British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer 14
Of course they could sack you if the ballot is unlawful
Nobody on this forum has ever said anything other than you CANNOT be legally sacked if the strike is LAWFUL
If it is an UNLAWFUL strike then you can be sacked - that has been made clear all along - you really do need to pay attention dear
As for the alleged quotes by WW - cant find them anywhere at all - anyone got a link?
Nobody on this forum has ever said anything other than you CANNOT be legally sacked if the strike is LAWFUL
If it is an UNLAWFUL strike then you can be sacked - that has been made clear all along - you really do need to pay attention dear
As for the alleged quotes by WW - cant find them anywhere at all - anyone got a link?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there an echo in here?
You still missed the point that you can be sacked when the legality is in dispute (even if ever so slightly). It might turn out to be wrongful termination in the end, but then the damage is done, isn't it?
Anyways, I hope for all parties involved that BASSA made a mistake and is forced back to the negotiation table where they will now have to negotiate instead of demand.
Maybe there is a win-win out there somewhere.
I would like that link too by the way.
You still missed the point that you can be sacked when the legality is in dispute (even if ever so slightly). It might turn out to be wrongful termination in the end, but then the damage is done, isn't it?
Anyways, I hope for all parties involved that BASSA made a mistake and is forced back to the negotiation table where they will now have to negotiate instead of demand.
Maybe there is a win-win out there somewhere.
I would like that link too by the way.
Lurker, incorrect.
It is unlawful to be sacked from action stemming from a legal ballot. That doesn't mean BA won't do it, it just means they'll have to pay some paltry compensation a few years down the road but do not have to re-instate the sacked person.
However it is looking far more likely that BA will be able to sack anyone they want who takes action after what is likely to be an unlawful ballot.
Concede the point, BA could still sack people, even if the ballot is lawful.
LD
It is unlawful to be sacked from action stemming from a legal ballot. That doesn't mean BA won't do it, it just means they'll have to pay some paltry compensation a few years down the road but do not have to re-instate the sacked person.
However it is looking far more likely that BA will be able to sack anyone they want who takes action after what is likely to be an unlawful ballot.
Concede the point, BA could still sack people, even if the ballot is lawful.
LD
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Locked Door
We have had this debate for weeks and weeks and the point has been gone over and gone over - Yes we all agree that BA can sack anyone at anytime they want - however it would be UNLAWFUL to sack a person for taking part in LAWFUL industrial action and that person would be able to sue at an Industrial Tribunal - and as one of your colleagues pointed out a few days ago the maximum you can claim is circa £66,000 (much better than the VR package that was offered by the way!)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the maximum you can claim is circa £66,000
And as usual you fail to point out that the same post pointed out a purser with 25 years service would only get a payout of circa £12k (if I remember correctly), after two years of legal wrangling and no job.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Locked Door
Who say's thats all a PSR with 25 years would get? Some Pilot bloke?
One of your 'mates' who sits at the front - working it out - is he a specialist in Industrial Relations now? Oh yes I forgot - once you learned how to fly an airplane - you automatically know everything else in the world don't you?
Get a grip and leave it to a tribunal (not that it would even get there because no one will be sacked in my opinion)
One of your 'mates' who sits at the front - working it out - is he a specialist in Industrial Relations now? Oh yes I forgot - once you learned how to fly an airplane - you automatically know everything else in the world don't you?
Get a grip and leave it to a tribunal
(not that it would even get there because no one will be sacked in my opinion)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that union members like Tiramisu cannot pick and mix what dispute takes their fancy. To belong to a union and beneift from the protection it offers and then to vote NO and walk through a picket line is unacceptable.
I don't 'pick and mix' disputes, I'm no longer a Union member. The protection I may need is from the BASSA bullies when I proudly walk through the picket line to do a job BA, my employer pays me to do.
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. If you belong to BASSA and vote NO, you are expected to suppport the majority as they would have to accept the result if the NO voters had ascendency. That is what democracy is all about.
NO voters who plan to work and undermine their colleagues should resign from the union. Obviously it is fine to have a difference of opinion, but on Monday the NO voters I predict with near certainty, will find themselves very much in the minority and rather exposed, if they then choose to work.
Fume Event, you obviously didn't read my post, I have resigned from the Union. I'm not afraid of being exposed that my loyalties are to BA who pay my wages and and enable me to have a roof over my head. It's as simple as that.
As far as anyone going to Sandown and publicly resigning, well, those of you here hiding behind your pseudonyms with all your brave talk, would never have the guts to do that. This thread just gives a voice to a supine minority.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of your 'mates' who sits at the front - working it out - is he a specialist in Industrial Relations now? Oh yes I forgot - once you learned how to fly an airplane - you automatically know everything else in the world don't you?
Further, BA will only have mentioned a potential illegality with the ballot if there actually is one. They would have nothing to gain otherwise.
So Lurker, in your humble opinion, is the ballot legal?
"Yes" or "No" will do. Anything else is irrelevant.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF
Although I am not a big union fan I fail to see why BA would not play the scare-card as well. I find it a bit naive to claim that BA would not lie. Besides, we haven't seen any proof the quote is real.
Although I am not a big union fan I fail to see why BA would not play the scare-card as well. I find it a bit naive to claim that BA would not lie. Besides, we haven't seen any proof the quote is real.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, although given that BASSA are effectively cornered, I doubt even WW would give them reason to call his bluff.
Edit: Sorry, henky. Missed your edit. I'm not saying BA have been whiter than white. A review of my history regarding "Open Skies" will probably bear that out. However, we're into a high risk game now. BA have (perhaps) suggested that the ballot is not legal due to some inconsistencies. Given the bluster that has been coming from BASSA, they can prove BA wrong by acting on the (presumably in favour) result. If they are right, BA have not got a leg to stand on and will have been proved to have been lying.
If BASSA/Unite now baulk, we know that BA aren't lying as the compensation which will need to be paid will cripple the Union. Your call.
Actually, I'd rather Lurker gave his/her opinion...
"Yes" or "No", Lurker.
Edit: Sorry, henky. Missed your edit. I'm not saying BA have been whiter than white. A review of my history regarding "Open Skies" will probably bear that out. However, we're into a high risk game now. BA have (perhaps) suggested that the ballot is not legal due to some inconsistencies. Given the bluster that has been coming from BASSA, they can prove BA wrong by acting on the (presumably in favour) result. If they are right, BA have not got a leg to stand on and will have been proved to have been lying.
If BASSA/Unite now baulk, we know that BA aren't lying as the compensation which will need to be paid will cripple the Union. Your call.
Actually, I'd rather Lurker gave his/her opinion...
"Yes" or "No", Lurker.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Factor
I do not know if the ballot is illegal - nobody does do they?
People are jumping the gun on an alleged quote in which the word "possible" was used.
For the ballot to be deemed 'illegal' BA would have to contest it prior to IA taking place.
People are jumping the gun on an alleged quote in which the word "possible" was used.
For the ballot to be deemed 'illegal' BA would have to contest it prior to IA taking place.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This IS a worrying development for everyone in the Union.... even for us who vote No... can I just ask though for a link to where WW said this?? If he did say it, then it really is worrying and when he says ''Unite will be liable and members will not be protected'' - protected from what? Will we be liable to pay for the costs through Unite, sacked, etc etc.
If he HAS truly said this, I will seriously consider resigning! Like Tiramisu says, we are paid and employed by BA but some will have you believe they are employed by BASSA and BA is some sort of enemy!!
If he HAS truly said this, I will seriously consider resigning! Like Tiramisu says, we are paid and employed by BA but some will have you believe they are employed by BASSA and BA is some sort of enemy!!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If WW said that quote the protection he is alluding to is the fact that an employee taking part in 'protected' IA (that is the term) cannot be lawfully dismissed.
What the alleged quote is saying is they are not protected and can be dismissed
What the alleged quote is saying is they are not protected and can be dismissed
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALurker, maybe you should stop trying to convince everybody and simply try to listen. I understand your points perfectly and as you know (if you read my posts) I am not against IA on principle. Like always in these kind of conflicts the problem is that people do not listen to each other (on both sides).
If you (and the others) really want to be the voice of the CC (who are so hurt by the cutbacks proposed that you are willing to ruin the xmass of a lot of people and create havoc during the holiday season) than you should be willing to explain your views to the people you hurt.
You should also take that time for your colleagues (who you no doubt value very much, no matter what their personal view on this) who are afraid that maybe this time IA is not the best way forward.
Personally I hope that IA will take place in a more moderate form and after the holiday season so at least the actions will equal what they are supposed to prevent.
You cannot continue to insult people who disagree with you. You cannot continue to ignore the difficult questions. Not if you are here to represent the people who think that ruining so many people's holidays is appropriate.
If you (and the others) really want to be the voice of the CC (who are so hurt by the cutbacks proposed that you are willing to ruin the xmass of a lot of people and create havoc during the holiday season) than you should be willing to explain your views to the people you hurt.
You should also take that time for your colleagues (who you no doubt value very much, no matter what their personal view on this) who are afraid that maybe this time IA is not the best way forward.
Personally I hope that IA will take place in a more moderate form and after the holiday season so at least the actions will equal what they are supposed to prevent.
You cannot continue to insult people who disagree with you. You cannot continue to ignore the difficult questions. Not if you are here to represent the people who think that ruining so many people's holidays is appropriate.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Two Roles
I take it the 'crew' who support imposition are short-haul and therefore haven't experienced a full load, 747 Hi-J, Faulty AVOD, etc, etc, & the flight crew are insisting on hourly walk arounds...... WAKE-UP!! It ain't working, our customers, our crew and our brand are being severely hit. Some on here who aren't willing/able to see the realities in the cabin are in selfish denial of this FACT! If this continues we all lose... period.
I take it the 'crew' who support imposition are short-haul and therefore haven't experienced a full load, 747 Hi-J, Faulty AVOD, etc, etc, & the flight crew are insisting on hourly walk arounds...... WAKE-UP!! It ain't working, our customers, our crew and our brand are being severely hit. Some on here who aren't willing/able to see the realities in the cabin are in selfish denial of this FACT! If this continues we all lose... period.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, busy night - crossed posts again!!
Anyone who took Voluntary Redundancy and subsequently received a ballot paper could have a fair punt...
Given we're awaiting some validity on the quote, you may have a point. However, unless Unite/BASSA unilaterally decided to withdraw the result of the ballot, "possible" is as good as it gets until the courts make a decision.
Tuesday, then.
I do not know if the ballot is illegal - nobody does do they?
People are jumping the gun on an alleged quote in which the word "possible" was used.
For the ballot to be deemed 'illegal' BA would have to contest it prior to IA taking place.