Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Other Aircrew Forums > Cabin Crew
Reload this Page >

British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

Cabin Crew Where professional flight attendants discuss matters that affect our jobs & lives.

British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

Old 19th Feb 2010, 13:29
  #741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the judgement

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010)
wascrew is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 13:30
  #742 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do BA pilots consider Scope as part of their terms and conditions of employment? does the document state that it is?
Yes, it is part of our terms and conditions but not contractual. Nobody has ever claimed it was. I dont really see what you are getting at. You have a contract of employment and industrial agreements, BA can withdraw ANY industrial agreement any time they like. They dont because they want to retain industrial peace. Nothing in this ruling changes that, and no legal precedent has been set. Unite for some strange reason thought that crewing levels were contractual (although even unites QC admitted it only had even a semblance of a case in the 1850 oldest cc contracts), the judge didnt.
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 13:43
  #743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reading the judgement gives an insight into the heart of the matter. Management face a challenging global economic situation that requires action to ensure the survival of BA. Cabin Crew must accept as many other have in other walks of life changes to their working practivcces to ensure the survival of the airline.

The Judge is really saying he recognises the desire of bothparties to see BA survive but the reality is in this situation Management must be allowed to manage. That doesn't mean walk over staff or take advantage but the facts are before everyone that the costs structure of BA is one that has to change at all levels and in all departments.
lexoncd is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 13:48
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope BA seek damages and drive the victory home.

If BASSA were a company, its shareholders would have demanded its leaders' mass resignations by now.

As the members are the shareholders, it is time they got rid of Malone and the rest of the dross and elected people who want to work WITH the company, and for THE MEMBERS, as opposed to against the company and for themselves.
ChicoG is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 13:50
  #745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lexoncd has it right; the judges words in summing up need careful reading. He did not by any means give BA a green light to ride roughshod over people.
Look carefully at the exact wording and if anything it fires a warning shot across BAs bows.
sussex2 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 13:55
  #746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
I don't want to get bogged down in the specfics of Scope, I raise the matter because I believe it is most obvious agreement to illustrate how all agreements can now be affected on this particular forum.

Also because during the Open Skies dispute it was ruled that Scope was a legally binding agreement. That gave my Pilot colleagues the satisfaction and security of knowing that they would not be slowly replaced with cheaper pilots within the UK. To illustrate my point about the fragility of workers agreements it would now be possible for Walsh & Co to seek any change to Scope and cite the latest case law that agreements are not legally binding, and should a company feel the need to protect its self financially, it could take steps without consultation or agreement. In the case of Scope, Open Skies contracts for Pilots within the UK.

But the new issues go far beyong BA, so I will not mention Scope again, its not (yet) the discussion, only an illustration.

The court case does not negate the current industrial ballot. It may now be the case that a company can legally ignore an agreement but there is still the moral issue. The subject of whether a strike is legal or not is procedural and not about the subject matter. In this instance BA cabin crew are being asked if they are aggrieved about recent events within the company. If they are or not will be clear when the result of the ballot is announced.
PC767 is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:00
  #747 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Also because during the Open Skies dispute it was ruled that Scope was a legally binding agreement. That gave my Pilot colleagues the satisfaction and security of knowing that they would not be slowly replaced with cheaper pilots within the UK. To illustrate my point about the fragility of workers agreements it would now be possible for Walsh & Co to seek any change to Scope and cite the latest case law that agreements are not legally binding, and should a company feel the need to protect its self financially, it could take steps without consultation or agreement. In the case of Scope, Open Skies contracts for Pilots within the UK.
Ok I see what you mean. The difference is that the scope agreement has a clause about being legally binding. If you read the judgement linked above you'll see that the judge mentions several times that the scheduling agreements in dispute have no such clause, despite the fact it would have been possible to include one. That was one of the reasons he found against Unite. Hope that makes sense.
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:01
  #748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Read para 42 of the judgement and you will see that this was not a blanket victory for the company, civil cases rarely are.
The para is about as sensible as it comes and by no means gives either side carte blanche to sideline the other.
sussex2 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:06
  #749 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Read para 42 of the judgement and you will see that this was not a blanket victory for the company, civil cases rarely are.
Seems like a shot across BASSAs bows to me.

The continuing and presently prospective problem is money, finding the wherewithal to fund an airline of this nature and one would imagine that the only real prospect for alleviation of the impact upon cabin crew is by negotiation that truly reflects and balances the demands upon, and the commitment of the employee with the unavoidable realities of the current pressures upon management.
Or pretty much whats been said on this and preceding threads since last year.
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:20
  #750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
..more like an exocet - His judgement could not be clearer, IMHO.

Nurj
nurjio is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:25
  #751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I must conclude by paying tribute to the professional standards of the legal teams – with a particular word for those responsible for the bundles: they were refreshingly exemplary as to content and management.
I wonder which BASSA rep will be the first to claim that BA gave the judge a "bundle"!
ChicoG is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:34
  #752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
para 39 of the judgement gives a real insight into the negotiations at ACAS

the now undisputed fact is that BA was then in a very serious financial state, such that management reasonably had urgently to do something (and had to be seen to do something) in the interests of the Company, its employees and its financial backers. I have further taken into account the now undisputed fact that as at the 6th October negotiations with the Union had come to a halt, notwithstanding the efforts of ACAS, and were unlikely to restart unless and until the internal factions of Unite had resolved their differences so as to form a negotiating team. It is thus, that I find that it was objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances to act unilaterally and to make the first change to XXXX's predicated contract, that is, to impose a cabin crew complement other than by way of a collective agreement.
Meal Chucker is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:52
  #753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re-Heat. I am not stating that every company will automatically change any agreement that does not suit them. However if a company chooses to do so and legal advice or a court case is sought, then the legal precedent which the company will cite is BA v Malone 2010.
I disagree - it is a very narrow judgement, pertaining to the specifics of the case; while legal precedent may be created in many cases, I find it unlikely that the wording used in the judgement would in any way be used in a broad brush against any other employee in the UK.

Back to my point that the rep team should have considered a specific clause in the contract at some point in the past, but have not to date included one. This is a very specific case on a very specific contract.

I find it distasteful that Unite paint it as an attack on all workers, citing calls to arms, when it is their failing in prior rounds of contract negotiations that actually caused them to lose.
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 14:59
  #754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Selective quotes from the judgement of note:

# Ms Mussenden provides further figures with presently material significance by way of average hourly operating costs:
BA LHR Worldwide: £60
Eurofleet: £58

By way of comparison:

Longhaul
Emirates: £27
Virgin: £20-27
BA Gatwick: £37

Shorthaul
BMI: £33
Easy Jet: £20
BA Gatwick: £37
# The essential chronology is as follows;
i) 24th February – At a National Sectional Panel ("NSP") meeting Mr Francis told the Union that in the then financial circumstances BA looked to save £82m as against the cost of cabin crew. Throughout Unite had separately identified representatives from both its BASSA and Amicus factions.
ii) 26th February – At a further such meeting Mr Francis handed over a list setting out 32 prospective costs saving measures and invited discussion. Of these measures nine involved reduction in current cabin crew complements.
iii) February – April BA met 14 times with BASSA and four times with Amicus in a mixture of formal and informal meetings.
iv) May – Following release of the figures for the first quarter (see para 12 above) the required costs saving was increased to £140m.
v) 1st June – BA issue a statutory HR1 form proposing up to 2000 redundancies amongst cabin crew. BA and the Union meet at a formal NSP.
vi) 9th – 30th June – Intermittent talks at Heathrow Renaissance Hotel. In the course of such;
a) 15th June BASSA had a heated argument with Amicus and refused to cooperate together
b) 23rd June BA put forward a proposal in writing. This included specific reductions in crew complements
c) 25th June – Unite put forward a written Pay and Productivity Proposal, claiming that it would save BA £173m. It proposed some alterations in the cabin crew complements but no significant reduction. Thereafter BA tried to understand and analyse the cost saving as anticipated by Unite, bringing in accountants, Price Waterhouse Cooper. The latter's assessment was that the saving would be about £53m. Unite refused to have further discussions over this issue, whether with BA or the accountants.
In the overall result, the meetings broke up without reaching any joint conclusion.
vii) 29th June – Mr Francis sent a letter to each cabin crew member, setting out BA's proposals, such including a reduction in cabin crew complements.
viii) 21st-23rd July – An abortive session at ACAS.
ix) 21st, 30th September and 1st and 2nd October – Following an agreement reached between BA's CEO and the Joint General Secretaries of Unite, there was a further sustained resort to ACAS for conciliation. I heard evidence as to the course of events at ACAS and the following emerged. The BASSA and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms. Despite the efforts of ACAS they could not be persuaded to join forces for a meeting with BA. The latter raised the possibility of separate agreements with the respective factions but, understandably, that did not appeal. In the overall result there was no meeting between the Union and BA.
x) 6th October – Mr Francis e-mails all cabin crew.
Who do you think is representing you exactly?

There you are - the crux of the £1.2m cost to the union from your subs was that the two factions failed to act as one and effectively negotiate.

All that said, I cannot regard the 6th October changes as drastic or extreme and outwith the parameters of "reasonable". The crew complements remain significantly above the minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable?
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 15:09
  #755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that we may need to change our name from Unite.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 15:12
  #756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re-Heat
when comparing average hourly costs between fleets and airlines it should be noted that the average age of employees is greatly different between LHR crews and the rest ie LGW EASY VA etc who are bound to cost less as they are younger and have been with their respective companies for less time.
tomkins is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 15:13
  #757 (permalink)  
Couldonlyaffordafiver
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that we may need to change our name from Unite.
How about UNTIE. At least the signwriter will be cheap.
Human Factor is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 15:15
  #758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
disUnite - a danger to your otherwise stable contract of employment
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 15:15
  #759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't wait for UNITE to release their newsletter!

I wonder what it will say - something in the line of the judge not ruling by the law but by the financial situation which the company is in - democracy and law being completely ignored.
winstonsmith is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2010, 15:16
  #760 (permalink)  
Couldonlyaffordafiver
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...it should be noted that the average age of employees is greatly different between LHR crews and the rest ie LGW EASY VA etc who are bound to cost less as they are younger and have been with their respective companies for less time.
Rightly or wrongly, this is part of BA's problem. Too many crew have seen it as a "career" rather than a "job". BA is one of few companies where the majority of crew stay for the long term rather than a couple of years. While this has certain benefits to BA, they are likely outweighed by the negative of an inflated pay scale.
Human Factor is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.