British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one point everyone is missing...
I think there is one crucial question that needs to be asked of the BASSA supporters that no one really seems to be asking, and as far as I can tell, the whole scenario depends upon.
Do you accept the need for IFCE to make permanent cost savings?
If you do, then it is just a case of deciding what you want to give up. Work a bit harder, or a bit less pay, or fewer days off, or allow New Fleet for new joiners, or some combination of the above.
If you don't agree, and you think that IFCE should be the only department that don't have to make any savings, and you should keep your Ts&Cs untouched, then that is fine, that is your opinion, and it would be refreshing if you just came out and admitted to that.
Perhaps people like ottergirl, BAW 175 and IheartMBT could just give us a simple yes/no answer to the main question, and then the debate can move forward from there; I really do feel it is central to the way the situation is going to move forward and what people feel they will gain from a strike, and what it would take to remove the threat of a strike.
Thanks.
Do you accept the need for IFCE to make permanent cost savings?
If you do, then it is just a case of deciding what you want to give up. Work a bit harder, or a bit less pay, or fewer days off, or allow New Fleet for new joiners, or some combination of the above.
If you don't agree, and you think that IFCE should be the only department that don't have to make any savings, and you should keep your Ts&Cs untouched, then that is fine, that is your opinion, and it would be refreshing if you just came out and admitted to that.
Perhaps people like ottergirl, BAW 175 and IheartMBT could just give us a simple yes/no answer to the main question, and then the debate can move forward from there; I really do feel it is central to the way the situation is going to move forward and what people feel they will gain from a strike, and what it would take to remove the threat of a strike.
Thanks.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A previous comment 'BA is looking for much more rewarding targets'.
Sure, they have looked at ways of restructuring CC costs and employed blue sky thinking in the process. That doesn't mean they have an intension to adopt everything that their advisors looked at. A well run company constantly looks at what it can do better and where it can save money. It's very tough out there. If you stand still you get over taken and go out of business!
No one wants that, but it could happen. Do the unions really understand our financial predicament better than the company?
The company could have taken action long ago, it didn't. (In my view other companies would have, unionised or not).
The company tried very hard to get resolution, agreement, understanding, negotiation, empathy, a proactive response.
I would imagine the atmosphere would have been slightly different with leadership at the fore front.
Why are we sitting embroiled in a struggle that in my mind was and is clearly avoidable.
Time to engage, anything else will be very tenuous for all.
I do not believe the company is trying to get one over on anyone, I do think it can't wait much longer.
Engage and have influence.
(All my thoughts, as usual! Not representative of my employer or anyone else).
No one wants that, but it could happen. Do the unions really understand our financial predicament better than the company?
The company could have taken action long ago, it didn't. (In my view other companies would have, unionised or not).
The company tried very hard to get resolution, agreement, understanding, negotiation, empathy, a proactive response.
I would imagine the atmosphere would have been slightly different with leadership at the fore front.
Why are we sitting embroiled in a struggle that in my mind was and is clearly avoidable.
Time to engage, anything else will be very tenuous for all.
I do not believe the company is trying to get one over on anyone, I do think it can't wait much longer.
Engage and have influence.
(All my thoughts, as usual! Not representative of my employer or anyone else).
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a complete mystery to me why anyone should want to spend so much time on a thread they have no stake in
There is much talk on here about the ballot being about imposition, then there is more about the threat of New Fleet. "What else are we supposed to do," seems to be a common cry.
Err, maybe your numpty union should have used the months available (and it was many months) to negotiate, thus avoiding imposition, and, indeed, New Fleet. But now you're going to strike? What - to get WW to negotiate? He gave you the aforementioned months to negotiate, and set you a deadline, that you completely ignored.
You see, there would be no imposition (and it was a threat/promise to every work group, not just CC) or New Fleet, if BASSA had sat down, and talked. Pilots, and any other work group are not especially favoured - WW would love to pay me less, if he could.
Out of interest, how do you BASSA diehards think the strike will end? I'll give you an answer: just as in any war, by getting back to the negotiating table. What a shame the BASSA leadership thought their first "ace in the hole" was to try the usual tactic of saying "NO" to everything (including, bizarrely, the worst financial crisis to hit the World since the 1930s).
I'd love to play BASSA at poker; I'd clean up.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry it's going back a few posts but it's difficult to edit text on this iPhone that the company are secretly issuing to pilots
LMFAO!Thanks flyby for providing some laughter (at our expense but revenge is sweet
) in this now desperate situation...I recently spoke to someone who has been cabin crew a long time, doesn't support or understand a strike, sick to the back teeth of all the militants etc. However, he/she has thrown their ballot paper in the bin
and says they will go sick, because they would not have the guts to come into work for fear of what the militants could do....ie. card marked for life, car damage, etc.
I'd just like to inform everyone that the days of pickets threatening or intimidating people are long gone. I will walk into work with my head held high - to serve Mr & Mrs Fincastle their much deserved bottle of champers!So unfortunately if they do get a yes vote, it will be due to intimidation, sending out ballots to people no longer in the company (VR), people unaware of the two sides, and people simply accepting what the union says without challenging it.
Welldone to Slidebustle - you came on here not so long ago, gathered all the info you needed and made an informed decision and then voted no to strike, just like me and the other non-strikers on here. I truly hope that more people show the common sense that you have done, and read and understand both sides, and then make an informed decision.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to BAW175
"And to all the “normal” people or occasional passengers here, please butt out. As said before, this is a Cabin Crew thread. If you want to give your 50p’s worth in, go to the Mail or Sun. Looking at your comments, this is where you belong anyway. "
I have followed this thread since the beginning. I find your comment rather patronizing. I'm a "normal" people, 10 years as silver and last year as gold. I like BA and direct my money there.
However, I have during these years chatted with many BA CC and I know that you certainly are not in majority.
As for a a strike, I really don't see what this will result in. Speaking for myself, I have endured various IA with BA. Another IA will only drive me to the competition. Yes BA will survive without me, I'm not important, but I fear I'm not alone.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 38 deg West
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
long time lurker...first time poster
I think it must be a common misconception that "only BA staff" have a interest in the IA being discussed, and in BA in general. I (as a regular LH BA passenger with no aliegances to any party - that's all!) am interested in what's happening within the company (especially since in these uncertain economic times, parting with much money each year, in advance on fares to a company posting multi-million £ losses). I'd be a fool not to want to keep informed of the future of that company, the fare paid and the future status of the bookings. Whether I'd go as far as saying I have a "Stake", that's probably a matter of opinion - I doubt it personally (though I do have a BA booking for Dec 23rd which I cannot cancel or rebook...)
I think pax can make a valid contribution, seeing as most of us arent shareholders, arent BASSA, arent related to cabin or flight crew, aren't mates with x or y or a or z, and generally dont have much more of a long term objective than seeing an airline that copes beyond the current market conditions, whilst offering a suitable service to customers. To this end we could be seen as impartial and objective.
As much as anything, BA employees who think "only BA staff would/should be interested" do themselves a disservice. BA is a great British company, with great staff, and it is something to take pride in - I dont think anyone in Britain really wants to see BA go down the drain. Aside from anything else, BA staff and their issues are more interesting than they think they are
It is a complete mystery to me why anyone should want to spend so much time on a thread they have no stake in "
"And to all the “normal” people or occasional passengers here, please butt out. As said before, this is a Cabin Crew thread. If you want to give your 50p’s worth in, go to the Mail or Sun. Looking at your comments, this is where you belong anyway. "
I think pax can make a valid contribution, seeing as most of us arent shareholders, arent BASSA, arent related to cabin or flight crew, aren't mates with x or y or a or z, and generally dont have much more of a long term objective than seeing an airline that copes beyond the current market conditions, whilst offering a suitable service to customers. To this end we could be seen as impartial and objective.
As much as anything, BA employees who think "only BA staff would/should be interested" do themselves a disservice. BA is a great British company, with great staff, and it is something to take pride in - I dont think anyone in Britain really wants to see BA go down the drain. Aside from anything else, BA staff and their issues are more interesting than they think they are
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAW175
It's ironic that you have such disdain for these two journals; I'm fairly certain BASSA will be using them for those wonderful full page fairy stories they have planned if they try and implement IA. Fairy stories which of course will be treated by Joe Public with deserved contempt.
Sadly, BA passengers, other BA employees and other interested parties are permitted to have a voice here and *gasp* they are allowed to discuss the topic of the thread and criticise BASSA. Awful isn't it?
So I would suggest if that if any BASSA members find this too hard to deal with, they stick to forums where their wonderful Huxleyian leadership will tell them how glorious it is to be a BASSA member and how BASSA will look after them.
"Butt out" indeed. How intensely amusing.
And to all the “normal” people or occasional passengers here, please butt out. As said before, this is a Cabin Crew thread. If you want to give your 50p’s worth in, go to the Mail or Sun. Looking at your comments, this is where you belong anyway.
Sadly, BA passengers, other BA employees and other interested parties are permitted to have a voice here and *gasp* they are allowed to discuss the topic of the thread and criticise BASSA. Awful isn't it?
So I would suggest if that if any BASSA members find this too hard to deal with, they stick to forums where their wonderful Huxleyian leadership will tell them how glorious it is to be a BASSA member and how BASSA will look after them.
"Butt out" indeed. How intensely amusing.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm at work BAW, but what with the holiday season coming up and all, it's rather quiet here
A few snippets from various news trawls:
(The Guardian)
Those pesky climate change people are threatening your jobs as well:
Four ways to curb air travel, according to the committee on climate change
Yowch! And how about this:
Full Bloomberg article here:
CO2 Price Surge Needed to Limit Jet Industry, U.K. Adviser Says - Bloomberg.com
A few snippets from various news trawls:
A former BA executive who had a 20-year career at the airline has sympathies for both sides. Some union representatives at BA can be "malicious trouble-makers" and cabin crew can be guilty of displaying a "precious attitude", he says.
Douglas McNeill, analyst at Astaire Securities, estimates that a two-day strike will cost BA £50m. McNeill argues that, with access to nearly £2bn in cash, BA can afford to absorb the blows from a trade union's biggest weapon. "In financial terms a strike of limited duration would be manageable for BA," he says. "In a sense the timing is good because in a year in which the airline is already on course to incur substantial losses, the impact of a strike will be much less apparent than it might otherwise be."
Those pesky climate change people are threatening your jobs as well:
Four ways to curb air travel, according to the committee on climate change
1 A carbon tax on flights, which could be imposed after airlines join the European Union emissions trading scheme in 2012. The scheme alone is likely to force up fares because airlines will have to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, but the committee says that is not enough.
2 Limiting runway growth to a select number of airports, possibly Heathrow, Stansted and Edinburgh.
3 Restrictions on take-off and landing slots at airports.
4 Setting out a new growth strategy for UK airports in a national policy statement.
2 Limiting runway growth to a select number of airports, possibly Heathrow, Stansted and Edinburgh.
3 Restrictions on take-off and landing slots at airports.
4 Setting out a new growth strategy for UK airports in a national policy statement.
The airline industry may need to spend as much as 35 billion euros ($52 billion) between 2012 and 2020 on carbon permits.
CO2 Price Surge Needed to Limit Jet Industry, U.K. Adviser Says - Bloomberg.com
Last edited by Desertia; 8th Dec 2009 at 07:50. Reason: Added Bloomberg link.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAW
As some of my posts seem to be an inconvenience on this lively & informative forum, I'll make an offer to 'butt out' if you answer me one simple question, which I have posed previously without success.
What will IA achieve?
What will IA achieve?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBT
MBT wrote:
Are CSD's really allowing the most junior/inexperienced crewmember to do one of the toughest positions on the aircraft, when there are vastly more experienced crew on board who would be able to do it better - but just don't want to because it's hard work??
Are CSD's not permitted to allocate working positions?
If there were to be dozens of passenger complaints on a particular flight and it was subsequently shown that the CSD allowed an inexperienced crewmember to be "in way above their heads" when there were better options available, I would fully expect that the CSD would be called to account.
Is this a widespread practice?
I have competed 2 flights since the 16th, both on the 747. On both flights I worked on the upperdeck ( us pursers are allowed back up their till jan!!!). The problem I have is not being a crew member short, its which crew member has been removed. At present we have the most junior crew member incharge of the club galley ( as this since imposition is nolonger a purser position and the last position to be taken). They are in way above their heads.
Are CSD's not permitted to allocate working positions?
If there were to be dozens of passenger complaints on a particular flight and it was subsequently shown that the CSD allowed an inexperienced crewmember to be "in way above their heads" when there were better options available, I would fully expect that the CSD would be called to account.
Is this a widespread practice?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: LHR
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are CSD's really allowing the most junior/inexperienced crewmember to do one of the toughest positions on the aircraft, when there are vastly more experienced crew on board who would be able to do it better - but just don't want to because it's hard work??
Are CSD's not permitted to allocate working positions?
Are CSD's not permitted to allocate working positions?
Is this a widespread practice?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dave747436
As a CSD I could re allocate experience around the aircraft if I so wished, mainly with safety in mind.
I believe there is a fine line with your suggestions.
All crew members need to gain experience in any position, the galley position in club is proving rather unpopular and ideally experience does count.
However there is an element of letting crew get experience doing the galley in club
E.g. Someone who has recently been first trained, I would not deny them a chance of gaining experience even if the service took a little longer.
The fly in the ointment I suppose, while there is on going training for main crew in galley management, during the role out of the premium training there are many who have not had the chance to do it yet. There have been many crews leaving LHR where there is no one who has had a chance of premium training or galley managment training.
I wouldn't necessarily change a position just because the crew member left the galley in club is the most junior on the crew ( this still means they could have 7 - 8 years experience) I would however expect the rest of the crew in the club world cabin to support the crew member in the club galley .
I'm not going onto what I think of the whole debacle, apart from BA should really have ensured the crew have adequate training , but at the moment the club service needs to be managed in the best way possible, moving crew around is not always the best thing to do for all concerned.
As a CSD I could re allocate experience around the aircraft if I so wished, mainly with safety in mind.
I believe there is a fine line with your suggestions.
All crew members need to gain experience in any position, the galley position in club is proving rather unpopular and ideally experience does count.
However there is an element of letting crew get experience doing the galley in club
E.g. Someone who has recently been first trained, I would not deny them a chance of gaining experience even if the service took a little longer.
The fly in the ointment I suppose, while there is on going training for main crew in galley management, during the role out of the premium training there are many who have not had the chance to do it yet. There have been many crews leaving LHR where there is no one who has had a chance of premium training or galley managment training.
I wouldn't necessarily change a position just because the crew member left the galley in club is the most junior on the crew ( this still means they could have 7 - 8 years experience) I would however expect the rest of the crew in the club world cabin to support the crew member in the club galley .
I'm not going onto what I think of the whole debacle, apart from BA should really have ensured the crew have adequate training , but at the moment the club service needs to be managed in the best way possible, moving crew around is not always the best thing to do for all concerned.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyeruk69
All crew members need to gain experience in any position, the galley position in club is proving rather unpopular and ideally experience does count.
However there is an element of letting crew get experience doing the galley in club
However there is an element of letting crew get experience doing the galley in club
Someone who has recently been first trained, I would not deny them a chance of gaining experience even if the service took a little longer.
Everyone has to learn sometime. But watching a more experienced person doing the job first would be far more effective training.
I wouldn't let a low-hours-on-type FO do a night landing, on-limits crosswind, curved approach into JFK - even if in theory he's capable of it.
I'd let him watch me get it wrong, first....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, none of the main crew have experience running the galley in club, which is very different to running the first galley, so yes unfortunately it's is "a sink or swim sort of training" A ground manager said last week, it will take time to bed in and the crew will get used to it !! If that's not "sink or swim training" I don't know what is !!
The crew who had the experience running the galley were the pursers in club and as they have been removed from club, there is no one to watch who has the experience.
Also as each crew member has specific tasks during the service, it's not always possible to watch what is being done in the galley.
In my experience the service hasn't fallen apart, it's taken longer as crew are still learning to run the galley in club including the CSD who is juggling the extra duties with the ones they already had.
Capacity bucket is full and over flowing for the crew in club, who are struggling to find their feet with the most radical changes in a very long time.
The crew who had the experience running the galley were the pursers in club and as they have been removed from club, there is no one to watch who has the experience.
Also as each crew member has specific tasks during the service, it's not always possible to watch what is being done in the galley.
In my experience the service hasn't fallen apart, it's taken longer as crew are still learning to run the galley in club including the CSD who is juggling the extra duties with the ones they already had.
Capacity bucket is full and over flowing for the crew in club, who are struggling to find their feet with the most radical changes in a very long time.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My bet - BA is getting main crew used to running the galley in Club World - before the PSR in First is removed and replaced with another main crew.
BA probably only wants 1 CSD and 1 PSR on their WW aircraft - as on the WW 767 since November 16. CSD to integrate with the Premium Cabins and PSR to supervise WTP and WT.
BA probably only wants 1 CSD and 1 PSR on their WW aircraft - as on the WW 767 since November 16. CSD to integrate with the Premium Cabins and PSR to supervise WTP and WT.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyeruk69
Absolutely agree.
It can't be easy learning 'on-the-fly' (pun most definately intended!) for all concerned with the new J routine.
I have certainly noticed that the CSD has a lot less time for me since Nov 16th. - but I'm sure we'll all get used to the differences & work around the difficulties in the fullness of time.
Your points are all well taken, & I'm glad to hear that your experiences of the new service has been slightly more positive than CFC/Fumes's tales of woe..
I often review my actions on the flight deck with a mind to how they would look to my manager if I was hauled into the office to defend them.
Imagine you're in the office & your manager asks:
Did you ask the crew during the briefing if anyone had any previous experience in a similar role (demoted Purser, previous airline etc)?
Did you ask for a more experienced volunteer to forgo their seniority rights and work No.7?
Did you discuss the position with and assess the qualities of this most junior crew member before allowing them to work No.7?
Did you even consider allocating a more senior crew member to the position?
Have you ever allocated the No.7 position to a crew member since November 16th?
If the answer's to the above are "Yes", you're fireproof, otherwise.....
It can't be easy learning 'on-the-fly' (pun most definately intended!) for all concerned with the new J routine.
I have certainly noticed that the CSD has a lot less time for me since Nov 16th. - but I'm sure we'll all get used to the differences & work around the difficulties in the fullness of time.
none of the main crew have experience running the galley in club, which is very different to running the first galley
I often review my actions on the flight deck with a mind to how they would look to my manager if I was hauled into the office to defend them.
Imagine you're in the office & your manager asks:
Did you ask the crew during the briefing if anyone had any previous experience in a similar role (demoted Purser, previous airline etc)?
Did you ask for a more experienced volunteer to forgo their seniority rights and work No.7?
Did you discuss the position with and assess the qualities of this most junior crew member before allowing them to work No.7?
Did you even consider allocating a more senior crew member to the position?
Have you ever allocated the No.7 position to a crew member since November 16th?
If the answer's to the above are "Yes", you're fireproof, otherwise.....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons we use seniority when bidding for working positions is because of time constraints, as you know the CSD has 13 mins to brief crew and be through the security check point 2 mins later.
To have a full discussion to find out the depth of 13 other cabin crew's experience and still include the mandatory elements of the briefing with in 13 mins isn't practical.
As I'm sure you know CSD's are managed on punctuality muddling through the service is far less important to the powers that be.
As in any task the "want to do the task" is far more important than "the skill."
It's a fine balance for CSD's to find a happy medium getting the "want" and the "skill" right to benefit all
To have a full discussion to find out the depth of 13 other cabin crew's experience and still include the mandatory elements of the briefing with in 13 mins isn't practical.
As I'm sure you know CSD's are managed on punctuality muddling through the service is far less important to the powers that be.
As in any task the "want to do the task" is far more important than "the skill."
It's a fine balance for CSD's to find a happy medium getting the "want" and the "skill" right to benefit all
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker
Hi ALurker,
I note that you maintain that your (BASSA's) agreements with BA are legally enforceable because your contract says that applicable "agreements shall form part of your contract".
Note that it's your contract that says this. This is what you've told us your contract says:
Now the following quote (thanks Glamgirl) regarding legally binding contracts from post #4112
You'll note that in (b) it specifically states that it is the agreement that has to have a clause saying that both parties agree that it's legally binding, NOT your contract saying that the agreement is legally binding.
Picky, I agree. Morally? Let's not go there. But legally? That's what it says.
So what we need to know is - which of the BASSA/BA agreements state in the agreement itself that the agreement is legally binding? (maybe they all do?). Maybe one for your union to answer?
Here's the whole of Glamgirls quote to save you having to scroll back...
I note that you maintain that your (BASSA's) agreements with BA are legally enforceable because your contract says that applicable "agreements shall form part of your contract".
Note that it's your contract that says this. This is what you've told us your contract says:
"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 far as applicable to you"
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
(b)
contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall 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
(b)
contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract
Picky, I agree. Morally? Let's not go there. But legally? That's what it says.
So what we need to know is - which of the BASSA/BA agreements state in the agreement itself that the agreement is legally binding? (maybe they all do?). Maybe one for your union to answer?
Here's the whole of Glamgirls quote to save you having to scroll back...
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
(b)
contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable 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.
(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall be a legally enforceable contract, then—
(a)
the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and
(b)
the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.
(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(b) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpretating a party of the agreement which is such a contract.
Taken from: Disclaw Publishing - Employment Law, unfair dismissal, redundancy pay
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
(b)
contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable 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.
(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall be a legally enforceable contract, then—
(a)
the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and
(b)
the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.
(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(b) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpretating a party of the agreement which is such a contract.
Taken from: Disclaw Publishing - Employment Law, unfair dismissal, redundancy pay