British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by Fume Event

As I have said before somewhere in this thread, it is very unusual for employees to take out an injunction against an employer, it is normally the employer asking the employees via an injunction NOT to do something.

Perhaps thats why the judge said he wasn't minded to grant Unite an injunction?

We have seen before over OpenSkies that BA are very willing to use injunctions to prevent IA. How will they use this weapon now when they themselves are under the cosh?

I can assure you that BAs lawyers do not consider themselves under the cosh, and with no injunction granted and a court hearing agreed by mutual consent why would they?

A friend of mine who attended the hearing on the 5th November gave some valuable insight into how the judge put off the full hearing until February.

You do make friends quickly! I seem to recall in a previous post (which you wrote from BOM and very quickly deleted) you claimed that you were talking to the FO on your trip who'd been to court. Now it's your 'friend'. Same guy? Or do you happen to know two people who were in the court that day? As I recall the judge didn't put off the hearing. He said he was disinclined to grant Unite an injunction, then BA agreed to see Unite in court, at which point the judge said he would probably have imposed such a move had the parties not reached that conclusion by themselves. Or have you heard differently?

He said that BA's legal team were poorly briefed and unprepared, whereas QC John Hendy presented the case on behalf of UNITE "brilliantly" in his words.

If it's the same FO you quoted previously then no, he did not say that.

The problem for BA is that most of its management do not go back more than ten years due to the high turnover of personnel. Hendy was able to hark back to the 70's and refer to collective agreements laid in stone then, which the BA legal team were unaware of.

A remarkably positive spin on what was originally reported as John Hendy relying on some tattered old contracts from the 70s as the main thrust of Unites defence.

Although there are many here cheering on Willie Walsh, you will soon see that he is leading BA into a legal blind alley and a damaging strike.

A damaging strike? Perhaps. A necessary, radical change to the way BA operates? Definitely.

Unfortunately BA does not appear to be run for the benefit of its shareholders at the moment, just someone's personal agenda.

Yes. BASSAs.

[midman]

Well Fume, I could make the same post, but in reverse: Unite's QC misunderstanding basic terms used in the airline, presenting tatty dog eared documents from the 70s as evidence, BA's legal team appearing confident and familiar with the material, the judge seeming to offer Unite only their minimum entitlement etc.

I've heard it 'from the horse's mouth' too, but as they say in court, it's just hearsay, and so worthless. The court will decide..... unless Unite seek a way out beforehand when the financial risk becomes unacceptable.

As for injunctions, I don't believe BA will seek to delay the strike. After the 14th, they will start explaining to crew members exactly what they are going to be exposing themselves to if they decide to take IA. It will get very personal, scary, and potentially very expensive as a cabin crew member who wants to strike.
BA are convinced crew crew won't strike in any number so will allow the union to go ahead and take the public flak approaching Christmas, and quickly lose its credibility as a strike rapidly falls apart. (Mass sickies won't cut it.) Unite can't afford a protracted strike anyway - £30/day for the thousands they need would be an expense the rest of Unite (think carworkers and steelworkers facing redundancy) won't waste on cabin crew having to work one down. Unite will then seek a way out of the hearing through an out of court settlement.

This isn't going the way of 1997. Bassa lost then, and WW was actually sympathetic to some of Bassa's points. This time he believes he is justified in taking on Bassa's pretence to power, and has the means to do so.

[midman]

And Fume,
If WW wasn't running BA to the satisfaction of the shareholders, he wouldn't be in position to take the chief exec's job in the combined BA/Iberia airline.

[Clarified]

A Lurker, why didn't you respond?

I asked you previously to clarify this.

We are balloting at the moment because of the impositions made by BA - in one of my previous posts I listed around 18 reasons post 3472 - I will not re-list them here again as that question has been answered in full.

I don't think my question has been fully answered.

On the 6th Oct, our company announced changes to facilitate cost savings around 2 issues, reduction of crew on board and future fleeting arrangements.
Shortly after the unions announced a strike ballot.

According to previous posts on this forum the ballot paper states, Vote 'YES' for IA and 'No' for Imposition.
Then there is a long explaination (some other colourful descriptions of that on this forum), supporting the reason to vote in favour.

The company announced two things on the 6th Oct, crewing levels and new fleet.

My question again.

Are you in dispute over both?
If not which one is it?
If, only one, why?.

Also, can you confirm whether the 18 reasons, (your post 3472) are your perception of the reasons to be in dispiute with our company or your unions, as there is no source ref. to your comments.

[Human Factor]

The company announced two things on the 6th Oct, crewing levels and new fleet.

My question again.

Are you in dispute over both?
If not which one is it?
If, only one, why?

Here's a clue for you Lurker. It is illegal to strike over something which has not happened yet. You cannot legally strike regarding "New Fleet" until the day BA recruit the first person onto that contract (the pilots learned that one from Open Skies). Whether you can actually strike then is another question. However, the current ballot cannot legally be about that.

Therefore, surely it must be about crewing levels. It must be as there's legally b*gg*r all else to strike about at the moment. In legal terms, "imposition" is insufficient. It must be "imposition of something", in which case it cannot be anything other than "impositon of new crewing levels". I'm wondering whether you've picked the right fight and I bet a few of the Unite grand fromages are wondering the same thing.

Finally, of the "18 reasons" (which I haven't seen so can't comment on them individually), if they have been published and are considered grounds for a strike, BA only has to grant one of the reasons in favour of BASSA and the strike ballot becomes invalid. BASSA made that mistake a couple of years ago with their list of 12 (or was it 13) demands - perhaps why I haven't seen a list this time round....

[Clarified]

A lurker

You said this in response to Midman's post.

So what you are saying is that the Cabin Crew contract and the agreed Collective Agreements are worthless - if that is so, then so is your own contract and indeed any other contract within BA - you see I don't think that that would stack up - otherwise what is the point of any of us having a contract or agreement?

As for your statement on trying to negotiate - again that is open to interpretation isn't it?

I thnk it's about being reasonable! My veiw is that the company are not trying to shaft us! They really do have to make savings. Let's look after who we have in the family, (work a bit harder) and payless for new people. (In line with other airlines).
Recently we have seen more lay offs and redundencies due to the times and in some cases union intransigence.
Efforts should be directed at maintaning our company's health, along side ours.
Then hopefully we won't join them.

[Glamgirl]

Midman, thank you for your input. You put everything much more eloquently than what I was trying to say.

I would like to remind cc reading here that going sick in the event of a strike will not be an option. WW said months ago, that anyone phoning sick will be straight on to disiplinary action. If you have a broken leg/major operation or something else that can be proven, this will be acceptable. By saying this, I'm not encouraging anyone to get their legs broken, by the way.

A Lurker, I'm still waiting for your answer to my third question the other day. I would appreciate a reply. Thanks.

Gg

[somewhereat1l]

GG if you are sick then you are sick and would be foolish to go into work. Just get a doctors certificate to cover yourself.

[Desertia]

So what you are saying is that the Cabin Crew contract and the agreed Collective Agreements are worthless

Lurker, I didn't read that from what he said, he used the term "reasonable". What I would add is that the agreements must have the flexibility to be "amended from time to time" (remember that bit)?

The current circumstances (massive global financial crisis, massive increase in airline competition, further damage to come from climate change legislation) have made that necessary (surely you would concede that simple point by now?).

Now as you have said this ideally should be done by negotiation. But BASSA (the leaders) have through their intransigence made this impossible. That is why so many of us here clamour for BASSA members to change their leadership and employ people who mostly aren't simply Willie Walsh hatemongers on fantastic packages that they are desperate to protect.

SO BA have made impositions which change things, and they are quite obviously well prepared to fight them in the courts (or the injunction would have already been granted to prevent them from doing so).

As to whether BASSA members have the stomach to follow the jihadist cries from their imams is another thing altogether.

But if they were talking to BA and understanding the position in which ALL employees of the company find themselves then perhaps this could have been handled better.

As it is, I don't even think Unite has the stomach for big battles at the moment. It knows its pet government is out on its ear at the next election, and perhaps sees the bigger picture (i.e. do we want more anti-union legislation when the tories take over again?).

who according to the quotes below conducts "lethal cross-examinations" in court).

This surely begs the question of which lamb BASSA will be sending to the slaughter, or will one of the BASSA leaders be assuming the role of plaintiff in this case? (Not a legal beagle, but I think plaintiff is the correct word?).

I wish we had the US system, where courts were televised. Would make riveting viewing!

Finally, the Sick days thing, that's surely another complication:

"Medical evidence
It is up to your employer to decide whether you are incapable of work." Will they be making home visits?

But this is buried in a whole boatload of stuff including:

"Your employer cannot ask you to provide evidence that your are sick for the first seven days of illness".

So how can they decide if they don't have any evidence?

Baffling.

The relevant info can be found here:

Statutory Sick Pay - telling your employer you are sick and providing evidence : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits

Unfortunately I'm back at work in the sandpit today, so perhaps someone else has the time to peruse, analyse and offer further comment (There's a ton of stuff there).

Regards,
D

[MrBernoulli]

somewhereat1l,

.... if you are sick then you are sick and would be foolish to go into work. Just get a doctors certificate to cover yourself.

But if you report sick on a strike day your reasons will be subject to very close scrutiny, and it would be very foolish to think otherwise.

'Pattern illness' on a strike day is in the company's sights because it has been a favourite of certain workgroups before!

[somewhereat1l]

Exactly why I said get a doctors certificate. Even if you are on 7 days self cert you can still get a doctors certificate, some doctors charge however.

[MrBernoulli]

Every person who pulls a sickie on strike day one had better be prepared to justify their absence with more than just a doctors note. It is a known and well established routine for certain work groups to use sick notes as 'day off' certificates.

[L337]

With or without a sicknote, they will sack you. You will then have the option to sue for unfair dismissal. And may eventually win. But you will stay sacked.

[A Lurker]

Glamgirl

If you troll back to the post it was answered in full

[Carnage Matey!]

It's worth remembering that it's perfectly legal to sack somebody for taking too many days off sick. A sick note is not a 'Get out of jail free' card.

[A Lurker]

Clarified

Are you in dispute over both? No
If not which one is it? Imposition
If, only one, why?. Because New Fleet is not yet on the agenda

Also, can you confirm whether the 18 reasons, (your post 3472) are your perception of the reasons to be in dispiute with our company or your unions, as there is no source ref. to your comments.

The 18 reasons where taken from a letter sent by Unite to Tony McCarthy Director, People and Organisational Effectiveness and signed by Steve Turner and Brian Boyd, National Officers Civil Air Transport

The letter also went on.

Your continued failure to consult properly with Unite on notified redundancies and now your attempted imposition of fundamental changes to working practices, work organisation and terms and conditions of employment leads us to contend that we now have a fundamental breakdown in industrial relations at British Airways.

Your refusal to either engage in any meaningful way or negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement on contractual matters as well as industrial agreements is unacceptable.

This coupled with your confirmed actions in imposing fundamental changes to working arrangements, practices and contractual matters affecting our members leave us in dispute. As a consequence we will be writing to you in due course in line with legislation detailing actions we now propose to take.

Hence we balloted for Industrial Action

[A Lurker]

Human Factor

Please see above post and post 3472 which lists the 18 items of imposition and why we are at the stage we are

[Desertia]

Your refusal to either engage in any meaningful way or negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement on contractual matters as well as industrial agreements is unacceptable.

Lurker,

Remarkable. BA could have written this exact statement to BASSA's leadership. That's what's going to make it such an interesting court case.

The big question is who has got the evidence to back up their case that they DID attempt to engage and negotiate, and who has got mountains of evidence to say that the other party didn't?

Hmmm, having your own union brethren complaining about your lack of participation. Refusing to even start talks because it involved "watching a presentation".
And so on.

If this lawyer that's "lethal" has all this ammunition to play with, I pity the claimant who has got to sit in the witness box and face him in full flow, if that's the case.

Mind you, even if it's just two QCs trying to convince a judge, you still get a feel for which way it might lean.

[plodding along]

Mr Lurker and others,

Does BASSA/UNITE now accept the need to save £140m or is the party line still no to any savings as this is just a blip?

If it does accept the need to change but just does not want to reduce crewing levels then have you all been polled on how to make those savings?

If UNITE win the case in Feb and cost the company millions and restore crewing levels then where do you go from there?

Is BASSA saying thats it, end of, no savings or will it propose new methods?

Do Eurofleet want fixed links to enable them to fly 40 odd sectors a month with mainly three sector days?

Do worldwide want single nightstops instead?

Would you all prefer a huge pay cut?

My point is that reduced complements is probably the least painful way to make the required savings.

It's possible that your strike will be a success and you will win the court case, but what then?

What is the plan? Month after month of just saying no?

I think we are all still bemused.

[HiFlyer14]

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

A Lurker - on this (the underlined bit) you are sorely mistaken. A crew member on my last trip was also adamant that just by putting yes in the box, it will "make WW think again." It won't. It won't. It won't.

The CEO has said as much himself. This is a terrifyingly dangerous situation that many crew are only thinking as far as the yes box. You need to think beyond it and ask yourself if you really are going to sit at home when you're due to checkin for SIN/NRT/SYD or GVA/ZRH/Whereever. Are you going to risk your forward roster being wiped - thereby changing your Xmas/New Year plans? Are you going to be the only one striking, whilst many others are going to work? And are you going to be happy when you are out of work, either because you have been sacked or the company has gone under. Think it through. This goes way beyond the ballot form.