyismyname]

So why lose the jobs in the first case? Because some of our colleagues cost twice as much as Virgin!

[Hotel Mode]

If so why legally lose the jobs in the first place.

Even if found illegal, the maximum compensation for wrongful dismissal is 1 wks basic salary per year served (1 1/2 per year over 41). Which BA will have saved more than that in lower wages anyway. They may also give punative damages if not reemployed but even these have a lowish limit and will take several years to get. Its not pleasant but if theres one thing Willy doesnt lack its ruthlessness.

I suspect he'll get near his 2000 VRs anyway.

[nuigini]

They could sack crew and, before BA begins any additional recruitment, ask them to come back on new contract and fleet. If they say no it's their decision and they can't claim anything from the company as they had been offered to come back.

Sad times ahead of us but I do think BA has everything figured out.

[Da Dog]

They could sack crew and, before BA begins any additional recruitment, ask them to come back on new contract and fleet. If they say no it's their decision and they can't claim anything from the company as they had been offered to come back.

There's always the possibility of if it comes to CR, that the company could turn round and say to the CR crew "you can keep your job if you join New Fleet". It doesn't make it compulsary to join New Fleet, but the company would give them a "choice".

I think that might come under the heading constructive dismissal.

[nuigini]

Fair enough.

Getting fed up with this and if the members vote for a strike, which hopefully should be illegal, I hope crew who don't turn up for duty are sacked. I'm still going to work!

[Andyismyname]

Ditto, I am going to work, and hope any strikers get sacked.

[MrBernoulli]

nuigini and Andyismyname,

What you really mean is that you hope illegal strikers get sacked.

For all those who play the 'sick note' game, well they may face disciplinaries if the company finds a a crack to get its crowbar into. In any event, sadly for you folks, the chickens are coming home to roost, finally.

[Artificial Horizon]

Lets also not forget that the VR that is on offer at the moment is based on the fact that BASSA negotiates a cost cutting package by the June 30 deadline. It is a one time offer that will be taken off the table without a negotiated settlement. So those of you hoping to see what happens and then take the VR and run, it just won't happen. 2000 crew will be going either on a nice VR package or on a much reduced enforced CR basis. Good Luck!!

[Glamgirl]

We have already been told that if any IR, any sickness will result in disciplinary, ie losing our job. Obviously, if someone can get a hospital letter or whatever for an urgent operation or similar, then that would have to be taken into account, but the ones claiming any sicknees otherwise will get their P45 in the post.

Gg

[Hotel Mode]

I think that might come under the heading constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal it is, but the compensation is so small WW may want to risk it.