British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[Glamgirl]

Midman,

The ballot form itself states:

If you are leaving British Airways before 1st March 2010 you should not vote.

It also states:

If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment. However, if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than twelve weeks after you started taking part in the action, and depending on the circumstances may be unfair if it takes place later.

In the event of a vote in favour of industrial action only by the Executive Council, a Joint General Secretary or a Full Time Officer nominated by a Joint General Secretary are authorised for the purposes of s.233 or the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to call upon members to take part or continue to take part in industrial action.

Gg


I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Ten West]

...beach of a binding agreement

You'd think that with an income like theirs they'd be able to employ someone with a basic grasp of grammar, wouldn't you? Or at least someone who knows where the spell check button is.

I quite fancy a week on a beach that's bindingly agreeable myself.

[From Tunbridge Wells]

Compliments or Complements
Quote:
the contractual nature of crew compliments within your agreement
(My bold text)

I hate to be picky, but assuming that this is a direct quote from Unite, I should point out that the correct spelling of compliments in this context is complements.

Yet another Unite up!

and Bassa won't actually confirm (after checking with their Legal Eagles) whether the loss of staff travel is legal or not. I rather think that if they confirmed that BA can indeed do so, the ballot result would be massively affected. Perhaps that's why they are leaving that one dangling.
Mislead, mislead, mislead

[fincastle84]

Ten West

My compliments on spotting that one!

[Bluejay]

My two cents

Firstly for all those CC that voted Yes for the strike at Christmas and all those who intend to vote Yes this time around - thanks for putting my job at risk, I have a wife and two young kids and we are struggling as we are last thing I need is to be put out of a job by someone elses selfish action.

To UNITE/TGWU - I've payed subs for the last 11 years to your organisation - that stops NOW I cannot be represented by a Union that bullies organisations into getting what they want - I truly hope that with mine and my colleagues resignation from the union that you crumble

Lastly unfortunatly I am unable to fly but if called upon I will be doing my bit to Back BA

I heard something today that I think somes it up

"Together we stand, UNITE we fall" - whoever said that - hear hear

[fly12345]

brilliant.!

Together we stand, UNITE we fall" - whoever said that - hear hear

[La Pouquelaye]

This isn't America!

We are called cabin crew these days.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself'.

Don't worry, MissM; being described as a "flight attendant" will be the very least of your worries pretty soon.

[baggersup]

As one of the PPP (Premium Pax Punters) trying to sort whether or not to use BA before April, this bit confuses me:

I only know U.S. union/company law having dealt with it for years, but:

1. IF the High Court definitively rules that something the company does is not in violation of the existing union contract... and

2. The Union still goes ahead and ballots to strike based on their pre- and post-ruling assertion that the company's action is illegal and qualifies for IA...(even if there are other items on the ballot in addition to the "imposition" question...)

3. Which takes precedence? The High Court's ruling that the company was within its right to do what it did?

Or is the union legally allowed to call the strike on that issue anyway, even after it has been adjudicated by the High Court?

[MissM]

midman,

Many reactions. Their Youtube video was nothing but poorly made. They have also gone online now to Twitter. I can't really see the point.

La pouquelaye,

Not worried at all.

baggersup,

It's more of the principle of them imposing things without negotiations. Even if the court rules that crewing levels are non-contractual the ballot will go ahead as it was the principle of BA imposing.

[La Pouquelaye]

I suppose it is too late to wish BASSA's copywriter the complements of the season?

Has BASSA never heard of 'spell check'?

[ottergirl]

I believe that if the court finds for the Union, then BA has to restore the crewing levels, pay the WW crew their 'one down' payments then give 90 days notice of a change to contractual agreement in order to remove them again. In which case, there is no cause for strike until the 90 day notice is received.
If the court finds that it is not contractual, then the strike can still proceed on the basis of an unnegotiated change to agreed Terms and Conditions.
Happy to be corrected!

My opinion only, not that of my employer.

[soberthought]

TRUTH: Crew have worked “one down” for years. This attracted a significant one-down payment. BASSA never had a cause to complain when crew were hosed down with cash to do so. Also, to clear it up, the previous claim that working without the extra crew member affects safety is also usual BASSA tripe, they’ve been doing it for years - it was never less safe then. Funny what hard cash can do to ‘principles’.

As cc for 6 years i worked one down on NO, i repeat NO occasions. On the one occasion(an ABJ flt, approx 14 months ago) where the crew was one down on board the aircraft before departure, the flight was cancelled we were put on 12hr standby and put up in the same hotel as the passengers. I couldn't get my head round this financial thought process. The one down payment reflected in my opinion the unusual circumstances of working one down. The latest BA proposal makes it standard...Also surely inherent on reducing crew levels, safety standards(not withstanding service standards) are also proportionally reduced...whether you believe this is a significant reduction in safety standards is different but surely you must accept that safety is reduced?

TRUTH: BASSA/UNITE have ‘conveniently’ missed a rather critical bit of information here too as it doesn’t suit their argument. BA cabin crew (especially those at LHR) have a rather lucrative allowances structure earning such things as: box payments/meal allowances/telephone allowances/cat lounge payments/working one down payments) in total these things amount to £12K on European routes out of LHR and £16K on Longhaul routes. So err, that means for the 75% of crew that BASSA/UNITE claim earn a basic pay of £20000, they ACTUALLY earn a gross salary of £32000 on s/h and £36000. LGW crew (who have been conveniently wheeled out for this argument earn HALF what their LHR counterparts do as BASSA/UNITE fed LGW to the sharks many years ago to protect fortress Heathrow. That is now coming home to roost. LGW perform the same service onboard the aircraft & have operated to MUCH reduced crewing levels than at LHR with UNITE/BASSA’s approval for many years!

!

Again as a full time cc for 6 years, which should allow for any cyclycal or anomalies in the rostering system i truely do not recognise the salary figures that you quote. In those 6 years i have had one 9 day instance of sickness, yet the most i have ever earned in any tax year has been just over £24k. I was at LGW at the time when single fleet was introduced, BA management gave a choice, choose single fleet with it's reduced terms and conditions, transfer to LHR WW or EF or leave. I transferred to LHR. My personal feeling is that BASSA and LHR WW crew left LGW out to dry and BA management as predicted are now using the 'trojan' horse of the LGW terms and conditions as a precedent.

[Desertia]

Finn,

Why in civil aviation are Nigels known as Nigels?

No idea; perhaps you should ask the Ruperts?

[TheTiresome1]

Thank you, ottergirl, for that cheerful summary of the position. On that premise this grief just goes on, one way or another, whilst BA continues to leach money. The only issue then seems to be when the inevitable strike takes place.

I shall be very happy to hear your view corrected.

Matters will undoubtedly become clearer next Monday.

[AtlasDrawer]

Bassa text

hello all, received this text from BASSA today, wording on it quite interesting:

2010 ballot - its time to vote. If we are forced to strike it will NOT be at Easter and it will NOT be longer than necessary. Watch this space....


My bold, anyone care to give me feedback on their interpretation of this wording? And no-one's forcing us to strike, last time I checked.

And on my ballot paper its a big fat NO from me!

[midman]

Originally Posted by soberthought

As cc for 6 years i worked one down on NO, i repeat NO occasions. On the one occasion(an ABJ flt, approx 14 months ago) where the crew was one down on board the aircraft before departure, the flight was cancelled we were put on 12hr standby and put up in the same hotel as the passengers. I couldn't get my head round this financial thought process.

If a flight is a crewmember down, there will have been a request made to Bassa for an alleviation - standard procedure. As you night-stopped, that will have been Bassa denying that alleviation. I've been on many flights with a crewmember down - most crew loved it as it was a good pay day. It rarely happens now, if ever, because Bassa won't allow it.

Originally Posted by soberthought

The one down payment reflected in my opinion the unusual circumstances of working one down.

So in one cabin they would have needed a bit of help from the csd or another crewmember? Not exactly a great change in circumstances requiring thousands more to be paid to the other cabin crew. Other airlines just get on with it, pilots just get on with it (if legal) other industries just get on with it

Originally Posted by soberthought

Also surely inherent on reducing crew levels, safety standards(not withstanding service standards) are also proportionally reduced...whether you believe this is a significant reduction in safety standards is different but surely you must accept that safety is reduced?

No, I'm afraid I don't. Manning levels are set to ensure doors are manned to ensure swift evacuation. BA set their manning levels well above the CAA mandated minima, extra crew members are there for service standards only. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where one fewer crew member would impact safety, especially as BA still have MORE than the legal minimum on the vast majority of their aircraft.

Originally Posted by soberthought

as a full time cc for 6 years, which should allow for any cyclycal or anomalies in the rostering system i truely do not recognise the salary figures that you quote. In those 6 years i have had one 9 day instance of sickness, yet the most i have ever earned in any tax year has been just over £24k.

The figures quoted are from Bassa! Blame them for putting such stuff into the public domain. See now why the rest of us don't believe a word Bassa say? As soon as anyone has their own knowledge of the facts, they can see the UNITE/Bassa fiction for what it is.

[Caribbean Boy]

1. IF the High Court definitively rules that something the company does is not in violation of the existing union contract... and

2. The Union still goes ahead and ballots to strike based on their pre- and post-ruling assertion that the company's action is illegal and qualifies for IA...(even if there are other items on the ballot in addition to the "imposition" question...)

3. Which takes precedence? The High Court's ruling that the company was within its right to do what it did?

Or is the union legally allowed to call the strike on that issue anyway, even after it has been adjudicated by the High Court?

A union is quite entitled to ballot for a strike where there is an industrial dispute, even when the employer is behaving legally.

If Unite wins the court case, then that's probably bad news for Unite because BA, after reverting the crew changes, will have to find a whole lot of extra ways to cut costs ... at the expense of cabin crew. Something to think about ...

[Watersidewonker]

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

[La Pouquelaye]

going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES

In that case why are you dawdling and wasting time? You are not "afraid" in the slightest.

[midman]

Originally Posted by Watersidewonker

Got my ballot paper today going to give it a few more days before i send it back. I'm afraid it will be a YES all your comments have not been enough to change my mind thanks though for all your hours spent here putting your points across.

Thanks wnker. We never expected to change the minds of the politically motivated. However, we've changed enough to have made it all worthwhile.

With a bit of luck, the intransigent will remain so, and won't come back after the failed strike leaves them isolated and facing a new way of working.

PS I understand that the cost of training the volunteers is all coming from the IFCE budget. I suggest you cancel that ballot asap!