British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
I'm surprised they have any money left for any more court cases.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, assuming that Unite go to the CoA tomorrow and WIN......, could they begin IMMEDIATE strike action or would they have to offer seven days' notice again?
That is, would the initial 7-days' notice be considered as having been given and tonight's ruling ignored so the strikes can proceed?
That is, would the initial 7-days' notice be considered as having been given and tonight's ruling ignored so the strikes can proceed?
UNITE would be very, very lucky to win an appeal if you consider that the RMT lost its original case on an identical point just last month! Two rulings, on the same technicality, in two months - any appeal is nothing more than UNITE stomping and teddy-throwing, in a rather hollow attempt to appear to be doing something constructive.
A Tug of War?
An analogy?
In the past BA only held the rope lightly with a few 'under weight' managers while BASSA took a very firm hold and pulled to win, what are now regarded as out dated agreements. I thought some CC agreements were ridiculous in my BA time up to 2001. Now, outside but, looking in from the LoCo world those agreements are unreal. Good luck to all those enjoying the personnal benefits of those agreements but CC, BASSA, Unite and 007 should not be surprised that BA are pulling so hard now with real heavyweights.
I don't recall any protests from the unions when they were using the full strength of employment law to advance their case. It is now BA's turn to use the same laws, but different parts of them.
1066
In the past BA only held the rope lightly with a few 'under weight' managers while BASSA took a very firm hold and pulled to win, what are now regarded as out dated agreements. I thought some CC agreements were ridiculous in my BA time up to 2001. Now, outside but, looking in from the LoCo world those agreements are unreal. Good luck to all those enjoying the personnal benefits of those agreements but CC, BASSA, Unite and 007 should not be surprised that BA are pulling so hard now with real heavyweights.
I don't recall any protests from the unions when they were using the full strength of employment law to advance their case. It is now BA's turn to use the same laws, but different parts of them.
1066
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNITE would be very, very lucky to win an appeal if you consider that the RMT lost its original case on an identical point just last month! Two rulings, on the same technicality, in two months - any appeal is nothing more than UNITE stomping and teddy-throwing, in a rather hollow attempt to appear to be doing something constructive.
Even if they do hear the case, i can't see them overturning the decision. It seems like the law, however fiddly it is, hasn't been complied with. There hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here after all....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shouldn't really have come as a surprise to those of us who value our democratic rights. Afterall, we live in a country where you can be imprisoned for protecting your property against worthless, caravan-dwelling, career criminal sh*t bags.....
As much as I don't agree with the strikes this time around, I absolutely DO agree that those who are in favour of them should be allowed to take action accordingly.
The courts of this country seem to be intent on starving the British people of their right to protect themselves.
As much as I don't agree with the strikes this time around, I absolutely DO agree that those who are in favour of them should be allowed to take action accordingly.
The courts of this country seem to be intent on starving the British people of their right to protect themselves.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London,England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a union to organise a strike there are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through. However, they don't appear to be too far off the ground, nothing too complicated or technical, so I find it amazing that a union such as Unite has not been able to comply with the relevant bits. The bit in question is below and requires nothing more than a letter to each person entitled to vote stating the numbers.
Information as to result of ballot
As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.
Despite Tony Woodleys rhetoric, the judgement has not denied anybody the right to strike. All it has said is that the rules need to be followed. You cannot pick and choose the bits you want to comply with.
As far as another ballot goes, I suspect that is a non starter. The judgement has ruled this ballot did not comply with the law, therefore the previous strike was not 'protected'. The company it would seem, could legitimately sack anyone that took strike action last time and sue Unite for damages. Whilst I don't necessarily consider that a desirable outcome, it is an almighty axe to be holding to the neck of Unite to conclude negotiations rapidly!
Information as to result of ballot
As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.
Despite Tony Woodleys rhetoric, the judgement has not denied anybody the right to strike. All it has said is that the rules need to be followed. You cannot pick and choose the bits you want to comply with.
As far as another ballot goes, I suspect that is a non starter. The judgement has ruled this ballot did not comply with the law, therefore the previous strike was not 'protected'. The company it would seem, could legitimately sack anyone that took strike action last time and sue Unite for damages. Whilst I don't necessarily consider that a desirable outcome, it is an almighty axe to be holding to the neck of Unite to conclude negotiations rapidly!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shouldn't really have come as a surprise to those of us who value our democratic rights. Afterall, we live in a country where you can be imprisoned for protecting your property against worthless, caravan-dwelling, career criminal sh*t bags.....
As much as I don't agree with the strikes this time around, I absolutely DO agree that those who are in favour of them should be allowed to take action accordingly.
The courts of this country seem to be intent on starving the British people of their right to protect themselves.
As much as I don't agree with the strikes this time around, I absolutely DO agree that those who are in favour of them should be allowed to take action accordingly.
The courts of this country seem to be intent on starving the British people of their right to protect themselves.
I'm not sure its right either, but then again the union have behaved disgrafeully throughout this whole sage so I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone today
By the way, was just watching sky news a couple of mins ago and they answered your question - basically the strike can be called again immediately (no 7 day notice required) should they be succesful tomorrow. However, they also confirmed what i posted before about the unlikeliness of the CoA even taking this case on. I think its probably curtains for now and hopefully a resolution can be thrashed out in the coming days.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information as to result of ballot
As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.
As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.
Short of standing on people's doorsteps to ensure they got the info first hand, Bassa did a good job of advising the result of the ballot.
Let me try and make it plain, mur007. At no stage in this entire dispute have BASSA or UNITE ever acknowledged the need to take quick and reasonable action to keep the company solvent - to save money now! They have prevaricated, blustered, and obfuscated well past the point where all other company employees could see that world finances are in a lousy state. We are now a full year past the deadline that the company set for resolution of cost savings! And only the dithering cabin crew union remains against the company, bleeding it dry, day by bloody day!
Behind it all, whatever BASSA and UNITE say, has been the pathetically obvious point that they want to keep their status quo - "Everybody else can go save money, we're not doing it!" And they are happy to do that to the detriment of everybody else's job!
That is called not exercising responsibility! How obvious does it need to be painted?
Behind it all, whatever BASSA and UNITE say, has been the pathetically obvious point that they want to keep their status quo - "Everybody else can go save money, we're not doing it!" And they are happy to do that to the detriment of everybody else's job!
That is called not exercising responsibility! How obvious does it need to be painted?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Arty Scargill
The irony is Eddy, that this gross miscarriage of justice today has probably saved the jobs of all those who were planning on taking such action.
I'm not sure its right either, but then again the union have behaved disgrafeully throughout this whole sage so I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone today.
I'm not sure its right either, but then again the union have behaved disgrafeully throughout this whole sage so I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone today.
I fear all those who went on strike are now in grave danger if their records/files aren't crystal clear..... Which saddens me - a lot of GOOD people have taken part in this action.
By the way, was just watching sky news a couple of mins ago and they answered your question - basically the strike can be called again immediately (no 7 day notice required) should they be succesful tomorrow. However, they also confirmed what i posted before about the unlikeliness of the CoA even taking this case on. I think its probably curtains for now and hopefully a resolution can be thrashed out in the coming days.
ETA : can a judge REALLY remove the right of either party to appeal? That in itself seems almost undemocratic to me. There should be a limit to appeals, but no single judge should be allowed to decree that his/her judgement is beyond question.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not entirely sure that can be the case.
Crew were only ballotted ONCE (excluding the xmas debacle).... Before the March strike.
The recent online thingy was a "poll" to determine whether to proceed with the action the poll entitled the union to take.
I think the BBC needs new experts.
Glad to see my license fee is being wasted as normal.
Crew were only ballotted ONCE (excluding the xmas debacle).... Before the March strike.
The recent online thingy was a "poll" to determine whether to proceed with the action the poll entitled the union to take.
I think the BBC needs new experts.
Glad to see my license fee is being wasted as normal.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expert
Oh well Eddy, I will watch the 8 oclock news on sky and see if they have a better expert, thats if I can tear myself away from the SWI (Swindon) v CHA (Charlton) play off 0-2 (2-3 agg)
Eddy this is a very inportant game, but admitted ONLY if you live in Charlton or Swindon .
Eddy this is a very inportant game, but admitted ONLY if you live in Charlton or Swindon .
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At no stage in this entire dispute have BASSA or UNITE ever acknowledged the need to take quick and reasonable action to keep the company solvent ! They have prevaricated, blustered, and obfuscated well past the point where all other company employees could see that world finances are in a lousy state. We are now a full year past the deadline that the company set for resolution of cost savings! And only the dithering cabin crew union remains against the company, bleeding it dry, day by bloody day!
despite absolute assurances by the legal team
Just because your reps can't be bothered to check the facts , ask the right questions, or hear what they're being told. And that's when they're available at all, or even bothering to listen.
eg Bassa lawyer says "you cannot lose staff travel"
Rep tells crew"you definitely cannot lose staff travel."
crew believe... we cannot lose staff travel.
Duh
Idiots and lemmings!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not entirely sure that can be the case.
Crew were only ballotted ONCE (excluding the xmas debacle).... Before the March strike.
The recent online thingy was a "poll" to determine whether to proceed with the action the poll entitled the union to take.
Crew were only ballotted ONCE (excluding the xmas debacle).... Before the March strike.
The recent online thingy was a "poll" to determine whether to proceed with the action the poll entitled the union to take.
Sky News, which i'm about to stop watching now said that renders the previous strike 'illegal' so it does have pretty serious consequences. Interviews with messrs Turner and Woodley showing them to be absolutely fuming with the decision and they are certainly going to attempt an appeal. the sky news 'expert' seemed to think the chances of the appeal a) being heard and b) being successful were extremely unlikely...
Oh and Eddy, its Swindon vs Charlton on the telebox - one for the die hards really...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally disagree with the rationale and sentiment behind this strike, but do support the right to strike. Sadly, I think going to the courts is not a smart move. It only delays the inevitable and is petty nitpicking to call the ballot illegal.
As someone once said "the people have spoken, the bast5rds!". They should be allowed to walk out for what they mistakenly believe in, and then we can all get on with reaching the end of this sorry affair.
As someone once said "the people have spoken, the bast5rds!". They should be allowed to walk out for what they mistakenly believe in, and then we can all get on with reaching the end of this sorry affair.