British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA granted an injuction .... and win again
so what does that mean now ...
so what does that mean now ...
Cabin Crew breath a sigh of relief. UNITE off the hook a little bit. BA can fly its passengers, assuming it hasn't already given all its custom to other airlines.... but still nothing resolved.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De Ja Vu
So will Willie Walsh now threaten Unite with a whopping compensation claim if they do go on strike. Previous strikes will now have been illegal.
I think he has a cunning plan.
So will Willie Walsh now threaten Unite with a whopping compensation claim if they do go on strike. Previous strikes will now have been illegal.
I think he has a cunning plan.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is now time for CC to realise that WW has outmanoeuvred BASSA at every stage of this dispute. Furthermore they must realise that BASSA/Unite have been shown to be totally inept at representing them and has been shown incomptent at running what must surely be pretty simple, a ballot.
I'm sure that a huge majority of the crew would now love to turn back the clock about 8 months and vote for what was on the table then, rather than what they wil end up having to accept.
WW now has so many irons in the fire with which to threaten BASSA/Unite that even they must surely realise that the game is over.
After all, even they themselves said that at the weekend in their missive to the believers when they said 'strike or it's the end of BASSA'.
Let's all hope that we can now put this evil empire behind us and move forward.
I'm sure that a huge majority of the crew would now love to turn back the clock about 8 months and vote for what was on the table then, rather than what they wil end up having to accept.
WW now has so many irons in the fire with which to threaten BASSA/Unite that even they must surely realise that the game is over.
After all, even they themselves said that at the weekend in their missive to the believers when they said 'strike or it's the end of BASSA'.
Let's all hope that we can now put this evil empire behind us and move forward.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?
To be honest, unless i'm missing something, i don't see what this has achieved at all other than to delay strike action even further. we don't appear to be any nearer to:
a) a resolution or
b) the demise of BASSA
So as somebody else asked, where now ?
Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?
UNITE has a lot of other groups under it, so busting UNITE's bank balance would anger many of it's members who are in other sections of BA, and also many others who have absolutely nothing to do with BA. More likely BA will tell UNITE something along the lines of "This is how it is going to be ....... sign here, and here, and here." UNITE are effectively hog-tied. BA may even 'ask' that current BASSA leadership are all removed from post, never to hold same again, and insist on new elections. BA may also actually take some form of financial damages from UNITE (enough to make them wince), as a further lesson, but are unlikely to break their bank ...... unless the stupid buggers continue to play stupid buggers!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?
I don't see how. In fact, i think all this has shown is that on the latest ballot, UNITE did not inform it membership correctly (whatever that means) of the result.
Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?
I don't see how. In fact, i think all this has shown is that on the latest ballot, UNITE did not inform it membership correctly (whatever that means) of the result.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think all this has shown is that on the latest ballot, UNITE did not inform it membership correctly
The problem was the dissemination of information after the ballot (Where have we seen this sort of problem with BASSA/Unite before I wonder!!!!). BA have stated that pinning a piece of A4 onto the notice board in the CRC was not legally sufficient.
It would seem that the Judge agrees.
This would, if correct, make the initial strike and subsequent strikes illegal.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has always been a common misconception that the employment laws are there to protect the employee.
In many cases though the employment laws can offer far greater protections to the employer.
In many cases though the employment laws can offer far greater protections to the employer.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I do believe that the right to strike action is an important democratic right that we all should have. It would appear that the courts have begun to erode this right and that is not a good step.
In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law.
My view is that if you feel the need to strike against your employer, you're ready for another job. remember you work for the empoyer, they don't work for you. If you don't like it, go and find something better. simple really
But I do believe that the right to strike action is an important democratic right that we all should have.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point but the flipside is that its 2010. Employment law is well set and offers more protection to Joe Bloggs than any union can guarentee.
In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law.
In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law.
I'd argue that the reason we have such good laws in the UK is because we have unions and that the reason it may feel that we do not need unions also is because we have them! There is certainly a balance to be struck: too much union power (as was seen in the 1970s, early 1980s) is not healthy but too much employer power is not healthy either.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disappointing ruling in the courts.
I'm not taking part in these strikes as I have (tried to) left the union and don't agree that striking is the right move here; but I think the judge has made a terrible ruling and, as put so eloquently above by another poster, it seems one's ability to engage in strike action in this country is being slowly eroded.
This is a ridiculous ruling. Very disappointed (not just for the union and those members who voted in favour of the strike, but for society and the rights of workers).
I'm not taking part in these strikes as I have (tried to) left the union and don't agree that striking is the right move here; but I think the judge has made a terrible ruling and, as put so eloquently above by another poster, it seems one's ability to engage in strike action in this country is being slowly eroded.
This is a ridiculous ruling. Very disappointed (not just for the union and those members who voted in favour of the strike, but for society and the rights of workers).
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: LHR
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arthur Scargill: "In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law."
In an ideal world possibly, but very often the company does need reminding about the legalities & technicalities of employment legislation.
It's my experience that BA managers are not always well-briefed here (often relying on PMA) and TU reps are far more knowledgeable. Things like EG902 or EG300 can be a hard & lonely place without union representation.
Mark.
In an ideal world possibly, but very often the company does need reminding about the legalities & technicalities of employment legislation.
It's my experience that BA managers are not always well-briefed here (often relying on PMA) and TU reps are far more knowledgeable. Things like EG902 or EG300 can be a hard & lonely place without union representation.
Mark.
Disappointing ruling in the courts.
............................................................ .....
This is a ridiculous ruling. Very disappointed
............................................................ .....
This is a ridiculous ruling. Very disappointed
mur007, try this as an example:
You have the right to own a car and drive it on the roads. You are responsible for obtaining a driving license, insuring and taxing the car, and driving in accordance with the rules and regulations.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abbey
Eddy, the ridiculousness here has actually been a union of the size and potential clout of UNITE being incompetent, several times! The technicality they fell foul of is small, but perhaps they should have been more careful and precise ....... though words like that don't seem to feature in UNITES skill-set nearly as much as bluster, bulls**t and bollocks.
I don't think Unite has been incompetent at all - I just think they've been unlucky. Extremely unlucky.
But I agree with you that it REALLY doesn't bode well that the airline has gone to court with Unite three times in almost as many months and has won each time, despite absolute assurances by the legal team handling the "one down" issue that we (the union - when I was still a member) would win.
I think it would be impossible to make any ballot or any industrial action entirely watertight. Infact, I'd be surprised if any industrial action that's taken place in this country in recent memory has been bang on in terms of legality.
The difference here is that BA has put enormous resources into finding the cracks, no matter how small they may be.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite cannot have it both ways. If it uses the law to hold a lawful strike with all the great protection this offers, then it must follow the law to a tee. They have no one to blame but themselves for their incompetence. Unfortunately it's their membership that will pay the cost. I'm surprised they have any money left for any more court cases.