British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly both sides are confident they will win in court, and clearly both cannot, but it will settle the argument one way or the other.
So can anyone remind me of the reason for this current strike ballot and resultant reduction in numbers of your employer's customers? How does this help you, your cause, BA or its customers? I would really love to know the logic behind this decision.
So can anyone remind me of the reason for this current strike ballot and resultant reduction in numbers of your employer's customers? How does this help you, your cause, BA or its customers? I would really love to know the logic behind this decision.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the legal case as laid out by A Lurker was a s simple and clear cut BA would be stupid to continue with this court case. So one has to deduce that the case is not as clear cut as the explanation given would imply.
Even if it is and BA lose in Feb, when the Judge will decide whether or not BA or BASSA/Unite are correct in their thinking, what will be the outcome?
Well firstly there will have to be a return to the pre-imposition crewing levels, but where will these crew members come from and on what contract will they be employed? New Fleet is the only available solution.
BASSA will claim that for every time a service departed that the crew members aboard are due a payment for departing with a reduced crewing level. Well that I suspect will be the subject of another long and protracted court case.
BF has stated that any costs incurred as a result of IA etc will mean that the savings required of IFCE will grow by an amount equal to the costs incurred by the IA.
So if BASSA win, they hasten the arrival of New Fleet and the savings it allows BA. Crew have no contractual or agreements that dictate which routes they are rostered so expect to see the lucrative trips going to NF quicker if BASSA win.
Worse still, as mentioned the savings required of IFCE increase. Where will these savings come from? CR perhaps, the HR1 lodged with DWP still stands for up to 2000 CC members.
If BASSA win , they lose. If BASSA lose curiously enough then NF will still happen but at a much reduced rate and no CR. This current IA ballot can be simply sidestepped by getting an injunction till the court case is heard and the matter decided by the judge hearing the case in Feb.
There is no real downside for BA in this, BASSA are risking everything.
Even if it is and BA lose in Feb, when the Judge will decide whether or not BA or BASSA/Unite are correct in their thinking, what will be the outcome?
Well firstly there will have to be a return to the pre-imposition crewing levels, but where will these crew members come from and on what contract will they be employed? New Fleet is the only available solution.
BASSA will claim that for every time a service departed that the crew members aboard are due a payment for departing with a reduced crewing level. Well that I suspect will be the subject of another long and protracted court case.
BF has stated that any costs incurred as a result of IA etc will mean that the savings required of IFCE will grow by an amount equal to the costs incurred by the IA.
So if BASSA win, they hasten the arrival of New Fleet and the savings it allows BA. Crew have no contractual or agreements that dictate which routes they are rostered so expect to see the lucrative trips going to NF quicker if BASSA win.
Worse still, as mentioned the savings required of IFCE increase. Where will these savings come from? CR perhaps, the HR1 lodged with DWP still stands for up to 2000 CC members.
If BASSA win , they lose. If BASSA lose curiously enough then NF will still happen but at a much reduced rate and no CR. This current IA ballot can be simply sidestepped by getting an injunction till the court case is heard and the matter decided by the judge hearing the case in Feb.
There is no real downside for BA in this, BASSA are risking everything.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole ''collective agreements'' and whether crewing levels form a part of this is definately a grey area. I personally just feel it is strange to ballot for strike action BEFORE the court hearing, what happens if we do strike, then in Feb BA and Unite go to court, BA are found to not be guilty of breaching or ''imposing'' any changes to our contract?? Will BA claim damages or raise the cost savings we have to make? ie. not only create new fleet but also change OUR terms and conditions?? Wouldn't it be better to ballot for a strike if Unite won the court case? Maybe I've missed something.
Also, the WW or EF scheduling agreement does not actually say about crewing levels.... The matrix for Eurofleet is re-issued for each season... but not part of the scheduling agreement. Bill Francis stated he believes some of it like pay, allowances, and hours are contractual, crewing levels are not.... definately one grey area.
Also, the WW or EF scheduling agreement does not actually say about crewing levels.... The matrix for Eurofleet is re-issued for each season... but not part of the scheduling agreement. Bill Francis stated he believes some of it like pay, allowances, and hours are contractual, crewing levels are not.... definately one grey area.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why....
have BASSA asked for reports from crew of compomises in health and safety standards/reduced rest/problems with service..... If they have this "golden nugget" of dynamite then why go to the trouble? Surely on Feb 1st BASSA will turn up in court, present the collective agreements and wait for the judge to awardin BASA's favour.
Or not, BA have some very clever lawyers.... If they have overlooked this detail (which I am 99.9% certain they won't have) then maybe BA will lose. Then what, BA have to employ 1700 crew to replace all those that have left/taken part-time. They will be offered terms akin to the New Fleet. There you have it, BA's first New Fleet recruits. Within months those new crew will be on the NRT/HKG/SIN aircraft.
And what of the remaining crew, 90 days notice of contract termination (SOSR) and 90 days for BA to start a massive recruitment drive to replace all those crew who refuse to accept new terms at the and of the 90 days notice.
All of the above assumes BASSA will still be around in February, if the strike actually happens and BA chose to allow the strike to go ahead then I still think the first few hundred crew who don't report will be dismissed for withdrawing their labour. That will leave the remaining crew with a tough call, go to work and break the strike - or be sacked. I know it will be illeagal but that won't be proved on the day, maybe in a few months at the subsequent tribunal.
Interesting times, glad that I am not having to make a decision this time round.
Or not, BA have some very clever lawyers.... If they have overlooked this detail (which I am 99.9% certain they won't have) then maybe BA will lose. Then what, BA have to employ 1700 crew to replace all those that have left/taken part-time. They will be offered terms akin to the New Fleet. There you have it, BA's first New Fleet recruits. Within months those new crew will be on the NRT/HKG/SIN aircraft.
And what of the remaining crew, 90 days notice of contract termination (SOSR) and 90 days for BA to start a massive recruitment drive to replace all those crew who refuse to accept new terms at the and of the 90 days notice.
All of the above assumes BASSA will still be around in February, if the strike actually happens and BA chose to allow the strike to go ahead then I still think the first few hundred crew who don't report will be dismissed for withdrawing their labour. That will leave the remaining crew with a tough call, go to work and break the strike - or be sacked. I know it will be illeagal but that won't be proved on the day, maybe in a few months at the subsequent tribunal.
Interesting times, glad that I am not having to make a decision this time round.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker, you said "I have simply stated what my contract says and how the CA's are intrinsically interwoven into my contract".
But in actual fact you subsequently reiterated it and added your own comment "by agreement".
The mere fact that you had to do so, when quoting a legal contract, should make you think why you had to add it to reinforce your argument, surely?
I would think that this is where the legal arguments in court may commence, if BA have had you sign a document that says simply "can be amended from time to time." (Note the full stop).
This surely is vastly different to what it would mean if it actually was followed with "by agreement", or even "only by agreement".
Much as it would if it was followed by "whenever the company deems it appropriate to do so".
But I suspect that without that suffix, a decent legal eagle could argue that BA, with this statement, gave itself the right to amend when necessary, because as I see it that one phrase implies no legal obligation on their part to "agree" anything with anybody. Moral obligations don't really count in court. do they?
Do you see this is being the crux of the legal argument?
I assume when this case comes to court we should have no trouble finding out.
However, if it is on this that BASSA are betting their shirts, then as an outsider it seems to me to be one hell of a gamble.
Regards,
D
But in actual fact you subsequently reiterated it and added your own comment "by agreement".
The mere fact that you had to do so, when quoting a legal contract, should make you think why you had to add it to reinforce your argument, surely?
I would think that this is where the legal arguments in court may commence, if BA have had you sign a document that says simply "can be amended from time to time." (Note the full stop).
This surely is vastly different to what it would mean if it actually was followed with "by agreement", or even "only by agreement".
Much as it would if it was followed by "whenever the company deems it appropriate to do so".
But I suspect that without that suffix, a decent legal eagle could argue that BA, with this statement, gave itself the right to amend when necessary, because as I see it that one phrase implies no legal obligation on their part to "agree" anything with anybody. Moral obligations don't really count in court. do they?
Do you see this is being the crux of the legal argument?
I assume when this case comes to court we should have no trouble finding out.
However, if it is on this that BASSA are betting their shirts, then as an outsider it seems to me to be one hell of a gamble.
Regards,
D
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS-Alpha
Please see post number 3472 which lists numerous reasons as to why the CC have balloted for Industrial Action.
And BA are not losing any customers over the current threatened Industrial Action - Willie Walsh on the 22nd of November stated the following:
FT: Okay. You must have had quite a few cancellations now.
WW: No.
FT: Really?
WW: There’s no evidence of this impacting the business at all. Booking profiles haven’t changed at all. Literally, I’ve not seen any impact.
There you have it straight form the CEO's mouth - after all he would not lie would he?
And BA are not losing any customers over the current threatened Industrial Action - Willie Walsh on the 22nd of November stated the following:
FT: Okay. You must have had quite a few cancellations now.
WW: No.
FT: Really?
WW: There’s no evidence of this impacting the business at all. Booking profiles haven’t changed at all. Literally, I’ve not seen any impact.
There you have it straight form the CEO's mouth - after all he would not lie would he?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning Desertia
The contract actually says "and as amended from time to time." not as you said in your post "can be amended from time to time."
Again the whole crux of the argument is as to whether the CA's form part of the contract of employment - and as it currently stands those CA's have not actually been amended - BA has totally disregarded them and imposed their own agreement thereby breaching their own contract by imposing terms outside of the CA's.
Again the whole crux of the argument is as to whether the CA's form part of the contract of employment - and as it currently stands those CA's have not actually been amended - BA has totally disregarded them and imposed their own agreement thereby breaching their own contract by imposing terms outside of the CA's.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently so - although I must admit I thought the Electoral reform Society usually moved much slower than that - my own preference is that even if it is a yes vote an agreement or compromise can still be made prior to any action taking place
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker,
It will say that you're required to report for duties rostered (not neccessarily worded that way). Report time may be 90 minutes before departure. The reason you'd get in trouble for not reporting at -90 would be that you're not fulfilling your contract.
The reason I posted 179... It's all in the wording. Are you 100% sure that ALL your collective agreements are in writing? This is important. Maybe you can get some clarification from somewhere, such as your union rep or dare I say it, your line manager?
I refer you to your post #4098, my post #4101, your #4102 and #4103 and mine # 4104. I was merely trying to get clarification from you whether your added information was actually the words in the contract or your interpretation.
I don't think we're talking the same language on this issue, unfortunately.
Gg
Nowhere in my contract does it state that I should report for a flight ex LHR 90 minutes before departure - agreed?
179.
Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract.
— (1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—
(a)
is in writing, and (Our Collective Agreements are in writing)
(b)
contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract. (It states in the Cabin Crew contract the fact that the CA's are part of the contract)
(2) A collective agreement which does satisfy those conditions shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract. (There you go....)
Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract.
— (1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—
(a)
is in writing, and (Our Collective Agreements are in writing)
(b)
contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract. (It states in the Cabin Crew contract the fact that the CA's are part of the contract)
(2) A collective agreement which does satisfy those conditions shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract. (There you go....)
I refer you to your post #4098, my post #4101, your #4102 and #4103 and mine # 4104. I was merely trying to get clarification from you whether your added information was actually the words in the contract or your interpretation.
I don't think we're talking the same language on this issue, unfortunately.
Gg
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl
This is the EXACT wording from my contract
You are referred to the Air Cabin Crew National sectional Panel Agreement and the Scheduling Agreement for full details of terms and conditions relating to your hours of work, entitlement to holidays and holiday pay, absence due to sickness and sick pay.
These Agreements together with the Collective Agreements between the Company and the Trade Unions (all known as the Collective Agreements) and the Employment guide contain the terms and conditions of employment
That is as plain as day! Once again it does not state anywhere in my contract at what time I have to report - instead it states the above ie Our Collective Agreements form part of our contract and I have to abide ny the Collective Agreements
Our Collective Agreements are our Scheduling Agreements for both WW and EF signed off by BA - of course they are in writing and of course I have a copy - this is becoming really silly now
You are referred to the Air Cabin Crew National sectional Panel Agreement and the Scheduling Agreement for full details of terms and conditions relating to your hours of work, entitlement to holidays and holiday pay, absence due to sickness and sick pay.
These Agreements together with the Collective Agreements between the Company and the Trade Unions (all known as the Collective Agreements) and the Employment guide contain the terms and conditions of employment
That is as plain as day! Once again it does not state anywhere in my contract at what time I have to report - instead it states the above ie Our Collective Agreements form part of our contract and I have to abide ny the Collective Agreements
Our Collective Agreements are our Scheduling Agreements for both WW and EF signed off by BA - of course they are in writing and of course I have a copy - this is becoming really silly now
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, of the Union fails to partake in the Unions 'agreement' to negotiate change then surely the 'agreements' which form part of the contract may be altered by the company?
I am not sure the whole thing is as clear cut as you would like to make out. If something is as legally binding as you appear to make out then it would come under the heading of 'contractual obligation' not 'collective agreements'.
Collective agreements are just that, areas of flexibility which can be easily changed without the requirement to re-issue contracts. Hence they are 'flexible', referred to as 'agreements' and are liable to change.
If the Union, in a time of crisis, cannot or will not agree to changes to fundamental agreements then I feel the company has the right to change them.
The statement:
is not true if the following statement:
is true as one states 'form part of' whilst the other states 'contain'. Semantics I know but in the eyes of the blind Ass of the law the two could be interpreted as worlds apart.
As to the load factors don't believe all you hear or read. A bunch of percentages tells us what we have always known, we are flying with fairly full aeroplanes, what is not in the public domain is the yield that is gleaned from the passenger loads. It is no use flying full aircraft where the passengers pay peanuts for the ticket. The only advantage is that those passengers give the peanuts to us and not a competitor!
I am not sure the whole thing is as clear cut as you would like to make out. If something is as legally binding as you appear to make out then it would come under the heading of 'contractual obligation' not 'collective agreements'.
Collective agreements are just that, areas of flexibility which can be easily changed without the requirement to re-issue contracts. Hence they are 'flexible', referred to as 'agreements' and are liable to change.
If the Union, in a time of crisis, cannot or will not agree to changes to fundamental agreements then I feel the company has the right to change them.
The statement:
instead it states the above ie Our Collective Agreements form part of our contract
These Agreements together with the Collective Agreements between the Company and the Trade Unions (all known as the Collective Agreements) and the Employment guide contain the terms and conditions of employment
As to the load factors don't believe all you hear or read. A bunch of percentages tells us what we have always known, we are flying with fairly full aeroplanes, what is not in the public domain is the yield that is gleaned from the passenger loads. It is no use flying full aircraft where the passengers pay peanuts for the ticket. The only advantage is that those passengers give the peanuts to us and not a competitor!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wobble2plank
Thanks for the input - Im just trying to make some semblance of the whole thing - if the Judge does rule in favour of Unite (on the whole Collective Agreements issue) then BA are on a sticky wicket.
It is this exact item that Bill Francis is saying is non-contractual - however as I mentioned previously it is so inextricably linked, then it simply has to be contractual as it is these agreements that have kept everything in place over the last god knows how many years - lets wait and see what a man of greater importance has to say in February
It is this exact item that Bill Francis is saying is non-contractual - however as I mentioned previously it is so inextricably linked, then it simply has to be contractual as it is these agreements that have kept everything in place over the last god knows how many years - lets wait and see what a man of greater importance has to say in February
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern for you all is that the QC that BA use is extremely sharp, just look at the mess BAPLA got themselves into and they thought they had it all pretty well sewn up!
I have this sneaky suspicion that the BA QC has been through the contracts and the 'collective agreements' with the finest of fine tooth combs!
IF and it is a big IF BA feel that they were to lose the case then I think we will see mediation after the 14th IF it goes to IA.
IF BA see that they will win and the changes are NOT contractual, as BF seems to be briefed to say, then I think we will see BA allow BASSA and hence Unite pull the financial destruct trigger!
The Union are playing a very, very dangerous game of Russian Roulette at the moment!
I have this sneaky suspicion that the BA QC has been through the contracts and the 'collective agreements' with the finest of fine tooth combs!
IF and it is a big IF BA feel that they were to lose the case then I think we will see mediation after the 14th IF it goes to IA.
IF BA see that they will win and the changes are NOT contractual, as BF seems to be briefed to say, then I think we will see BA allow BASSA and hence Unite pull the financial destruct trigger!
The Union are playing a very, very dangerous game of Russian Roulette at the moment!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker, as a pax that flies on a regular basis with BA, can you explain to me why these proposals are so bad for crew ex Lhr, but were/are perfectably acceptable to Bassa for crew ex Lgw? By the way, I have no link to ba or travel trade in any way.
true Blue
true Blue