British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[617sqn]

Ballot papers

Even though I do not agree with the yes voters,may I speak in their defence?

The literature that was sent with the ballot papers is very persuasive.
The list is very long ,so here are a few examples:

If you want BA to crush you union vote no.

If you feel it was justified having your salary leaked vote no.

If you enjoy being public enemy no 1 vote no.


For those cc who do no research and follow the party line,it is very easy to get caught up in the hysteria.
Remember,anyone who dares to speak out against the union on CF is banned.
A lot of crew do not read ess or choose to disbelieve Bill "liar" as he is called "over there".

Any ideas how to get these crew to think for themselves?

[M2dude]

Anybody else wonder why it's taking BASSA/UNITE/KGB so long to conduct their ballot??? The 'vote for extinction' began on Monay the 25th January and will not close until Febraury 25th!! Even accounting for long haul trips, leave etc, there is absolutely no way that the period of the ballot needs to be a whole month. It's more to do with maximising the potential commercial damage to our airline, thank goodness whether the vote is 'yes, I want to destroy the airline', or 'you've got to be joking!!', this will be the last yahoo of these militant idiots.

[Beakor]

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.

Anyone see any flaws with this plan? Best result for BASSA would be a no vote or BA to contest the ballot before the strike takes place. Neither of these is likely.

[SlideBustle]

M2dude, I agree with you it really doesn't have to be and shouldn't be this long!! The longer it goes on the more damage!

Just read a news bulletin from a couple of days ago on BASSA website. It mentions a manager ''lying'' in Intouch days and actually names her/him (not mentioning the name on here for legal reasons) Apparently this manager has been going in Intouch days saying ''hundreds of crew have left BASSA recently'' (well theres a surprise!) BASSA do not like this one bit and they are saying only 11 members (really?) have left BASSA in the last 9 days (1 by mistake)

Who's telling the lies I wonder??

[im1234]

"BASSA do not like this one bit and they are saying only 11 members (really?) have left BASSA in the last 9 days (1 by mistake)"

erm... the same BASSA whose website on 23/01/2010 stated they had 10524 members, and tonight claims 10434 ? I'm sure they were claiming 10800+ earlier this month but didn't record the actual number.

Don't suppose that this info could be posted on the BASSA forum ?

[Caribbean Boy]

Protected strike action

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

So, if strike action starts on 1 March, protection ends on 24 May.

[Watersidewonker]

10,000 or 11,000 somewhere in between who cares as long as a vast majority vote YES then thats all we care about. Our union members are sick and tired of the way BA has tried time and time again to shaft us. Forget the Willies Wailing Wall @ Waterside, floorplate meetings,Phone calls from desperate managers,Press outings to posh london hotels etc etc. The chess game starts once again next week who will come out on top who knows but for sure i only know of one or two No voters and thats a choice they make, life is too short.

[Dairyground]

Assuming the strike takes place, will BA want it to end before all those willing to strike have demonstrated their committment to BASSA by doing so? Might they wait to act until all CC have been rostered to turn up, if not necessarily to fly, at least once after the start of the strike before acting against the strikers?

That way, leaving for Sydney on the day before the strike would not give protection to BASSA enthusiasts or anyone else.

[cheeky chappy]

How about the following as a likely BA plan:

Court case in February, BA likely to win.
Fairly strong yes vote for a strike.
BA point out to BASSA that ballot is illegal, same reasons as before.
BA do not however go to court to prevent strike.
Strike starts some time in March, but not over easter.
BA immediately sack strikers, and anyone calling in sick.
Strike over almost before it starts.
Sacked CC take BA to tribunal for unfair dissmissal.
BA now challenge legality of strike, then contest the unfair dissmissal claims. BA may lose but the process could take years, and meanwhile, those sacked are still unemployed.

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

So, if strike action starts on 1 March, protection ends on 24 May.

It may be unlawful for BA to sack you within 12 weeks but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
All it means is that BA would face an industrial tribunal which would most probably take a year or more to resolve and which they may or may not lose. If they do lose they would have to pay you some compensation which would probably be less than the wages you would've earned.
Keep in mind the fact that during this time you may not be able to find yourself a new job and even if they lose the tribunal they are not obliged to offer you your job back.
Of course if the ballot was found to irregular like the last on it wouldn't even be unlawful to sack you.
It's not a position I'd like to find myself in...

[binsleepen]

Caribbean Boy

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

You are absolutely right but as has been posted on here before it is also illegal to murder, rape, pillage and commit genocide but people and groups still do it.
The old phrase "if you can't do the time (or in this case pay the fine) don't do the crime" comes to mind. For BA the benefits of the crime of sacking all the militants and those who wish an end to BA may be worth the fine imposed by a tribuneral in a couple of years.

There is also the possibility the strike, again, wasn't lawfully organised and therefore all those striking are doing so illegally.

Think carefully before you strike.

regards

[Dairyground]

Caribbean boy says:

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks.

There have been suggestions in recent posts that ballot papers have been sent to non-members, so the chances are that BA will be able to invalidate this ballot just like the first one. The questions are whether they will do so, and if they do, whether it will be before or after the strike starts.

[TheTiresome1]

From the Gruniad picee, quoting Mr FlyBE - no commercial interests there, then - and with heavy sarcasm on my part:

Doing a job well also necessitates using skills acquired over time and knowing how to deal with certain situations because you have encountered them previously.

Presumably BA crashes aircraft frequently, thus enabling CC to practice their emergency evacuation skills? Looks more to me like trying to scare the public into flying ABBA, especially if FlyBE happens to operate the same route.

Last but not least, it's about aptitude and passion for the job. These things cannot be easily taught in three weeks and, by inferring that they can, BA is not only at risk of undermining its staff, but may be in danger of being regarded as an organisation that doesn't take enough pride in those who are, in essence, the face of the airline.

Ah, aptitude and passion. That wouldn't refer to the ones who hate the job and hate the company and find passengers an inconvenience? The ones who actually relish the prospects of a strike, to show who actually runs BA? Who regard damaging BA far more important than an adjustment to LEGAL manning levels at no personal cost?

I would think BA's "pride in those who are, in essence, the face of the airline" may be slightly influenced by what happens over the next few weeks.

[binsleepen]

crossed posts with cheeky chappy

[Juan Tugoh]

Hi Caribbean Boy

This has been a mammoth thread/s and I can understand a new joiner not reading back through it all. But...

This won't happen because any dismissal is illegal in the 12 weeks of industrial action so long as it is protected strike action. Protection is only possible where a proper secret ballot has been conducted in a 'lawfully organised' way. The employer cannot sue the union, and striking staff are protected from dismissal for a period of up to 12 weeks

This was done to death previously. You CAN be sacked for taking IA, but at your Industrial Tribunal you will automatically win an unfair dismissal case. Damages up to a set maximum, £66K approx but in reality likely to be significantly lower, will be awarded. Re-instatement hardly ever happens. The Tribunal can take months to happen and never looks good on a CV.

Please do take the time to be fully educated as to what can and cannot happen should you go on strike. Please do your own research as BASSA will not tell you the full details, they will tell you it is illegal to sack you for taking IA, but they will stop there, they will not tell you that you could still lose your job.

[fly12345]

It may be unlawful for BA to sack you within 12 weeks but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
All it means is that BA would face an industrial tribunal which would most probably take a year or more to resolve and which they may or may not lose. If they do lose they would have to pay you some compensation which would probably be less than the wages you would've earned.
Keep in mind the fact that during this time you may not be able to find yourself a new job and even if they lose the tribunal they are not obliged to offer you your job back.
Of course if the ballot was found to irregular like the last on it wouldn't even be unlawful to sack you.
It's not a position I'd like to find myself in..

yes, but. BA still needs to crew aircraft with yes or no voters so I guess sacking indiscriminately any strikers it would be counterproductive.
I just hope some common sense on the day will prevail, it is too easy to destroy and a lot more difficult and complicated to rebuild./

[midman]

Originally Posted by Watersidewonker

10,000 or 11,000 somewhere in between who cares as long as a vast majority vote YES then thats all we care about.

But a Yes vote carries no weight - we've already had one and have your complements changed?

The strike is a different animal altogether.

My guess, out of 13500 cabin crew and 10000 Unite members:
6000 vote Yes, equating to about a 80% Yes from 75% turn out. (7500 don't vote Yes)

2000 don't turn up on Day 1 when all cabin crew instructed to attend whether on leave, sick, MBT etc. (9000 do turn up, 2500 crew down route)

BA operate a 50% schedule on day one, increasing by 10% a day.

1000 don't return to work after a week. (12500 cabin crew working plus 1000 volunteers)

Within a week BA running a full operation, 1000 inflexible cabin crew removed, Bassa in tatters.

Anyone disagree?

[the heavy heavy]

Carribean boy

It's been explained a million times, it's very simple.

BA can do what it wants. You will be able to claim against BA at an employment tribunal. They have the power to award you damages, a pittance, but not to make BA give you your job back.

Vote yes, go on strike, get sacked, get a tribunal date, get another job to pay your bills in the 12mth wait, get damages, get on with life outside BA.

It's that simple. For clarity ask your reps why they attempted to get de-rostered for the last dates?

[Human Factor]

Looks more to me like trying to scare the public into flying ABBA, especially if FlyBE happens to operate the same route.

If FlyBE happens to operate the same route, BA gets 15%.

[Juan Tugoh]

I guess sacking indiscriminately any strikers it would be counterproductive

It all depends whether the sacking was indeed indiscriminate. Sacking the first 100 who fail to turn up for work would probably scare the living daylights out of the majority of workers. Especially if you are a long time crew member with out of date qualifications for a job outside aviation. Gaining an entry level job in any industry with a take home pay similar to that enjoyed by long time BA CC would be very hard to secure in the current economic climate.

[Looking Up]

From the Gruniad picee, quoting Mr FlyBE - no commercial interests there, then - and with heavy sarcasm on my part:

Doing a job well also necessitates using skills acquired over time and knowing how to deal with certain situations because you have encountered them previously.
Presumably BA crashes aircraft frequently, thus enabling CC to practice their emergency evacuation skills? Looks more to me like trying to scare the public into flying ABBA, especially if FlyBE happens to operate the same route.

Flybe are partially (15%) owned by BA. So there are commercial interests there; just not as you imply.

Cheers,

LU