British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A.Lurker....
you are to be commended on your sensible and mature discussion on this forum; it makes for interesting reading and quite often provides helpful and thought-provoking insight into the views/stance of the unions.
I do, however, feel that the unions haven't been very honest with their communications, which I am led to believe will all be taken as admissible evidence in any future legal proceedings....not just the feb case, but also any future attempt by BA to sue UNITE for retrospective damages.
What is your take on whether or not a legally striking crew member can be sacked?
BASSA insisted as per their Nov communication, "Absolutely not".
As a crew member weighing up whether or not strike action was REALLY putting my job on the line, I would say that "Absolutely not", was black and white, even though, as L337 points out, they go onto say, "if you get dismissed" (something I missed myself).
Also, was there not a big deal at the Sandown (sp?) Race Course, when BASSA got a lawyer/solicitor to stand up and verbally 'confirm' to the assembled masses that they could NOT be sacked?
Just for clarity, I would assume (dangerous, I know!), that most people would consider the removal of my security pass I.D, carpark priviledges, monthly salary, pension payments, uniform to be returned, cancellation of staff travel and NEVER AGAIN TO OPERATE AS STAFF IN ANY CAPACITY FOR BRITISH AIRWAYS....as being sacked.
Whether or not there is an unfair dismissal hearing a couple of years down the line, and whether or not I get awarded a legally capped (and apparently quite small, although for some reason BASSA said, "large amounts of compensation") payment, is neither here nor there....SACKED, in my honest opinion, is SACKED. Do you disagree?
Do you accept that this is at best a deliberate 'white lie', intended to offer union members a false hope of security in what could clearly develop into a very messy confrontation with the employer?
I hope you understand why some of us 'outsiders' feel that the unions' deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, the financial numbers, the 'negotiations', the pilots' deal and-so-on-and-so-forth, would be enough for us to question the very PURPOSE and more importantly, the very AGENDA of the union.
I hope no-one reading thinks that this debate is about slinging mud at Cabin Crew, it really isn't - it's about trying to understand why the supposedly democratic 'voice' of the Cabin Crew membership has lied, time after time, has sold other bases, other 'classes' of Cabin Crew down the river, has refused to analyse confidential company finances then pretended to 'advise' crew on company finances, has steadfastly refused to negotiate on what we all now know is desperately needed change, has convinced its electorate that their management are not to be trusted, their colleagues in other departments are not to be trusted...that all you need to know will be force-fed to you from a select few who have been shown to only be interested in protecting their OWN Ts & Cs. Does this not ring ANY alarm bells? Is EVERYONE else in BA evil/wrong?
...people (who also have ALOT to lose from the inevitable fallout of this 'dispute') want to understand why these glaringly obvious forms of disingenuous union representation are tolerated and encouraged by the very people who pay the union wages and are now being shafted by the union in the worst possible way?!
From my point of view it beggars belief, but to join BASSA on 'the same page' and use a WWII analogy, weren't the German people blissfully ignorant of how wrong the stance and philosophy of their democratically elected government was? They only listened to one side of the argument, and to be fair, cannot be blamed for their brain-washing......whilst I understand ANY comparison with this dispute and WWII risks being distasteful, I would argue that there are similarities as mentioned above, would you not agree?
I do, however, feel that the unions haven't been very honest with their communications, which I am led to believe will all be taken as admissible evidence in any future legal proceedings....not just the feb case, but also any future attempt by BA to sue UNITE for retrospective damages.
What is your take on whether or not a legally striking crew member can be sacked?
BASSA insisted as per their Nov communication, "Absolutely not".
As a crew member weighing up whether or not strike action was REALLY putting my job on the line, I would say that "Absolutely not", was black and white, even though, as L337 points out, they go onto say, "if you get dismissed" (something I missed myself).
Also, was there not a big deal at the Sandown (sp?) Race Course, when BASSA got a lawyer/solicitor to stand up and verbally 'confirm' to the assembled masses that they could NOT be sacked?
Just for clarity, I would assume (dangerous, I know!), that most people would consider the removal of my security pass I.D, carpark priviledges, monthly salary, pension payments, uniform to be returned, cancellation of staff travel and NEVER AGAIN TO OPERATE AS STAFF IN ANY CAPACITY FOR BRITISH AIRWAYS....as being sacked.
Whether or not there is an unfair dismissal hearing a couple of years down the line, and whether or not I get awarded a legally capped (and apparently quite small, although for some reason BASSA said, "large amounts of compensation") payment, is neither here nor there....SACKED, in my honest opinion, is SACKED. Do you disagree?
Do you accept that this is at best a deliberate 'white lie', intended to offer union members a false hope of security in what could clearly develop into a very messy confrontation with the employer?
I hope you understand why some of us 'outsiders' feel that the unions' deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, the financial numbers, the 'negotiations', the pilots' deal and-so-on-and-so-forth, would be enough for us to question the very PURPOSE and more importantly, the very AGENDA of the union.
I hope no-one reading thinks that this debate is about slinging mud at Cabin Crew, it really isn't - it's about trying to understand why the supposedly democratic 'voice' of the Cabin Crew membership has lied, time after time, has sold other bases, other 'classes' of Cabin Crew down the river, has refused to analyse confidential company finances then pretended to 'advise' crew on company finances, has steadfastly refused to negotiate on what we all now know is desperately needed change, has convinced its electorate that their management are not to be trusted, their colleagues in other departments are not to be trusted...that all you need to know will be force-fed to you from a select few who have been shown to only be interested in protecting their OWN Ts & Cs. Does this not ring ANY alarm bells? Is EVERYONE else in BA evil/wrong?
...people (who also have ALOT to lose from the inevitable fallout of this 'dispute') want to understand why these glaringly obvious forms of disingenuous union representation are tolerated and encouraged by the very people who pay the union wages and are now being shafted by the union in the worst possible way?!
From my point of view it beggars belief, but to join BASSA on 'the same page' and use a WWII analogy, weren't the German people blissfully ignorant of how wrong the stance and philosophy of their democratically elected government was? They only listened to one side of the argument, and to be fair, cannot be blamed for their brain-washing......whilst I understand ANY comparison with this dispute and WWII risks being distasteful, I would argue that there are similarities as mentioned above, would you not agree?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fosters,
It was a fleet of cars, as only 2 or 3 people in each car. Yes, it would've been more cost effective to use a coach. I don't know why that happened, to be honest.
Moo,
The Q and A you posted as "Latest from Bassa"... If you have a look back I actually posted that when it was published. Not a big deal (apart from the "latest" part), as I'm sure plenty of people here missed it first time round.
Gg
a fleet of cars turned up to take the crew to LHR
Not sure if "fleet of cars" is perhaps using artistic license, but would it not have been more cost effective to use a single crew bus/coach to get them back to base ?.
Not sure if "fleet of cars" is perhaps using artistic license, but would it not have been more cost effective to use a single crew bus/coach to get them back to base ?.
Moo,
The Q and A you posted as "Latest from Bassa"... If you have a look back I actually posted that when it was published. Not a big deal (apart from the "latest" part), as I'm sure plenty of people here missed it first time round.
Gg
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The call probably went to the transport company "Can you move X crew members from LGW to LHR" and the transport company has chosen to send cars because a coach was unavailable. Either way, the bill sent to Uncle Willy will be identical.
I've seen the converse situation where 2 crew have been picked up in a 52 seater coach!
I've seen the converse situation where 2 crew have been picked up in a 52 seater coach!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When BASSA briefed the City (transcript posted earlier here somewhere) they claimed that they had offered the company cost savings in the region of £100 million but acknowledged that Price Waterhouse Coopers independently valued those savings at £54 million.....can anyone tell me if the BASSA website is still claiming that these savings amount to the clearly false figure of £175 million?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybymerchant
firsty thanks for your words - we can all have different views without resorting to mud slinging!
As to your question as to whether an employee can be sacked for going on strike.
The law is quite clear and states that an employee who participates in lawful Industrial Action cannot be sacked for doing so. If an employer does sack an employee for striking in lawful Industrial Action then the dismissal is automatically deemed unfair and the employee has the right to challenge the dismissal at an Industrial Tribunal. In other words BA would be breaking the law if they sacked anyone who took part.
As to the references above regarding the Gate Gourmet dispute and the disciplining and sacking of BA employees - that was because the ground staff involved took Unlawful Industrial Action - the dispute was not their's and BA staff where not balloted. The Reps who where sacked where in the wrong - they brought people out when they shouldnt have and they paid the price.
As long as the IA is lawful then the employees are protected by law - but hey, who knows what BA might want to do? I honestly cannot see them sacking 1000 or so strikers and the 1000 or so Industrial Tribunals that will have to follow - could you?
As to your question as to whether an employee can be sacked for going on strike.
The law is quite clear and states that an employee who participates in lawful Industrial Action cannot be sacked for doing so. If an employer does sack an employee for striking in lawful Industrial Action then the dismissal is automatically deemed unfair and the employee has the right to challenge the dismissal at an Industrial Tribunal. In other words BA would be breaking the law if they sacked anyone who took part.
As to the references above regarding the Gate Gourmet dispute and the disciplining and sacking of BA employees - that was because the ground staff involved took Unlawful Industrial Action - the dispute was not their's and BA staff where not balloted. The Reps who where sacked where in the wrong - they brought people out when they shouldnt have and they paid the price.
As long as the IA is lawful then the employees are protected by law - but hey, who knows what BA might want to do? I honestly cannot see them sacking 1000 or so strikers and the 1000 or so Industrial Tribunals that will have to follow - could you?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The subtle thing here is that if an employee strikes they cannot be legally sacked - that does not mean they cannot be sacked. If they are dismissed they will win the subsequent tribunal and likely be awarded an unspecified but limited amount in damages. There may well be an order made that you should be reemployed but this order is almost impossible to enforce. So it is illegal to sack you but it does not mean it won't happen. IF BA, and it is a big IF, want to get nasty with the strikers they certainly can do that - sacking and or suspension of staff travel to name a couple of things that could be done. A lot of these things can be subsequently challenged at a tribunal but it does not necessarily follow that you will get back what you have lost. Also it can take a long time before the tribunal sits while all the time you are not being paid - sobering thoughts when unemployment is projected to hit high levels.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi A Lurker
The absolute maximum which could be awarded by industrial tribunal is £66k.
My fear is BA would sack 1000 people who would then they would win their tribunal over the following 2 or 3 years (unfair dismissal following legal industrial action)
but it could be a very hollow victory if you had still lost your job & your house.
Please be sure that the potential benefit of successful IA is worth the risk.
The absolute maximum which could be awarded by industrial tribunal is £66k.
My fear is BA would sack 1000 people who would then they would win their tribunal over the following 2 or 3 years (unfair dismissal following legal industrial action)
but it could be a very hollow victory if you had still lost your job & your house.
Please be sure that the potential benefit of successful IA is worth the risk.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole argument here is down to semantics.
BASSA and their lawyer stated that 'You cannot legally be sacked and during official industrial action you are protected by law'.
Quite correct.
The problem comes with the fact that you CAN be 'illegally' dismissed for breach of contract even if the IA is legal. The only fly in the ointment for BA is that, in those circumstances, BA must go to tribunal. With the seeds of SOSR already sown it would be a brave CC member who went down that route.
The argument comes that BASSA have dealt a 'definitive statement' that is, in actuality, incorrect.
So, who would you trust? Catch 22?
BASSA and their lawyer stated that 'You cannot legally be sacked and during official industrial action you are protected by law'.
Quite correct.
The problem comes with the fact that you CAN be 'illegally' dismissed for breach of contract even if the IA is legal. The only fly in the ointment for BA is that, in those circumstances, BA must go to tribunal. With the seeds of SOSR already sown it would be a brave CC member who went down that route.
The argument comes that BASSA have dealt a 'definitive statement' that is, in actuality, incorrect.
So, who would you trust? Catch 22?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker
Just so as it is 100% clear - it may be illegal dismissal and one may get an award in court, BUT there is NO compunction to re-employ the person or people illegally dismissed.
As an indication of the size of the awards I have cut & pasted two quotes from elsewhere:
1. "The absolute limit for unfair dismissal is £66,200
Unfair dismissal is in two parts, the first part is payment of lost income and follows a fixed formula
The second part is payment of compensation for dismissal. This is reduced if the ex-employee fails to find a new job in the interim and is purely for financial loss not hurt feelings."
and
2. "If dismissed in the first twelve weeks of protected industrial action the dismissal would automatically be deemed "Unfair", and the claimant would not have to prove this element of the claim.
The claimant would only be required to substantiate the figures relied on in the calculation of his claim.
Under these circumstances, whilst BA would have no defense to the unfairness element of the claim, they could challenge the second element of the claim (the amount and calculation of the compensatory award and the award for loss of Employment Rights) arguing that the dismissal was at least partly self inflicted, in that it was a deliberate breach of contract."
Aworked example would suggest a 42 year old purser with 20 years service on £30K basic might get ~£12K from part 1 - a long way short of £66k, and this after having to wait up to 2 years for their day in court!
Just so as it is 100% clear - it may be illegal dismissal and one may get an award in court, BUT there is NO compunction to re-employ the person or people illegally dismissed.
As an indication of the size of the awards I have cut & pasted two quotes from elsewhere:
1. "The absolute limit for unfair dismissal is £66,200
Unfair dismissal is in two parts, the first part is payment of lost income and follows a fixed formula
- 1/2 a week's pay for each year worked before 22nd birthday;
- 1 week's pay for each year worked between 22nd and 41st birthday;
- 1 1/2 week's pay for each year worked after 41st birthday.
and
2. "If dismissed in the first twelve weeks of protected industrial action the dismissal would automatically be deemed "Unfair", and the claimant would not have to prove this element of the claim.
The claimant would only be required to substantiate the figures relied on in the calculation of his claim.
Under these circumstances, whilst BA would have no defense to the unfairness element of the claim, they could challenge the second element of the claim (the amount and calculation of the compensatory award and the award for loss of Employment Rights) arguing that the dismissal was at least partly self inflicted, in that it was a deliberate breach of contract."
Aworked example would suggest a 42 year old purser with 20 years service on £30K basic might get ~£12K from part 1 - a long way short of £66k, and this after having to wait up to 2 years for their day in court!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking the hit
Ultimately, I think Willie is going for broke. Take the hit of paying everyone 66k max to get rid of the contracts and start again.
The hassle will below over as it always does and BA will be in a much stronger position financially.
BA needs to do this as it's loosing a fortune. Can't really understand why the crew think they're in the right to demand to keep their jobs. If your don't like whats on offer, move on to something else. It's not the USSR.
The share price went up when the strike was announced. Doesn't that tell everyone the strike will be futile?
The hassle will below over as it always does and BA will be in a much stronger position financially.
BA needs to do this as it's loosing a fortune. Can't really understand why the crew think they're in the right to demand to keep their jobs. If your don't like whats on offer, move on to something else. It's not the USSR.
The share price went up when the strike was announced. Doesn't that tell everyone the strike will be futile?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elixair - Your post doesn't make sense.
Why not just up the severance package - I am sure hundreds if not thousands would leave if they stood to get 66k!!! I know I would for one.
Why not just up the severance package - I am sure hundreds if not thousands would leave if they stood to get 66k!!! I know I would for one.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozzie, read the post above, this might explain why BA may go down this route
A worked example would suggest a 42 year old purser with 20 years service on £30K basic might get ~£12K from part 1 - a long way short of £66k, and this after having to wait up to 2 years for their day in court
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since BASSA/Unite is not able to give any alternatives to the cost cutting measures already in place (A.Lurker has been ignoring question to that effect for days now for instance) I see why BA sees no point to negotiations. There is no point if the other party has no alternative that really helps.
So by forcing the issue BA can actually increase their savings if CC go on strike. I think they would want that scenario. Sack enough of the more expensive people and take that hit. Take the loss of revenue. Each will be around GBP 50M. For this they also get rid of their most expensive old timers who are adverse to change. It also helps with the pension fund problem.
I would have no hesitation in breaking the law, paying up and smiling all the way to the bank if I was WW.
So by forcing the issue BA can actually increase their savings if CC go on strike. I think they would want that scenario. Sack enough of the more expensive people and take that hit. Take the loss of revenue. Each will be around GBP 50M. For this they also get rid of their most expensive old timers who are adverse to change. It also helps with the pension fund problem.
I would have no hesitation in breaking the law, paying up and smiling all the way to the bank if I was WW.
Mistrust in Management
Can I be sacked?
To draw a a parallel in law you could ask your lawyer "can I be murdered?"
If your lawyer also worked for BASSA he may answer "No you can't be murdered because it is illegal".
We know that people are murdered nearly every day in the U.K. don't we.
You can be sacked and almost certainly some strikers will be. Those that are sacked 'unfairly' will probably win compensation in a tribunal.
Regards
Exeng
If your lawyer also worked for BASSA he may answer "No you can't be murdered because it is illegal".
We know that people are murdered nearly every day in the U.K. don't we.
You can be sacked and almost certainly some strikers will be. Those that are sacked 'unfairly' will probably win compensation in a tribunal.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these situations companies can and do sack strikers- that's why there's the limited compensation route (after a usually very delayed tribunal).
Willy would only have to sack a handful before the rest come back to work on new Ts & Cs.....obviously the ones he chooses to fire will never work for BA again and if you were hiring (and who is in this climate?) you'd be forgiven for overlooking someone sacked for partaking in/organising non-goal orientated strike action that followed non-negotiation and non-compromise.
I would imagine that anyone threatening the business in such a way can expect the nicely-nicely BA that we all take for granted to give way to gloves-off, survival mode BA, where Willy will do whatever it takes to get the airline running smoothly again, even if that means paying some small fines to weed out the trouble makers and show the public that he has no other option now his hand has been forced....lots to think about
Willy would only have to sack a handful before the rest come back to work on new Ts & Cs.....obviously the ones he chooses to fire will never work for BA again and if you were hiring (and who is in this climate?) you'd be forgiven for overlooking someone sacked for partaking in/organising non-goal orientated strike action that followed non-negotiation and non-compromise.
I would imagine that anyone threatening the business in such a way can expect the nicely-nicely BA that we all take for granted to give way to gloves-off, survival mode BA, where Willy will do whatever it takes to get the airline running smoothly again, even if that means paying some small fines to weed out the trouble makers and show the public that he has no other option now his hand has been forced....lots to think about
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sacked for striking
Lets be totally up front here - BA have NEVER sacked anyone who went on strike lawfully - those that strike illegally - then thats a different matter.
During our last dispute those that went sick rather than strike where less thought of by management than those that did strike - courage of your convictions etc
During our last dispute those that went sick rather than strike where less thought of by management than those that did strike - courage of your convictions etc