British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Charon
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Way Forward
Snas earlier posted a link to the above document (post 3529).
What is it supposed to be? Is it a standalone Unite document/proposal?
I read the first page and find myself confused.
I am initially surprised by the use of the term 'Core Principles,' the overused Bill Francis phrase.
Then under 'Our Challenges' we find:
And then:
Somebody shine some light for me.
What is it supposed to be? Is it a standalone Unite document/proposal?
I read the first page and find myself confused.
I am initially surprised by the use of the term 'Core Principles,' the overused Bill Francis phrase.
Then under 'Our Challenges' we find:
- 'Delivering Permanent and Sustainable Cost Savings.'
- 'Reduction of Current Costs.'
And then:
- 'Stable and simplified phased platform for change allowing a return to sustained onboard service levels with an increase in direct customer contact staff.'
Somebody shine some light for me.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boondocker
You're not alone in your confusion, BA dismissed the whole cake-and-arse parade masquerading as a solution pretty much instantly.
Bassa accept they need to make permanent cost savings. (They don't really though ... )
However, face saving by Malone, Woodley and McCluskey requires them to demand to put back the crewing levels ...
Which means;
a) They plan to deny people their part time
b) Cancel flights
c) Close Zones (ie First Cabin)
d) Cancel unpaid leave.
e) Various other hairbrained schemes.
To save the money required they have all sorts of cunning plans;
a) Offer a paycut that the crew don't want
b) Do Middle East back-to-backs (which actually costs more due hotel bill - doh!)
c) Send the 767 to Eurofleet (yeah, the mums who do MAN day trips are going to love the African trips)
d) Various other hairbrained schemes which have been shown by PWC to be a tiny fraction of the required amount.
So, in summary, no, it doesn't actually make any sense. (and it's not what the membership voted for and were promised after a show of hands at the racecourse - no further negotiation)
Bassa = Tesco Value Representation.
You're not alone in your confusion, BA dismissed the whole cake-and-arse parade masquerading as a solution pretty much instantly.
Bassa accept they need to make permanent cost savings. (They don't really though ... )
However, face saving by Malone, Woodley and McCluskey requires them to demand to put back the crewing levels ...
Which means;
a) They plan to deny people their part time
b) Cancel flights
c) Close Zones (ie First Cabin)
d) Cancel unpaid leave.
e) Various other hairbrained schemes.
To save the money required they have all sorts of cunning plans;
a) Offer a paycut that the crew don't want
b) Do Middle East back-to-backs (which actually costs more due hotel bill - doh!)
c) Send the 767 to Eurofleet (yeah, the mums who do MAN day trips are going to love the African trips)
d) Various other hairbrained schemes which have been shown by PWC to be a tiny fraction of the required amount.
So, in summary, no, it doesn't actually make any sense. (and it's not what the membership voted for and were promised after a show of hands at the racecourse - no further negotiation)
Bassa = Tesco Value Representation.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAcrewboy
BAcrewboy
I, like you am eager and enthusiastic for promotion, and want more responsibility in the role of cabin crew. I personally have accepted that most (if not all!) promotion oppurtunities will be on New Fleet. If it happens on EF/WW then that is a bonus and is what I would prefer, but if it is not to be, it isn't to be. I don't mind the thought of Mixed Flying anyway.
I was quite interested in the CSM role aswell. It says 2 days managing on the ground plus flying as SCCM so abit different to now. Although as ottergirl said paaagges back whether that could work is a different thing. I personally think the money will be more than we are on now, certainly basic. Obviously it will probably be hourly rate but there is a performance bonus element. It says on the proposal it will be inline with other BA managers. Hmm... Only worries are working to scheme and flexible rosters but I would decide if I was willing to compromise IF the oppurtinity came up.
Before anyone starts aswell - I would hate to be thought of as a ''scab'' and I would hate BA to starve everyone of work whilst New Fleet crew lived it up in JFK/NRT etc but I am hopeful that won't happen (indeed BASSA has got the oppurtunity NOW to ensure that doesn't happen - if BASSA don't bother then I'm sure the PCC will be more proactive anyway and pick up the pieces!) Anyway, I am not a scab, I would rather promotion on current fleets (you can dream
) however if New Fleet came in, as a younger member of crew, what should I do? Stay as Main Crew on EF or go as CSM/PSR whatever on NF if the oppurtunity is there? Obviously I would see what the pay and everything was like first. In BAs proposals they did say they want it to be in line with other BA managers, who knows?
As to how to apply? Well I guess that wouldn't happen until BA starts up New Fleet when that happens (could be in 2 weeks could be in 2 years!) Indeed IF they set up New Fleet. They may even come up with the ''integrated approach'' in the end with the oppurtinity to go for PSR on EF or maybe the new CSM role on EF.
Here's hoping there will be oppurtunities for Main Crew like you and I to progress!
I am really looking forward to there being some promotion possibilities on New Fleet - currently as main crew there is no chance! I am really interested in the role of CSM - is there anyone on here who can give me a heads up as to the application process?
I was quite interested in the CSM role aswell. It says 2 days managing on the ground plus flying as SCCM so abit different to now. Although as ottergirl said paaagges back whether that could work is a different thing. I personally think the money will be more than we are on now, certainly basic. Obviously it will probably be hourly rate but there is a performance bonus element. It says on the proposal it will be inline with other BA managers. Hmm... Only worries are working to scheme and flexible rosters but I would decide if I was willing to compromise IF the oppurtinity came up.
Before anyone starts aswell - I would hate to be thought of as a ''scab'' and I would hate BA to starve everyone of work whilst New Fleet crew lived it up in JFK/NRT etc but I am hopeful that won't happen (indeed BASSA has got the oppurtunity NOW to ensure that doesn't happen - if BASSA don't bother then I'm sure the PCC will be more proactive anyway and pick up the pieces!) Anyway, I am not a scab, I would rather promotion on current fleets (you can dream
) however if New Fleet came in, as a younger member of crew, what should I do? Stay as Main Crew on EF or go as CSM/PSR whatever on NF if the oppurtunity is there? Obviously I would see what the pay and everything was like first. In BAs proposals they did say they want it to be in line with other BA managers, who knows? As to how to apply? Well I guess that wouldn't happen until BA starts up New Fleet when that happens (could be in 2 weeks could be in 2 years!) Indeed IF they set up New Fleet. They may even come up with the ''integrated approach'' in the end with the oppurtinity to go for PSR on EF or maybe the new CSM role on EF.
Here's hoping there will be oppurtunities for Main Crew like you and I to progress!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good for you Slidebustle and BACrewboy;
There are plenty of younger pursers and CSDs about that are only there because when Midfleet was introduced back in the day, they, when maincrew, decided to ignore the self-interests of Bassa, and give it a go.
I don't know a single one of them that regrets it. I have heard only good things about Midfleet and the mixed flying. It had a younger demographic of keen SCCMs who were willing to ignore Bassa and go for promotion.
There are, however, an awful lot of old girls/guys who are still main crew after all these years who really do regret not doing it! (They will be the ones shouting loudest telling you not to do it!!)
As you say, weigh it up, and give it a go if it suits you despite what Bassa may say. (They won't be the ones paying off your mortgage)
There are plenty of younger pursers and CSDs about that are only there because when Midfleet was introduced back in the day, they, when maincrew, decided to ignore the self-interests of Bassa, and give it a go.
I don't know a single one of them that regrets it. I have heard only good things about Midfleet and the mixed flying. It had a younger demographic of keen SCCMs who were willing to ignore Bassa and go for promotion.
There are, however, an awful lot of old girls/guys who are still main crew after all these years who really do regret not doing it! (They will be the ones shouting loudest telling you not to do it!!)
As you say, weigh it up, and give it a go if it suits you despite what Bassa may say. (They won't be the ones paying off your mortgage)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Charon
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs, it still means reintroducing cost to the business. Which means additional methods/ideas for cost savings need to presented and they are not to be found in the Unite Way Forward document.
The single most effective way to reduce cost is to sustain the current crewing levels.
BA is talking about reaching a formalised and finalised agreement by 31/01/10. With the court case starting on 1st Feb is BA intimating concerns about the outcome? Should Unite win the case they could, conceivably, offer to keep the current levels of crew and propose to forego the working one down payment for all crew providing BA are prepared to explore further assurances for current crew and also negotiate on how New Fleet is introduced.
Then again, as has been repeated often, it could be too late.
After all it's taken this long just to get BASSA to recognise the need for permanent change.
The single most effective way to reduce cost is to sustain the current crewing levels.
BA is talking about reaching a formalised and finalised agreement by 31/01/10. With the court case starting on 1st Feb is BA intimating concerns about the outcome? Should Unite win the case they could, conceivably, offer to keep the current levels of crew and propose to forego the working one down payment for all crew providing BA are prepared to explore further assurances for current crew and also negotiate on how New Fleet is introduced.
Then again, as has been repeated often, it could be too late.
After all it's taken this long just to get BASSA to recognise the need for permanent change.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA is talking about reaching a formalised and finalised agreement by 31/01/10. With the court case starting on 1st Feb is BA intimating concerns about the outcome?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlideBustle - I can't see anything wrong with thinking of going over to New Fleet and accept promotion - especially if you are crew on the new contract. If New Fleet IS the future in the company - why should you stay on mainline?
Mid Fleet was a good fleet but it didn't work efficiently because BASSA had too much of influence of what destinations they were "allowed" to fly to - basically because they wanted WW and EF to keep the best destinations. A Lurker said he used to fly to SEA - definitely a popular destination at WW - not!
When crew say BA couldn't deal with a 3rd fleet at LHR - tell them it was BASSA's fault - not BA's.
Promotion on existing fleets won't happen in the near future - single supervisory on EF and removal of PSR's on WW says it all. Think about WHEN they will be promoting crew on mainline - there really haven't been any promotions on WW for decades - think about all the crew who were recruited in 1997 onto WW - most of them are still working in CW and WT - no wonder so many are dismotivated about their work.
Mid Fleet was a good fleet but it didn't work efficiently because BASSA had too much of influence of what destinations they were "allowed" to fly to - basically because they wanted WW and EF to keep the best destinations. A Lurker said he used to fly to SEA - definitely a popular destination at WW - not!
When crew say BA couldn't deal with a 3rd fleet at LHR - tell them it was BASSA's fault - not BA's.
Promotion on existing fleets won't happen in the near future - single supervisory on EF and removal of PSR's on WW says it all. Think about WHEN they will be promoting crew on mainline - there really haven't been any promotions on WW for decades - think about all the crew who were recruited in 1997 onto WW - most of them are still working in CW and WT - no wonder so many are dismotivated about their work.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
winstonsmith,
Yes I agree if New Fleet is brought in promotion will be non existent on EF/WW with the reduction in supervisory numbers onboard and all the new routes/growth and any manpower gaps from attrition/turnover going onto New Fleet. If this is the case, like I said I would definately consider going over. (unless of course I would be taking more responsibility for less but to be honest although I am realistic it will be less than PSRs get now, I'm optimistic it will be a ''reasonable'' increase - and also it will allow me to have more responsbility)
If of course they bring in a new new contract on EF/WW then promotion will be available although it really would depend on attrition and growth and promotion would probably be quite slow. Especially because the current system at LHR is to restrict the eligible numbers that can apply for promotion by capping the seniority. Even if you are experienced enough to be SCCM then you can still be not eligible to apply if you don't have the right seniority number. From what I understand New Fleet will have promotion on Merit -again who knows how they will measure the ''merit'' lol!
Yes I agree if New Fleet is brought in promotion will be non existent on EF/WW with the reduction in supervisory numbers onboard and all the new routes/growth and any manpower gaps from attrition/turnover going onto New Fleet. If this is the case, like I said I would definately consider going over. (unless of course I would be taking more responsibility for less but to be honest although I am realistic it will be less than PSRs get now, I'm optimistic it will be a ''reasonable'' increase - and also it will allow me to have more responsbility)
If of course they bring in a new new contract on EF/WW then promotion will be available although it really would depend on attrition and growth and promotion would probably be quite slow. Especially because the current system at LHR is to restrict the eligible numbers that can apply for promotion by capping the seniority. Even if you are experienced enough to be SCCM then you can still be not eligible to apply if you don't have the right seniority number. From what I understand New Fleet will have promotion on Merit -again who knows how they will measure the ''merit'' lol!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you say that there have been no promotions for those flying longhaul for over 10 years, how is it possible that the purser on my flight to YYZ earlier this week was probably youngest of the whole crew? No doubt younger than 30. Just asking out of interest!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twenty4seven, I didn't say there haven't been any promotions for over 10 years, I haven't been here that long but I always hear that crew who have been on WW since 1997 have not been eligible for promotions because of the seniority. From what I've heard from some crew there was a couple of promotion campaigns a couple of years ago, but obviously the crew who joined in 1997 may have been ''too junior'' to apply but someone who joined in 1996 may have been able to.
I could be wrong, however this is what I have been told and read on various forums, that there has been no oppurtunities for post-1997 to be promoted on WorldWide, (they have on Euro and LGW though) either oppurtunity wise, or if there were oppurtunities recently, they were not regarded as ''senior'' enough - despite obviously having enough experience to do the job!!
I think BA wants rid of the seniority way for promotions, but BASSA want to keep it from the sounds of it.....
However I'll point out on LHR eurofleet and LGW fleet I think the requirements are much quicker. At eurofleet you need around 3-4 years seniority and at LGW (correct me if I'm wrong) all you need is 1 years flying experience and you can apply (no seniority, just done on CAA requirements) So maybe this young purser was from LGW or EF and had transferred?? Or may have been on LGW WW before SFG and transferred?
I could be wrong, however this is what I have been told and read on various forums, that there has been no oppurtunities for post-1997 to be promoted on WorldWide, (they have on Euro and LGW though) either oppurtunity wise, or if there were oppurtunities recently, they were not regarded as ''senior'' enough - despite obviously having enough experience to do the job!!
I think BA wants rid of the seniority way for promotions, but BASSA want to keep it from the sounds of it.....
However I'll point out on LHR eurofleet and LGW fleet I think the requirements are much quicker. At eurofleet you need around 3-4 years seniority and at LGW (correct me if I'm wrong) all you need is 1 years flying experience and you can apply (no seniority, just done on CAA requirements) So maybe this young purser was from LGW or EF and had transferred?? Or may have been on LGW WW before SFG and transferred?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: 49° 11′ 0″ N, 2° 7′ 0″ W
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the latest bulletin from BASSA/Unite/Amicus/CC89, please?
Have Watersidewonker, MissM and all the other pro-union apologists resigned from this thread in sympathy with A Lurker? We haven't had much sabre rattling recently.
On another issue, can someone please explain just why BA needs all these 'fleets'? I can understand a division between long- and short-haul, but what is the purpose of all the rest? Is it a case of BA management employing the old "divide to rule" principle?
Have Watersidewonker, MissM and all the other pro-union apologists resigned from this thread in sympathy with A Lurker? We haven't had much sabre rattling recently.
On another issue, can someone please explain just why BA needs all these 'fleets'? I can understand a division between long- and short-haul, but what is the purpose of all the rest? Is it a case of BA management employing the old "divide to rule" principle?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
court case
Sorry to repeat the request, but I cannot find on the Courtservice website (at Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home) where the Unite v BA hearing is to be held on 1st February. Is it just my incompetence or has the hearing been postponed or even cancelled? Can a Bassa insider please reply?
Regards
S
Regards
S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twenty 4 Seven
There have been no promotion opportunities for crew who joined BA in 1997 on WW. As SlideBustle says - they have been too junior to apply. Either your purser was:
1. From LHR EF - fleet for European destinations.
2. From LGW WW - they closed in 2005 and most crew transferred to LHR WW.
3. A main crew who had been pulled out from standby to "work up" as a purser.
My bet would be either 2 or 3 - because there haven't been that many transfers for pursers between EF and WW and vice versa - and when there has been many of them have been very senior.
There have been no promotion opportunities for crew who joined BA in 1997 on WW. As SlideBustle says - they have been too junior to apply. Either your purser was:
1. From LHR EF - fleet for European destinations.
2. From LGW WW - they closed in 2005 and most crew transferred to LHR WW.
3. A main crew who had been pulled out from standby to "work up" as a purser.
My bet would be either 2 or 3 - because there haven't been that many transfers for pursers between EF and WW and vice versa - and when there has been many of them have been very senior.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I'm wrong. Opinions please.
BA are clearly winning this battle. Does anyone really think there is any truth in the fact that strikers will be sacked? Of course I know it's illegal to sack employees for going on strike but quite frankly, wouldn't it be cheaper for BA to just pay them the tiny bit of compensation they'd be owed for 'unfair dismissal' cos lets face it, it's capped at £56k and no-ones going to get anywhere near that amount so especially if you're on the old conctact, it's a cheap way of getting rid of staff? Also, everyone's full of the bravado yes vote but when it comes to the crunch, how many will really strike? In 97 only 200 stuck their necks out and paid the price. It'll probably be just enough that BA can sack them and they'll be replaced in a heartbeat which is exactly what they're doing right now by contacting BMI crew plus the previous temps who don't have jobs and will take them up on the crap offer that it is nonetheless. A few zone closures here and there on long and a few cancelled flights of EF won't make a difference to them in the long run. I think they've got it all worked out. I fear we are playing right into their hands and it scares me to say it, but my money is on BA this time. I know it's slightly different but lets not forget in 1989 the Ansett/Aust pilots took on the airline and the majority of them ended up loosing their jobs as the government supported the airline, bought in the army while the airlines quickly recurited new pilots from o/s. Yes it caused massive chaos but eventually they recovered and the big fellas won!! I'm not suggesting for a minute that the same thing will happen here, but my point is, they got rid of the workforce and never looked back. 'Don't fight the battle if you can't win it' 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another issue, can someone please explain just why BA needs all these 'fleets'? I can understand a division between long- and short-haul, but what is the purpose of all the rest? Is it a case of BA management employing the old "divide to rule" principle?
EF and WW at LHR are something that's left from the old days when BA was BEA and BOAC. There was Mid Fleet at LHR for a few years - but it wasn't as efficient they hoped for - probably because BASSA had too much to say about where the crew were going - to protect the best paid destinations to themselves - I don't think the crew on Mid Fleet had the union's support and were "the bad guys".
There were also 2 fleets at LGW until a few years ago - similiar to LHR.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe these people are still planning on industrial action. Barking!! 
Still there are plenty of other airline jobs for them to get when the company goes bust!!!
British Airways heading for a £1bn loss - Times Online
Still there are plenty of other airline jobs for them to get when the company goes bust!!!
British Airways is heading more than £1 billion of losses during the steepest aviation recession to date.
The UK flag carrier will report deepening losses next week during the third quarter of its financial year — which includes Christmas. It is shaping up as the worst financial year in BA’s history, with losses as much as 50 per cent greater than last year.
The consensus forecast from City analysts for BA’s latest trading update, due next Friday, is that the airline will report losses of £151 million for the three months to the end of December, taking its losses to £443 million for nine months.
BA is in the middle of its final quarter, the difficult winter months, and analysts forecast further losses. Overall, for the 12 months to the end of March, the consensus is a loss of £602 million — more than £200 million more than the record £401 million reported for 2008-09. Moreover, after two years of struggle, several analysts expect further full-year losses in 2010-11.
The UK flag carrier will report deepening losses next week during the third quarter of its financial year — which includes Christmas. It is shaping up as the worst financial year in BA’s history, with losses as much as 50 per cent greater than last year.
The consensus forecast from City analysts for BA’s latest trading update, due next Friday, is that the airline will report losses of £151 million for the three months to the end of December, taking its losses to £443 million for nine months.
BA is in the middle of its final quarter, the difficult winter months, and analysts forecast further losses. Overall, for the 12 months to the end of March, the consensus is a loss of £602 million — more than £200 million more than the record £401 million reported for 2008-09. Moreover, after two years of struggle, several analysts expect further full-year losses in 2010-11.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tunbridge Wells
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I'm wrong. Opinions please.
BA are clearly winning this battle. Does anyone really think there is any truth in the fact that strikers will be sacked? Of course I know it's illegal to sack employees for going on strike but quite frankly, wouldn't it be cheaper for BA to just pay them the tiny bit of compensation they'd be owed for 'unfair dismissal' cos lets face it, it's capped at £56k and no-ones going to get anywhere near that amount so especially if you're on the old conctact, it's a cheap way of getting rid of staff? Also, everyone's full of the bravado yes vote but when it comes to the crunch, how many will really strike? In 97 only 200 stuck their necks out and paid the price. It'll probably be just enough that BA can sack them and they'll be replaced in a heartbeat which is exactly what they're doing right now by contacting BMI crew plus the previous temps who don't have jobs and will take them up on the crap offer that it is nonetheless. A few zone closures here and there on long and a few cancelled flights of EF won't make a difference to them in the long run. I think they've got it all worked out. I fear we are playing right into their hands and it scares me to say it, but my money is on BA this time. I know it's slightly different but lets not forget in 1989 the Ansett/Aust pilots took on the airline and the majority of them ended up loosing their jobs as the government supported the airline, bought in the army while the airlines quickly recurited new pilots from o/s. Yes it caused massive chaos but eventually they recovered and the big fellas won!! I'm not suggesting for a minute that the same thing will happen here, but my point is, they got rid of the workforce and never looked back. 'Don't fight the battle if you can't win it'
BA are clearly winning this battle. Does anyone really think there is any truth in the fact that strikers will be sacked? Of course I know it's illegal to sack employees for going on strike but quite frankly, wouldn't it be cheaper for BA to just pay them the tiny bit of compensation they'd be owed for 'unfair dismissal' cos lets face it, it's capped at £56k and no-ones going to get anywhere near that amount so especially if you're on the old conctact, it's a cheap way of getting rid of staff? Also, everyone's full of the bravado yes vote but when it comes to the crunch, how many will really strike? In 97 only 200 stuck their necks out and paid the price. It'll probably be just enough that BA can sack them and they'll be replaced in a heartbeat which is exactly what they're doing right now by contacting BMI crew plus the previous temps who don't have jobs and will take them up on the crap offer that it is nonetheless. A few zone closures here and there on long and a few cancelled flights of EF won't make a difference to them in the long run. I think they've got it all worked out. I fear we are playing right into their hands and it scares me to say it, but my money is on BA this time. I know it's slightly different but lets not forget in 1989 the Ansett/Aust pilots took on the airline and the majority of them ended up loosing their jobs as the government supported the airline, bought in the army while the airlines quickly recurited new pilots from o/s. Yes it caused massive chaos but eventually they recovered and the big fellas won!! I'm not suggesting for a minute that the same thing will happen here, but my point is, they got rid of the workforce and never looked back. 'Don't fight the battle if you can't win it'
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More bull from unite;
http://www.unitetheunion.com/pdf/020...Feb2010web.pdf
..and the full judgement from the December injunction BA used to stop the "12 days of Christmas" strike.
BASSA reps have been telling people they lost the injunction because a comma was in the wrong place on the ballot paper....
Have a read for yourself and see the whole damning verdict on their incompetence. You won't find it on the BASSA forum!
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2009] EWHC 3541 (QB) (17 December 2009)
** hint - search for "Malone"
http://www.unitetheunion.com/pdf/020...Feb2010web.pdf
..and the full judgement from the December injunction BA used to stop the "12 days of Christmas" strike.
BASSA reps have been telling people they lost the injunction because a comma was in the wrong place on the ballot paper....
Have a read for yourself and see the whole damning verdict on their incompetence. You won't find it on the BASSA forum!
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2009] EWHC 3541 (QB) (17 December 2009)
** hint - search for "Malone"