British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of nonsense, I suggest the "sack 'em all" mob should themselves read the TULRCA legislation. Protection is now the same as before they went on strike.
And by the way, I suggest you look up the meaning of injunction in the dictionary also, the previous strike is NOT now illegal.
And by the way, I suggest you look up the meaning of injunction in the dictionary also, the previous strike is NOT now illegal.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest I don't think the injunction does make the strike illegal. An injunction is granted on the balance of probabilities - so the judge thinks it is likely that the ballot was improperly conducted - but a full trial would be needed to decide the issue. To be sure, given that the injunction was granted (but it might be overturned) I think BA would have a good chance of winning such a trial (although that "good" chance would be reduced if Unite win on appeal) - and then I understand the strikers could be exposed as having taken part in illegal action.
Personally though I doubt BA will actually take this course of action. But they might threaten it to prevent any further strike action or ballots. To be honest, unless Unite do get the appeal and win it, this dispute is over and BASSA are finished. The protected period runs out after 12th June and, even if there is a new ballot on the same issue, as far as I am aware this won't be extended. So even with another legal ballot strikers could still be dismissed after that date anyway.
Personally though I doubt BA will actually take this course of action. But they might threaten it to prevent any further strike action or ballots. To be honest, unless Unite do get the appeal and win it, this dispute is over and BASSA are finished. The protected period runs out after 12th June and, even if there is a new ballot on the same issue, as far as I am aware this won't be extended. So even with another legal ballot strikers could still be dismissed after that date anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer wrote
They have achieved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF BENEFIT TO THEIR MEMBERS and are decimating our once respected community
Shame on the lot of them.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...PCCC this is the way forward is it? If this mob are so confident in their thoughts and views why don't they come out of the closet and 'be brave'.
BTW...what are the membership numbers to date HiFlyer?
BTW...what are the membership numbers to date HiFlyer?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this dispute....and worst of all our own FD colleagues amongst them
BA would be much better off without the strikers, IMHO. Sadly, I don't think WW will quite go as far as to get rid of them.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, I volunteered to work as cabin crew out of professional courtesy to my employer who asked for my help. I do not care about trade unionism nor do I believe I have any professional solidarity with or obligation to a group of workers who refuse to negotiate with BA for a year and then try to dictate silly terms that don't begin to address BA's business plan.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF claims?
UNITE must hope that it wins the right to appeal and does so successfully. Otherwise they may expect, besides BA, a large number of disgruntled SLF to claim damages (including consequential) for losses caused by BA flights cancelled or postponed due to unprotected IA authorised by UNITE. Moreover, individual SLF often have a tendency to exact revenge through the small claims court with a tenacity and vigour which would do credit to any union or management bully.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan
You seem to be being a little selective in your arguments. Now I have been on leave for the last 10 days and still am.
I seem to remember you saying
are you crew? If so how do you legitimately carry out strike action? Its a genuine question, but alas you seem to have dodged answering any direct question so I guess I won't hold my breath.
I'm not sure of your agenda here? If perhaps 60+% of your colleagues had not turned up for work then the strike may have been a success for UNITE/BASSA. Even a recent BASSA newsletter highlights this fact, but hang on your not a member so you would not know what it said.......right
FYI trained pilot VCC make up less than 15% of the total BASSA have been the companies best recruiter in this campaign, for every twist and turn has resulted in bitter, yet vague accusations and insinuation as well as a few insults against every department within the BA address book, time for reflection I think
I seem to remember you saying
Ahem Wrbelestrum...I do not belong to Bassa but am very supportive of UNITE and its intended actions.
Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this dispute....and worst of all our own FD colleagues amongst them.
FYI trained pilot VCC make up less than 15% of the total
BASSA have been the companies best recruiter in this campaign, for every twist and turn has resulted in bitter, yet vague accusations and insinuation as well as a few insults against every department within the BA address book, time for reflection I think
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found the newsletter in my inbox
This from BASSA Juan
If the same number that broke the strike before do so again, then it's
> over; your union has been destroyed, not by Mr. Walsh - he could never
> achieve that - but by you from within, by deserting us when the going got
> tough.
> over; your union has been destroyed, not by Mr. Walsh - he could never
> achieve that - but by you from within, by deserting us when the going got
> tough.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lon
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that a legal opinion or just one from a mate down the pub, or if you want even worse legal opinion, does that come from a BASSA rep?
I'll take their word over yours.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lon
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 Limit on damages awarded against trade unions in actions in tort
(1)This section applies to any proceedings in tort brought against a trade union, except—
(a)proceedings for personal injury as a result of negligence, nuisance or breach of duty;
(b)proceedings for breach of duty in connection with the ownership, occupation, possession, control or use of property;
(c)proceedings brought by virtue of Part I of the M1Consumer Protection Act 1987 (product liability).
(2)In any proceedings in tort to which this section applies the amount which may awarded against the union by way of damages shall not exceed the following limit—
Number of members of union Maximum award of damages
Less than 5,000 £10,000
5,000 or more but less than 25,000 £50,000
25,000 or more but less than 100,000 £125,000
100,000 or more £250,000
(3)The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) so as to vary any of the sums specified; and the order may make such transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4)Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5)In this section—
“breach of duty" means breach of a duty imposed by any rule of law or by or under any enactment;
“personal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition; and
“property" means any property, whether real or personal (or in Scotland, heritable or moveable).
(1)This section applies to any proceedings in tort brought against a trade union, except—
(a)proceedings for personal injury as a result of negligence, nuisance or breach of duty;
(b)proceedings for breach of duty in connection with the ownership, occupation, possession, control or use of property;
(c)proceedings brought by virtue of Part I of the M1Consumer Protection Act 1987 (product liability).
(2)In any proceedings in tort to which this section applies the amount which may awarded against the union by way of damages shall not exceed the following limit—
Number of members of union Maximum award of damages
Less than 5,000 £10,000
5,000 or more but less than 25,000 £50,000
25,000 or more but less than 100,000 £125,000
100,000 or more £250,000
(3)The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) so as to vary any of the sums specified; and the order may make such transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4)Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5)In this section—
“breach of duty" means breach of a duty imposed by any rule of law or by or under any enactment;
“personal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition; and
“property" means any property, whether real or personal (or in Scotland, heritable or moveable).
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaks for itself.
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC v UNITE THE UNION
QBD (McCombe J) 17/5/2010
An interim injunction to restrain a trade union from proceeding with proposed industrial actions against an airline and inducing its employees to breach their contract of employment was granted as it was arguable that the trade union had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231 to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in a ballot were informed of the information specified under that provision.
The applicant airline (B) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (U) from inducing B's employees to breach their contract of employment by proceeding with proposed industrial actions. U had proposed to proceed with industrial actions between certain specified periods following the results of a ballot which supported the actions. B's case was that although U had taken every step to communicate the results of the ballot it had failed to take reasonably necessary steps to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231, namely the number of votes cast in the ballot, the number of individuals answering "yes" to the relevant question, the number of individuals answering "no" and the number of spoiled voting papers. B maintained that all relevant information was available in a scrutiniser's report but U had not taken any active steps to make the information available.
According to U, the information in question was available from separate sources, including websites, notice boards at work and news sheets at suitable locations. B submitted that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Act and, therefore, its industrial actions would be without the protection afforded under s.219 and illegal.
B also argued that there would be severe economic and reputational damage if the injunction was refused. U argued that in view of its rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.11 the injunction should be refused.
HELD:
(1) In light of the decision in Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union (2009) EWCA Civ 829, (2010) ICR 173 concerning the requirements imposed on trade unions by the Act and restrictions on rights under art.11, the court would refuse to grant an injunction on the basis that s.231 of the Act was incompatible with the Convention, Metrobus followed.
(2) In exercising its discretion whether to grant the injunction, the court would have regard to the likelihood of success at trial in accordance with s.221(2) of the Act. It was not possible to hold that U's likelihood of success at trial was overwhelming. Also, it was arguable that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of s.231, namely to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified under the provision. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction to B.
Injunction granted.
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC v UNITE THE UNION
QBD (McCombe J) 17/5/2010
An interim injunction to restrain a trade union from proceeding with proposed industrial actions against an airline and inducing its employees to breach their contract of employment was granted as it was arguable that the trade union had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231 to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in a ballot were informed of the information specified under that provision.
The applicant airline (B) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (U) from inducing B's employees to breach their contract of employment by proceeding with proposed industrial actions. U had proposed to proceed with industrial actions between certain specified periods following the results of a ballot which supported the actions. B's case was that although U had taken every step to communicate the results of the ballot it had failed to take reasonably necessary steps to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231, namely the number of votes cast in the ballot, the number of individuals answering "yes" to the relevant question, the number of individuals answering "no" and the number of spoiled voting papers. B maintained that all relevant information was available in a scrutiniser's report but U had not taken any active steps to make the information available.
According to U, the information in question was available from separate sources, including websites, notice boards at work and news sheets at suitable locations. B submitted that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Act and, therefore, its industrial actions would be without the protection afforded under s.219 and illegal.
B also argued that there would be severe economic and reputational damage if the injunction was refused. U argued that in view of its rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.11 the injunction should be refused.
HELD:
(1) In light of the decision in Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union (2009) EWCA Civ 829, (2010) ICR 173 concerning the requirements imposed on trade unions by the Act and restrictions on rights under art.11, the court would refuse to grant an injunction on the basis that s.231 of the Act was incompatible with the Convention, Metrobus followed.
(2) In exercising its discretion whether to grant the injunction, the court would have regard to the likelihood of success at trial in accordance with s.221(2) of the Act. It was not possible to hold that U's likelihood of success at trial was overwhelming. Also, it was arguable that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of s.231, namely to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified under the provision. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction to B.
Injunction granted.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VCC
Juan Odeboyse wrote:
Crikey, those 1,000 VCC of whom 300 worked during the last two strikes must be the most powerful people in the land to have decimated BA.
Those who have decimated this once proud company are those that volunteered to work as CC in this dispute
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone should read OverFlares post:
To be honest I don't think the injunction does make the strike illegal. An injunction is granted on the balance of probabilities - so the judge thinks it is likely that the ballot was improperly conducted - but a full trial would be needed to decide the issue. To be sure, given that the injunction was granted (but it might be overturned) I think BA would have a good chance of winning such a trial (although that "good" chance would be reduced if Unite win on appeal) - and then I understand the strikers could be exposed as having taken part in illegal action.
Personally though I doubt BA will actually take this course of action. But they might threaten it to prevent any further strike action or ballots. To be honest, unless Unite do get the appeal and win it, this dispute is over and BASSA are finished. The protected period runs out after 12th June and, even if there is a new ballot on the same issue, as far as I am aware this won't be extended. So even with another legal ballot strikers could still be dismissed after that date anyway.
Personally though I doubt BA will actually take this course of action. But they might threaten it to prevent any further strike action or ballots. To be honest, unless Unite do get the appeal and win it, this dispute is over and BASSA are finished. The protected period runs out after 12th June and, even if there is a new ballot on the same issue, as far as I am aware this won't be extended. So even with another legal ballot strikers could still be dismissed after that date anyway.
Maybe one of the reasons the union is chasing hard for an appeal is because their lawyers have pointed out just how much trouble they will be in otherwise.
I can't see the CoA overturning the decision - the precident has been set in the metrobus case last year and to overturn this decision would affectiely mean a law change. This is likely to have to go to the supreme court to do. Will UNITE go that far ? Can they afford to ? Can they afford not to ?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arthur
I hear what your sayingand agree with you, but then you go on to pontificate on what might happen next
These are the facts, so everyone should digest this before pontificating on what might happen next.
and agree with you, but then you go on to pontificate on what might happen next
However, i share this opinion. If UNITE are busted now, or after the appeal, they'll lose all credibility to run a strike and more and more employers will run up against them. And more and more employees will wonder exactly what they pay their £xxx/year subscription. I think UNITE are now in a very precarious position.
I can't see the CoA overturning the decision - the precident has been set in the metrobus case last year and to overturn this decision would affectiely mean a law change. This is likely to have to go to the supreme court to do. Will UNITE go that far ? Can they afford to ? Can they afford not to ?
I can't see the CoA overturning the decision - the precident has been set in the metrobus case last year and to overturn this decision would affectiely mean a law change. This is likely to have to go to the supreme court to do. Will UNITE go that far ? Can they afford to ? Can they afford not to ?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Busted !!
I meant about the 'sacking' of strikers/illeagl strike etc....
However, guilty as charged for pontificating on UNITEs precarious position. I seriously think they are in a pretty dark place right now. Damned if they do appeal, damned if they don't. Its certainly gone beyond representing CC - thats for sure.
[See - just can't help myself !!
]
I meant about the 'sacking' of strikers/illeagl strike etc....
However, guilty as charged for pontificating on UNITEs precarious position. I seriously think they are in a pretty dark place right now. Damned if they do appeal, damned if they don't. Its certainly gone beyond representing CC - thats for sure.
[See - just can't help myself !!
]
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: As far away from work as possible
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNITE must hope that it wins the right to appeal and does so successfully. Otherwise they may expect, besides BA, a large number of disgruntled SLF to claim damages (including consequential) for losses caused by BA flights cancelled or postponed due to unprotected IA authorised by UNITE. Moreover, individual SLF often have a tendency to exact revenge through the small claims court with a tenacity and vigour which would do credit to any union or management bully.
It is not only the paying customers and BA that have lost money, consider all the staff that should have been woking but couldn't - they have lost money too. I for one will quite happily go to the Small Claims Court against BASSA for loss of earnings.
Making a Claim