British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LAM/BIG/BNN hold
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unite...said it was “an affront to democracy in our country when our members… can vote in a very open and democratic ballot and that still be ruled unlawful.”"
Absolutely. Why on earth should Unite be forced to obey the law? I mean, _laws_ are for the little people, not Big Important People like the leaders of Unite and Bassa
Steve Turner can throw his toys out of his pram like a spoilt child, but insulting a top judge at the High Court is not really on
Absolutely. Why on earth should Unite be forced to obey the law? I mean, _laws_ are for the little people, not Big Important People like the leaders of Unite and Bassa
Steve Turner can throw his toys out of his pram like a spoilt child, but insulting a top judge at the High Court is not really on
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that UNITE/BASSA can find time to send a ballot paper to their members but cant find time to send said members the result, including 4 mandatory items.
Simply put if they had of done this, and even if some had gone astray it would have been fine.
A barrister tells me
that the law has not changed since the metrobus and the RMT result in April, it has always been a requirement to ensure the membership were notified of the result with the 4 mandatory items, hardly rocket science
I'm sure there are some crew whom as off tonight have taken part in illegal industrial action will be keeping their fingers crossed for a more positive result should UNITE follow through with its appeal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 129146.ece
Simply put if they had of done this, and even if some had gone astray it would have been fine.
A barrister tells me
that the law has not changed since the metrobus and the RMT result in April, it has always been a requirement to ensure the membership were notified of the result with the 4 mandatory items, hardly rocket scienceI'm sure there are some crew whom as off tonight have taken part in illegal industrial action will be keeping their fingers crossed for a more positive result should UNITE follow through with its appeal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 129146.ece
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LAM/BIG/BNN hold
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan
the law is the law - face it Unite got it wrong and now should pay for their mistake. What seems petty, is still unlawful.
i think BA will use this illegal strike to conclude the talks ....
the law is the law - face it Unite got it wrong and now should pay for their mistake. What seems petty, is still unlawful.
i think BA will use this illegal strike to conclude the talks ....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what is more pathetic is that a union the size of Unite cannot comply with simple laws!
No one argues with the democratic right to withdraw labour but if you choose to do it comply with the law.
The law is not new, the process is not rocket science so why can it not be followed? Is it too much to ask of your reps, union leaders?
Why do they expect that no compliance should be ignored?
Everyone who is up in arms about this judgement should look not at the judge or BA for bringing the case but at the union for not fulfilling simple procedure. This is not a day when democracy has been steamrollered but a day when true and repeated incompetence has been found out.
No one argues with the democratic right to withdraw labour but if you choose to do it comply with the law.
The law is not new, the process is not rocket science so why can it not be followed? Is it too much to ask of your reps, union leaders?
Why do they expect that no compliance should be ignored?
Everyone who is up in arms about this judgement should look not at the judge or BA for bringing the case but at the union for not fulfilling simple procedure. This is not a day when democracy has been steamrollered but a day when true and repeated incompetence has been found out.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan and Eddy with respect, I beg to differ. RTM fell foul of the same rule. Unite, once again, didn't cross their t's and dot their i's and their lawyers, who may as well be respresented by Bart Simpson, once again, failed to defend. I'm truely sorry for the crew that have been mislead down such a dangerous path. They are now in a most precarious position, however, I find it unlikely that WW will sack the crew. BA have a long history of being more than fair and tolerant (unlike Bassa), but I do think WW will be able to now use his strengthened position for even more leverage and Unite will now have to accept whatever deal in put forward or be sued to buggery for the cost of the strike and possible loss of strikers jobs. Bassa will have no choice now but to admit defeat, retreat in the most face-saving manner possible, lick their wounds and hope that they still have a place within BA. 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appeal
Always somebody else's fault!!!! Incredible that even Her Majesty's Judiciary System is ganging up on poor old BASSA!!!
'Can they do that?! Can we strike on them?! Red crayons and funny name inventing hats on when we find out the judge's name!!'
In a case when future evidence coming to light MAY potentially allow for a different interpretation of the facts, or possibly even in extreme cases a different result, the Judge will often make this plain in his summary, and grant permission to appeal in such circumstances.
That this Judge has denied permission to appeal means that no amount of new evidence can change the verdict in his mind. The ballot was not carried out legally, end of.
This does NOT prohibit the headline-hungry Unite muppets from trying to look like they've got a plan or a hope by filing for appeal. The Court of Appeal can still go ahead and open up an expensive and wasteful case of appeal if, in their opinion, there is reason so to do.
There is not. Eddy, Democracy continues to hold its head high, unblemished. How can you sympathise with a Union that seems to make it's bread'n'butter'butties out of strike action and aggressive industrial unrest, yet somehow, for all the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS A YEAR it takes in fees from rabble-roused members, it can't seem to read and comply with the rules of holding a legal ballot?!?!? It is not advanced aerodynamics, it is basic legal procedure. To suggest that it is impossible to conduct a legal ballot because 'the Government are out to get us' sounds like something you could only hear in La La Land!!
BASSA are soon to be buried 6 feet under.....finally a box payment I don't mind working harder for
'Can they do that?! Can we strike on them?! Red crayons and funny name inventing hats on when we find out the judge's name!!'
In a case when future evidence coming to light MAY potentially allow for a different interpretation of the facts, or possibly even in extreme cases a different result, the Judge will often make this plain in his summary, and grant permission to appeal in such circumstances.
That this Judge has denied permission to appeal means that no amount of new evidence can change the verdict in his mind. The ballot was not carried out legally, end of.
This does NOT prohibit the headline-hungry Unite muppets from trying to look like they've got a plan or a hope by filing for appeal. The Court of Appeal can still go ahead and open up an expensive and wasteful case of appeal if, in their opinion, there is reason so to do.
There is not. Eddy, Democracy continues to hold its head high, unblemished. How can you sympathise with a Union that seems to make it's bread'n'butter'butties out of strike action and aggressive industrial unrest, yet somehow, for all the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS A YEAR it takes in fees from rabble-roused members, it can't seem to read and comply with the rules of holding a legal ballot?!?!? It is not advanced aerodynamics, it is basic legal procedure. To suggest that it is impossible to conduct a legal ballot because 'the Government are out to get us' sounds like something you could only hear in La La Land!!
BASSA are soon to be buried 6 feet under.....finally a box payment I don't mind working harder for
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lic.toFly - you have to admit that the technicality that went against UNITE was absolutely pathetic in this day and age.
Democratic and free UK ... I don't think so.
Democratic and free UK ... I don't think so.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this 'technicality' more or less of a 'technicality' than when the head of BASSA openly and idiotically encouraged cabin crew on an internet forum to return illegal ballot papers, which is what she did just before announcing the 12 Days of Christmas fiasco strikes?!?! She called that a 'technicality' now didn't she? Not her fault though, of course.....silly, pesky, unfair, cabin-crew bashing 'laws of the democratic nation' are to blame!!
"Yes, occifer, I consumed 10 pints of special brew and killed all 200 passengers by trying to land nearer to a curry house, but don't you bully and intimidate me! 10 pints? 1 pint? Got nothing on me mate....technicality mate. Call in the World War II imagery experts and lets blame whoever designed this fatcat, flight attendant abusing, irresponsible decimal system!"
"Yes, occifer, I consumed 10 pints of special brew and killed all 200 passengers by trying to land nearer to a curry house, but don't you bully and intimidate me! 10 pints? 1 pint? Got nothing on me mate....technicality mate. Call in the World War II imagery experts and lets blame whoever designed this fatcat, flight attendant abusing, irresponsible decimal system!"
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyBy, please do not speak ill of Lizanne Malone whose intentions, unlike those of a number of her members, are nothing but admirable.
As a non-supporter of the strike, as a no-voter, a former member of the union (attempted) and as a BA-baker, I still have the utmost respect for Ms. Malone.
As a non-supporter of the strike, as a no-voter, a former member of the union (attempted) and as a BA-baker, I still have the utmost respect for Ms. Malone.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OtterGirl
Thats an interesting position Eddy. I must confess that I have never met her so have no idea if she is to be admired or not. What makes you say that?
Originally Posted by JazzyKex
Eddy, how is making a comment to your membership which directly leads to a strike action being considered illegal 'admirable'?
Last edited by Eddy; 17th May 2010 at 22:10.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(SNIPPED)
The Bassa tail is wagging the Unite dog. I urge Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson to assert their authority and address this situation. The vast bulk of their 20,000 members at BA urgently want them to do so. These include the thousands of regular cabin crew who ignored the strike calls in March and, if necessary, will do so again to help us to keep the airline flying.
During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not. Unite’s leaders must act.
Willie Walsh is chief executive of British Airways.
I won't let these militants stop BA from flying | Willie Walsh - Times Online
The Bassa tail is wagging the Unite dog. I urge Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson to assert their authority and address this situation. The vast bulk of their 20,000 members at BA urgently want them to do so. These include the thousands of regular cabin crew who ignored the strike calls in March and, if necessary, will do so again to help us to keep the airline flying.
During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not. Unite’s leaders must act.
Willie Walsh is chief executive of British Airways.
I won't let these militants stop BA from flying | Willie Walsh - Times Online
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an analyst at the court today.
BA has won the court case and cabin crew will not be able to legally strike for the 20 days previously planned. The union did not properly inform its members of the result of the ballot in February under section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. As a result, the strikes carried out in March were not protected and could be deemed illegal, in which case, BA could have the right to legally dismiss all those crew who went on strike. Under the law, if this was the case it would have to dismiss all of the cabin crew that took part and not rehire any within a 3 month period.
BA has won the court case and cabin crew will not be able to legally strike for the 20 days previously planned. The union did not properly inform its members of the result of the ballot in February under section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. As a result, the strikes carried out in March were not protected and could be deemed illegal, in which case, BA could have the right to legally dismiss all those crew who went on strike. Under the law, if this was the case it would have to dismiss all of the cabin crew that took part and not rehire any within a 3 month period.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddy, Eddy, Eddy....
If she really cared about cabin crew wouldn't she have spent more effort leading them wisely, honestly and honourably in these uncertain times?.....instead of presiding over a responsibility-shirking, pornsite-building, hate-preaching union......or maybe not; maybe she's quite nice when you get to know her
Lots of history's villains were able to get people to like them on their rise to power, it doesn't make them good people, just whiley; like a coyote....or a goat
Lots of history's villains were able to get people to like them on their rise to power, it doesn't make them good people, just whiley; like a coyote....or a goat
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddy
Eddy,
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union
Queen's Bench Division
17 December 2009
Case Digest
Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience
Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A ands.234A .
According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike. Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.
Held:
(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite. Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.
(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and the a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.
Application granted.
When the first injunction was granted (the one above) in December prior to the 12 days of Christmas strike one of reasons stated for granting it was that Unite failed to provide accurate figures regarding who was entitled to vote.
One item that came up in court was that Miss Malone when asked directly by members of the union on a web forum whether they should vote even though they were leaving BA under the voluntary redundancy and would not be in BA if a strike was voted for, were told that they should. A direct instruction from a rep which proved to be incorrect.
It also shows that the same law has been used again and Unite/BASSA has been shown to be non compliant!
Is that really the representation crew deserve?
She may be a very nice and amiable woman but is clearly well out of her depth with regards to a law pertinent to her position and further to that modern labour relations!
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union
Queen's Bench Division
17 December 2009
Case Digest
Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience
Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A ands.234A .
According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike. Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.
Held:
(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite. Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.
(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and the a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.
Application granted.
When the first injunction was granted (the one above) in December prior to the 12 days of Christmas strike one of reasons stated for granting it was that Unite failed to provide accurate figures regarding who was entitled to vote.
One item that came up in court was that Miss Malone when asked directly by members of the union on a web forum whether they should vote even though they were leaving BA under the voluntary redundancy and would not be in BA if a strike was voted for, were told that they should. A direct instruction from a rep which proved to be incorrect.
It also shows that the same law has been used again and Unite/BASSA has been shown to be non compliant!
Is that really the representation crew deserve?
She may be a very nice and amiable woman but is clearly well out of her depth with regards to a law pertinent to her position and further to that modern labour relations!