British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Unite (then TGWU) and Gate Gourmet, this press article from September 2006 explains a lot:
£600,000 for shop stewards fired over Gate Gourmet strike | Business | The Guardian
£600,000 for shop stewards fired over Gate Gourmet strike | Business | The Guardian
Two former shop stewards who brought British Airways operations from Heathrow to a halt for two days last summer in a wildcat strike are to receive secret "hush money" payments worth £600,000 from the Transport & General Workers' Union and the airline.
The shop stewards, Pat Breslin and Mark Fisher, were alleged to be following union orders by organising the illegal action as part of the T&G's high-profile campaign against Gate Gourmet, the airline's main supplier of in-flight meals.
The dispute ran for weeks and became a cause celebre for trade unionists demanding better pay and conditions for the poorest workers.
The T&G workers went on strike after Gate Gourmet announced plans to sack 667 staff members because BA had cut back on its catering contract. The illegal action brought BA's baggage handling to a halt, costing the airline £42m.
The dispute ended in compromise with workers getting enhanced redundancy payments. Workers from Gate Gourmet were feted at last year's TUC conference, addressing the T&G's annual dinner.
Mr Breslin and Mr Fisher were also sacked, although BA subsequently offered Mr Breslin 1p compensation and Mr Fisher £90,000. The action put both men at risk of being sued by the airline.
The union could also have been sued for the cost of the strike if BA could prove any involvement of its officials in urging the baggage handlers to strike.
The sacked men, who are barred from talking to the press, received legal advice saying that they could sue the T&G for negligence for ordering them to take the illegal action. They could also sue the union for breach of contract, harassment and claim for psychiatric or other injury as a result of losing their jobs.
A deal was struck between the men and the union last week, guaranteeing them a total payout worth £600,000 in return for signing a confidentiality agreement keeping the sum secret. They and their wives have also pledged to keep the details surrounding the dispute secret.
A copy of the agreement, seen by the Guardian, says both of them "will make no statement in relation to his involvement in or knowledge of any meeting of trade union representatives, relating to the events which occurred in relation to BA in 2005 and which caused his dismissal from employment at BA, without receiving in advance the written consent of the general secretary of the union, approving the terms of the statement to be made".
They are barred from disclosing any details of the union's handling of the Gate Gourmet dispute without the general secretary's written approval. They have also agreed to forgo using the union's grievance procedures, including putting a complaint to the certification officer who adjudicates on breaches of union rules.
Mr Breslin will receive £300,000 and Mr Fisher will get £176,000 and a job with the union paid at £50,000 a year. This includes the £90,000 from BA, split between them. The national executive of the union will be told of the deal today.
The shop stewards, Pat Breslin and Mark Fisher, were alleged to be following union orders by organising the illegal action as part of the T&G's high-profile campaign against Gate Gourmet, the airline's main supplier of in-flight meals.
The dispute ran for weeks and became a cause celebre for trade unionists demanding better pay and conditions for the poorest workers.
The T&G workers went on strike after Gate Gourmet announced plans to sack 667 staff members because BA had cut back on its catering contract. The illegal action brought BA's baggage handling to a halt, costing the airline £42m.
The dispute ended in compromise with workers getting enhanced redundancy payments. Workers from Gate Gourmet were feted at last year's TUC conference, addressing the T&G's annual dinner.
Mr Breslin and Mr Fisher were also sacked, although BA subsequently offered Mr Breslin 1p compensation and Mr Fisher £90,000. The action put both men at risk of being sued by the airline.
The union could also have been sued for the cost of the strike if BA could prove any involvement of its officials in urging the baggage handlers to strike.
The sacked men, who are barred from talking to the press, received legal advice saying that they could sue the T&G for negligence for ordering them to take the illegal action. They could also sue the union for breach of contract, harassment and claim for psychiatric or other injury as a result of losing their jobs.
A deal was struck between the men and the union last week, guaranteeing them a total payout worth £600,000 in return for signing a confidentiality agreement keeping the sum secret. They and their wives have also pledged to keep the details surrounding the dispute secret.
A copy of the agreement, seen by the Guardian, says both of them "will make no statement in relation to his involvement in or knowledge of any meeting of trade union representatives, relating to the events which occurred in relation to BA in 2005 and which caused his dismissal from employment at BA, without receiving in advance the written consent of the general secretary of the union, approving the terms of the statement to be made".
They are barred from disclosing any details of the union's handling of the Gate Gourmet dispute without the general secretary's written approval. They have also agreed to forgo using the union's grievance procedures, including putting a complaint to the certification officer who adjudicates on breaches of union rules.
Mr Breslin will receive £300,000 and Mr Fisher will get £176,000 and a job with the union paid at £50,000 a year. This includes the £90,000 from BA, split between them. The national executive of the union will be told of the deal today.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a funny feeling Bassa's Plan A will turn into "cover up and run around like a headless chicken plan".
We'll have to wait and see what happens during/after the meeting between WW, TW and the other guy (can't remember at this minute).
Gg
We'll have to wait and see what happens during/after the meeting between WW, TW and the other guy (can't remember at this minute).
Gg
Glamgirl,
Yesterday you wrote that:
Today 'Locked door' writes:
Are you and 'Locked door' referring to the same, new meeting (today?) or is 'Locked door' referring to a meeting some time back? And if the latter is the case, when do you think the meeting between Willie and Tony (that you referred to yesterday) is due to take place?
Yesterday you wrote that:
Willie Walsh has requested a meeting with Tony W.
Mr Walsh said to Tony W "we have proof UNITE reps encouraged the wildcat secondary action of BA ground staff in support of GG, if BASSA strike now we'll sue UNITE for the costs of said previous strike"
Tony W rang BASSA and said "you 'aint striking"
Tony W rang BASSA and said "you 'aint striking"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Locked Door is referring to the negotiations between WW and Tony Woodley that led to the cabin crew strike in early 2007 being called off at the last minute.
It was rumoured at the time WW threatened to sue Unite over their involvement in the GG strike.
WW may threaten to do so again, but it is much harder to bring a case four years on in terms of gathering evidence etc. I also doubt BA would really want to wash its dirty laundry in public where any embarrasing revelations for the airline in evidence or cross-examination would be seized upon by the media, and Unite wouldn't be able to pay a fraction of the damages due to BA (at least £40m). Preparing for a court case can also consume a huge amount of management time and can be a big distraction from day to day business. So Unite could all BA's bluff and say sue us.
It was rumoured at the time WW threatened to sue Unite over their involvement in the GG strike.
WW may threaten to do so again, but it is much harder to bring a case four years on in terms of gathering evidence etc. I also doubt BA would really want to wash its dirty laundry in public where any embarrasing revelations for the airline in evidence or cross-examination would be seized upon by the media, and Unite wouldn't be able to pay a fraction of the damages due to BA (at least £40m). Preparing for a court case can also consume a huge amount of management time and can be a big distraction from day to day business. So Unite could all BA's bluff and say sue us.
Last edited by LD12986; 15th Aug 2009 at 21:16.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient Observer, I think that you are referring to my posting. You imply that i do not understand the workings of TU's, rest assured that I most certainly do. I (before flying) worked for the GMB for 12 years. (in legal department).
I have it on very good authority that Mr Woodley will be allowing the ballot if all administration and legalites followed correctly.
I have it on very good authority that Mr Woodley will be allowing the ballot if all administration and legalites followed correctly.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Woodley may indeed allow a ballot if it comes to it. The results may or may not be in favour of a strike. However I don't think BA's legal dept will be idle at that point.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mandyconn,
given the length and content of this thread if you still don't understand what the BA legal team WILL do gain an injuction then quite frankly I'm lost for words. Given your inabilty to absorb the facts when written down for you can I ask you to ask the next friendly pilot you meet to explain what happened at the high court last time BA met Balpa.
Alternatively you can ask a Bassa rep and they will lie to you and tell you there is nothing BA can do to stop a strike. Believe them and follow their orders and I fear for the futures of a great many great cc.
Your choice. Good luck.
given the length and content of this thread if you still don't understand what the BA legal team WILL do gain an injuction then quite frankly I'm lost for words. Given your inabilty to absorb the facts when written down for you can I ask you to ask the next friendly pilot you meet to explain what happened at the high court last time BA met Balpa.
Alternatively you can ask a Bassa rep and they will lie to you and tell you there is nothing BA can do to stop a strike. Believe them and follow their orders and I fear for the futures of a great many great cc.
Your choice. Good luck.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mandyconn - BA's legal team will have been following every move by BASSA like a hawk. Also, do not be surprised if BA's lawyers try and find a new/novel legal argument to stop a strike.
In any event, as soon as BA instructs its lawyers to stop a strike, BASSA will also have to instruct its laywers. So on both sides lawyers will have their meters running and costs will start racking up (which for High Court proceedings will get to six figure sums in absolutely no time at all), and if BASSA loses in court it will have to meet its own costs and BA's costs as well.
So BASSA had better to be sure it hasn't put a foot wrong throughout the whole process, otherwise it will get nothing more out of this than a huge legal bill.
In any event, as soon as BA instructs its lawyers to stop a strike, BASSA will also have to instruct its laywers. So on both sides lawyers will have their meters running and costs will start racking up (which for High Court proceedings will get to six figure sums in absolutely no time at all), and if BASSA loses in court it will have to meet its own costs and BA's costs as well.
So BASSA had better to be sure it hasn't put a foot wrong throughout the whole process, otherwise it will get nothing more out of this than a huge legal bill.
KH - I'm not sure that the word you used - "ceremonial" covers the ground correctly. However, it is nice to come across someone in this thread who knows something of how TUs work.
Two points - 1. Have you talked to a GMB National FTO in the recent past? The strictures within the GMB have become much more controlling of their FTOs in the last 3 years. There is much more "control". All this stuff from about 4 years ago about "The campaigning Union" has become merely words. 2. The T & G part of Unite have also re-centralised much of their decision making. (When they are not fighting their brothers from the rest of Unite). Both the (old) Exec members and the National FTOs are very wary of actions which could result in them losing too much money. Like it or not, money is key to them now.
The impact on the lhr CC is a much more careful and technical approach, which BA will watch very carefully.
Also, other readers should note that it's not just WW that's changed at BA. The old-regime core HR team has changed aswell.
Two points - 1. Have you talked to a GMB National FTO in the recent past? The strictures within the GMB have become much more controlling of their FTOs in the last 3 years. There is much more "control". All this stuff from about 4 years ago about "The campaigning Union" has become merely words. 2. The T & G part of Unite have also re-centralised much of their decision making. (When they are not fighting their brothers from the rest of Unite). Both the (old) Exec members and the National FTOs are very wary of actions which could result in them losing too much money. Like it or not, money is key to them now.
The impact on the lhr CC is a much more careful and technical approach, which BA will watch very carefully.
Also, other readers should note that it's not just WW that's changed at BA. The old-regime core HR team has changed aswell.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mandyconn
Guys BA legal does not have the cartel on excellent legal eagles. Lets wait and see what happens over the next few weeks.
Doesn't change the fact that in a court challenge, BASSA is risking incurring huge legal costs and if BA has always anticipated a court challenge it will be better prepared for a case than BASSA (as it would in any event being a large plc with good in house legal support).
In all seriousness, do not underestimate what BASSA will be getting into. An appearance before a High Court judge is light years away from the conjecture and hot air that has dominated this issue so far. Based on BASSA's conduct to date, they will really need to sharpen up their act.
Last edited by LD12986; 16th Aug 2009 at 12:50.
Yup - interesting is the word. Especially for anyone keen to lose their job.
Meanwhile , as a technical point, that which some folk call "bassa" are not free to select their lawyers.
Unite will select the lawyers. Or, more correctly put, Unite's legal advisers will select the lawyers.
Meanwhile , as a technical point, that which some folk call "bassa" are not free to select their lawyers.
Unite will select the lawyers. Or, more correctly put, Unite's legal advisers will select the lawyers.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: bcn
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot compare BALPA's open skies fiasco with BASSA's ongoing concern. BA was within the law of opening up a base in NY which had no bearing to BA crew based in the UK.
Imposing changes in your T+C's without agreement is a completely different matter. As long as BASSA have conducted themselves in a correct manner I see no probs.
One of the reasons why BASSA reps have not been posteing on forums, as this would play into BA's hand.
Imposing changes in your T+C's without agreement is a completely different matter. As long as BASSA have conducted themselves in a correct manner I see no probs.
One of the reasons why BASSA reps have not been posteing on forums, as this would play into BA's hand.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA was within the law of opening up a base in NY which had no bearing to BA crew based in the UK.
BALPA did not lose the case, they withdrew as the case would have taken several years and many many millions of pounds. In the end BA had deeper pockets to pursue the case. Do you see how that relates to whats happening now? If you dont learn from history yiou are condemmed to repeat it.
One big plus was that as a result of the dispute the Director of Flt Ops had to stand up in the High Court and confirm the UK scope clause making it very very hard for BA to renage on.
One of the reasons why BASSA reps have not been posteing on forums, as this would play into BA's hand.
Last edited by Hotel Mode; 17th Aug 2009 at 17:18.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm, interesting argument,
I would ask how the courts would view a large corporate company deciding more then 4 years after the illegal secondary strike to take the union involved to court just after said union had authorised legal industrial action ?
Now it wouldn't look at all like revenge now would it ? Surely if the said company was so hopping mad and wanted to seek monetary redress this should have been done years ago , it's not like they've only just realised what allegedly went on back then ?
Everyone recognises the cabin crew had no involvement in this dispute and as this is a completely separate issue there is no reason for Unite not to authorise a ballot for industrial action should BA impose their moa.
As I have said before the last thing I want is industrial action however it looks increasingly likely as summer comes to a close. Due to a 2000 hce reduction in cabin crew (around a 14% reduction) and around a 7% reduction in flying this winter will leave BA no choice but to impose the MOA and reduce crewing levels.
Unfortunately this may well upset the cabin crew community to the point of strike action or a least a positive ballot mandate for strike action.
I would ask how the courts would view a large corporate company deciding more then 4 years after the illegal secondary strike to take the union involved to court just after said union had authorised legal industrial action ?
Now it wouldn't look at all like revenge now would it ? Surely if the said company was so hopping mad and wanted to seek monetary redress this should have been done years ago , it's not like they've only just realised what allegedly went on back then ?
Everyone recognises the cabin crew had no involvement in this dispute and as this is a completely separate issue there is no reason for Unite not to authorise a ballot for industrial action should BA impose their moa.
As I have said before the last thing I want is industrial action however it looks increasingly likely as summer comes to a close. Due to a 2000 hce reduction in cabin crew (around a 14% reduction) and around a 7% reduction in flying this winter will leave BA no choice but to impose the MOA and reduce crewing levels.
Unfortunately this may well upset the cabin crew community to the point of strike action or a least a positive ballot mandate for strike action.