British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest danger is what is happening in the real world, the one that exists on the dim and distant fringe of 'LaLa' world.
At the moment there are quite a few Airlines teetering on the brink and having to make difficult decisions.
One of those is, indeed, in BA's own 'back yard' so to say.
They are looking at grounding aircraft, returning aircraft to lessors and reducing, drastically, routes. This will leave them with an excess of flying personnel. Not only CC but FC as well. The future doesn't look very bright for a large contingent of this companies employees.
Now, this companies employees have managed, for the past years, to survive on the sort of T's & C's that the BASSA hierarchy are claiming to be 'below the breadline', 'non sustainable' and 'slave labour'. They have been working the schedules, rosters and crewing levels that the BASSA hierarchy have described as 'unworkable', 'insulting' and a 'health and safety hazard'.
Through no fault of their own they are facing in the very near future redundancy and all the financial implications that poses. Do you think they will mind 'New Fleet' and it's supposedly draconian contracts? Do you think they, as trained crew, will mind a quick new job on the back of the BASSA 'die hards' 90 day termination of contract?
Nope.
BASSA must realise that the world turns on. IA in this current climate over something that BASSA themselves failed to take part in through their own choices is ludicrous.
I can only hope that more and more crew see the sense in sending BASSA a clear message that the continued support for keeping the BASSA hierarchy in their elevated positions at the cost of the lowest members has to stop.
At the moment there are quite a few Airlines teetering on the brink and having to make difficult decisions.
One of those is, indeed, in BA's own 'back yard' so to say.
They are looking at grounding aircraft, returning aircraft to lessors and reducing, drastically, routes. This will leave them with an excess of flying personnel. Not only CC but FC as well. The future doesn't look very bright for a large contingent of this companies employees.
Now, this companies employees have managed, for the past years, to survive on the sort of T's & C's that the BASSA hierarchy are claiming to be 'below the breadline', 'non sustainable' and 'slave labour'. They have been working the schedules, rosters and crewing levels that the BASSA hierarchy have described as 'unworkable', 'insulting' and a 'health and safety hazard'.
Through no fault of their own they are facing in the very near future redundancy and all the financial implications that poses. Do you think they will mind 'New Fleet' and it's supposedly draconian contracts? Do you think they, as trained crew, will mind a quick new job on the back of the BASSA 'die hards' 90 day termination of contract?
Nope.
BASSA must realise that the world turns on. IA in this current climate over something that BASSA themselves failed to take part in through their own choices is ludicrous.
I can only hope that more and more crew see the sense in sending BASSA a clear message that the continued support for keeping the BASSA hierarchy in their elevated positions at the cost of the lowest members has to stop.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to be back!
Just to say thanks for all the kind messages I've received during my 3 days in the sin bin & a special thanks for those who have posted my thoughts & suggestions on my behalf.
It's interesting to note that during this time nothing in the debate seems to have changed. The Bassa side are seemingly stuck in their rut of attempting to destroy this great airline & still refusing to either explain or justify the use of IA.
On the other side, the loyal employees, pax & share holders continue to try to use gentle persuasion to bring sound common sense into the discussion. It's encouraging to note that this policy is working as several posters have obviously been convinced that to ballot for IA would be both wrong & a complete waste of time. Keep up the good work!
It's interesting to note that during this time nothing in the debate seems to have changed. The Bassa side are seemingly stuck in their rut of attempting to destroy this great airline & still refusing to either explain or justify the use of IA.
On the other side, the loyal employees, pax & share holders continue to try to use gentle persuasion to bring sound common sense into the discussion. It's encouraging to note that this policy is working as several posters have obviously been convinced that to ballot for IA would be both wrong & a complete waste of time. Keep up the good work!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have received only around 34% of the paper ballots, for ALL fleets, from all members eligible to vote.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, as I described earlier, if they receive a majority 'Yes' vote from a minority of returned ballot papers then that constitutes a 'Yes' for IA.
Then all members of the Union 'should' take part in IA.
As has been previously stated either vote 'No' if you wish to vote or resign from the Union.
Unite 100%!...........errr............no............perhaps....... . Unite 34%......maybe?
Then all members of the Union 'should' take part in IA.
As has been previously stated either vote 'No' if you wish to vote or resign from the Union.
Unite 100%!...........errr............no............perhaps....... . Unite 34%......maybe?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this 34% just the amount they recieved for the re-election of reps though. I know it was a BASSA bulletin that gave the results of who was re-elected and only 34% of papers were returned!! Unless only 34% of strike ballots were sent back. I was under the impression they do need a majority return to make it valid as a 100% YES from 34% of the membership actually means only 34% of the membership votes yes if you see what I'm, saying. It's certainly fairer but what do I know??
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
winstonsmith
Where did you obtain the figure of 34% from? Slidebustle is correct.
You need to obtain all of the facts before scaremongering - the figure of 34.7% was the turnout of LHR WW voters in the recent election for the representatives - not the strike ballot
The Eurofleet turnout was 38% and the Gatwick turnout was 33.2%
No information on the turnout will be released until the Electoral reform Society do so.
It seems a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands
You need to obtain all of the facts before scaremongering - the figure of 34.7% was the turnout of LHR WW voters in the recent election for the representatives - not the strike ballot
The Eurofleet turnout was 38% and the Gatwick turnout was 33.2%
No information on the turnout will be released until the Electoral reform Society do so.
It seems a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands
Last edited by A Lurker; 4th Dec 2009 at 16:36.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And so Mr Lurker
You say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I would say that a failure of the members to vote is the most dangerous thing. Look what the result is, representatives who fail to represent. But of course for you as a non member of Bassa, it would presumably be of only passing interest.!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker
Of course it was about the election of representatives and not the strike ballot - Did I insinuate otherwise? Maybe using the term "paper ballot" in the sentence above confused you. If it did - I apologise and stand here both chastened and rebuked.
I should have put 35% from ALL FLEETS instead - as it is more accurate to the average than 34%. My apologies.
I should have put 35% from ALL FLEETS instead - as it is more accurate to the average than 34%. My apologies.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
winstonsmith
Why can't you just admit you where mistaken?
You actually said.....
"They have received only around 34% of the paper ballots, for ALL fleets, from all members eligible to vote.
So much for UNITED WE STAND."
At no time did you mention the reps vote....
If you where talking about the reps vote which was weeks ago then you wouldnt be saying "they have received only around 34% etc" now would you? You would have said "they only received" wouldnt you?
We all make mistakes old chap - don't be too embarrased by yours
Besides can you please keep this thread for the purpose it is meant - ie Cabin Crew Industrial Relations and Negotiations - it has nothing to do with the elections for the reps
Many thanks
You actually said.....
"They have received only around 34% of the paper ballots, for ALL fleets, from all members eligible to vote.
So much for UNITED WE STAND."
At no time did you mention the reps vote....
If you where talking about the reps vote which was weeks ago then you wouldnt be saying "they have received only around 34% etc" now would you? You would have said "they only received" wouldnt you?
We all make mistakes old chap - don't be too embarrased by yours
Besides can you please keep this thread for the purpose it is meant - ie Cabin Crew Industrial Relations and Negotiations - it has nothing to do with the elections for the reps
Many thanks
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would bet money on the fact that so far they have had a low return of the ballots. I have flown with quite a few people on my last few trips who have not yet voted. Most have only been here a couple of years and are totally confused by the whole shebang.
Some even think that because they belong to the Union, they have to vote yes, so to clarify here are the facts:
The vote is your personal choice YES or NO.
The Union can do nothing to you if you vote NO.
If you do not vote at all, you might as well have voted yes, because it is only returned votes that count.
If you vote Yes then you are in breach of your contract, and the company could issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work.
You can vote no, and come to work on strike days. It is your right under UK employment law, and the law protects you.
Some even think that because they belong to the Union, they have to vote yes, so to clarify here are the facts:
The vote is your personal choice YES or NO.
The Union can do nothing to you if you vote NO.
If you do not vote at all, you might as well have voted yes, because it is only returned votes that count.
If you vote Yes then you are in breach of your contract, and the company could issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work.
You can vote no, and come to work on strike days. It is your right under UK employment law, and the law protects you.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who have not yet voted and may be concerned about some of the posts you have read on here - to clarify here are the facts:
The vote is your personal choice YES or NO - fact
The Company can do nothing to you if you vote YES - it is unlawful if they do - fact
If you do not vote at all, you might as well have voted YES, because it is only returned votes that count - fact
If you vote Yes then you may be in breach of your contract, but the company cannot issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work - that is illegal - fact
You can vote no if you wish, and come to work on the strike days. It is your right under UK employment law, and the law protects you just the same as the law protects you by voting YES - fact
You are protected by the law in taking LAWFUL industrial action
The vote is your personal choice YES or NO - fact
The Company can do nothing to you if you vote YES - it is unlawful if they do - fact
If you do not vote at all, you might as well have voted YES, because it is only returned votes that count - fact
If you vote Yes then you may be in breach of your contract, but the company cannot issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work - that is illegal - fact
You can vote no if you wish, and come to work on the strike days. It is your right under UK employment law, and the law protects you just the same as the law protects you by voting YES - fact
You are protected by the law in taking LAWFUL industrial action
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err A Lurker - think you need to read your ballot script again.
Even the Union states on the ballot paperwork that "you may be in breach of your contract."
I do hope that when encouraging people to vote yes, you know your stuff. If people do get sacked, or do get given a new fleet contract to sign after striking - what compensation will you be able to offer them?
You can keep stating that BA can't do it. Fine. Go ahead - test them and put your own job at risk.
But to encourage other people to do so when you clearly have no idea what could happen next, seems pretty reckless to me.
Even the Union states on the ballot paperwork that "you may be in breach of your contract."
I do hope that when encouraging people to vote yes, you know your stuff. If people do get sacked, or do get given a new fleet contract to sign after striking - what compensation will you be able to offer them?
You can keep stating that BA can't do it. Fine. Go ahead - test them and put your own job at risk.
But to encourage other people to do so when you clearly have no idea what could happen next, seems pretty reckless to me.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey A Lurker,
Thanks for your answers earlier. I may not agree with what you're saying, esp regarding the first two questions, but you're entitled to your opinion.
I'm interested to hear your answer to my third question. Have you had a chance to put something together?
Thanks
Gg
Thanks for your answers earlier. I may not agree with what you're saying, esp regarding the first two questions, but you're entitled to your opinion.
I'm interested to hear your answer to my third question. Have you had a chance to put something together?
Thanks
Gg
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an internet bulletin board composed of forums.
Set up to discuss things.
As opposed to a corkboard for sticking up slogans.
Stop the sloganeering.
Both at the end of your posts and as sole content of your posts.
For crying out loud, try and behave like adults.
You know who you are.
Set up to discuss things.
As opposed to a corkboard for sticking up slogans.
Stop the sloganeering.
Both at the end of your posts and as sole content of your posts.
For crying out loud, try and behave like adults.
You know who you are.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you vote Yes then you are in breach of your contract, and the company could issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work."
As far as my limited knowledge of this area of the law gets me, I think that A Lurker has it just about right on this one. If it's lawful and protected (ie first 12 weeks) industrial action (IA) then if you dismiss someone for being on strike which you have to do if you're only allowing them to return on a different contract it's automatically an unfair dismissal and rather expensive for the employer. Don't confuse being in breach of contract with an automatic right to dismiss.
"If you vote Yes then you may be in breach of your contract, but the company cannot issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work - that is illegal"
- So the flip side would be that this is only true if it's lawful and protected IA. If its unlawful IA, or unprotected IA and the company isn't selectively dismissing/re-engaging employees, they could do this if they went through the proper hoops (notice of dismissal then re-engagement, any rules on consultation or any other criteria employment law requires to be met).
One would hope that the Unions involved have disseminated full & frank guidance on the legal ramifications of striking. If in any doubt, bone up on all the advice freely available on the web (tip: the government has a number of websites summarising the legal position and a number of law firms have useful commentaries. Google is useful here.). Ask union reps or the company's HR dept, or for independent advice try the Citizens Advice Bureaux etc or a legal professional.
Take anything legal stuff written on a discussion forum with a heavy pinch of salt.
As far as my limited knowledge of this area of the law gets me, I think that A Lurker has it just about right on this one. If it's lawful and protected (ie first 12 weeks) industrial action (IA) then if you dismiss someone for being on strike which you have to do if you're only allowing them to return on a different contract it's automatically an unfair dismissal and rather expensive for the employer. Don't confuse being in breach of contract with an automatic right to dismiss.
"If you vote Yes then you may be in breach of your contract, but the company cannot issue you with a different contract before allowing you back to work - that is illegal"
- So the flip side would be that this is only true if it's lawful and protected IA. If its unlawful IA, or unprotected IA and the company isn't selectively dismissing/re-engaging employees, they could do this if they went through the proper hoops (notice of dismissal then re-engagement, any rules on consultation or any other criteria employment law requires to be met).
One would hope that the Unions involved have disseminated full & frank guidance on the legal ramifications of striking. If in any doubt, bone up on all the advice freely available on the web (tip: the government has a number of websites summarising the legal position and a number of law firms have useful commentaries. Google is useful here.). Ask union reps or the company's HR dept, or for independent advice try the Citizens Advice Bureaux etc or a legal professional.
Take anything legal stuff written on a discussion forum with a heavy pinch of salt.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bermudatriangle
Doh....................that is one of the secrets.......now you have spilled the beans - yes there is an agreed payment of operating one down - BA has ALWAYS paid this in the past as it is part of the CC Collective Agreements - which as stated in CC contracts - form part of the contract - the company are on very sticky ground as they have always accepted that this forms part of a long standing agreement which they have now broken
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did Euro Fleet also get a payment for working one down? They didn't the many years when I was on EF. Or has that never happened?
Different agreement or different contract-same airline.
Different agreement or different contract-same airline.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jean-Lill
Eurofleet did not have an agreement for operating one down - they used to ge given a CAT payment if ever this happened - usually agreed by the DOM's
You are correct in saying different agreement - long haul and short haul operate to different collective agreements dependent upon the fleet
You are correct in saying different agreement - long haul and short haul operate to different collective agreements dependent upon the fleet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see, crew complements are agreements, not individual contracts. I certainly can't find anything in my contract with BA saying how many crew I'll be working with on each aircraft.
Gg
Ps. How's my question 3 coming along, A Lurker?
Gg
Ps. How's my question 3 coming along, A Lurker?