British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: cheltenham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, we need more pro bassa crew in here to debate the issues
I hope you accept I haven't been "aggressive or demeaning" in an way. The questions were to help me understand your position, and perhaps to also allow you to understand my position and reflect on it. The fact that you actually conceded that an action wasn't in your best interests surprised me and showed that you had in fact paused and considered my points. Strangely the effect of that was that I did the same
Who knows, perhaps there is way through this mess if we just all talked without the spin etc
I hope you accept I haven't been "aggressive or demeaning" in an way. The questions were to help me understand your position, and perhaps to also allow you to understand my position and reflect on it. The fact that you actually conceded that an action wasn't in your best interests surprised me and showed that you had in fact paused and considered my points. Strangely the effect of that was that I did the same
Who knows, perhaps there is way through this mess if we just all talked without the spin etc
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bacabincrew
Your view point is important. We are all trying to make sense of the mess we are in. I agree with other posts that sometimes the comments are made out of sheer frustration.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of people may be under the impression that the 'imposition' is just about one crew member less on board and aircraft - on certain routes it is in fact 3 crew members less (as I am sure some of you know) - however there are a number of other issues that are part of the imposition - I have listed them for you all below - right I have to go now, in case some of you think Im running away !
1. One crew member will be removed from all Heathrow Worldwide 747 flights from 16th November 2009.
2. One purser will be removed from all Heathrow Worldwide 777 flights from 16th November 2009.
3. One crew member will also be removed from Long range 777 Worldwide routes from 16th November 2009.
4. An additional crewmember will also be removed from specified high work load 747 and 777 routes from 16th November 2009. As per agreement reached post September 11th 2001.
5. All worldwide CSD’s will be instructed to carry out some of the duties of the removed crew member, in addition to and with no reduction of their already high workload. This is without any reference to the negotiated job description as defined in the CSD framework.
6. All remaining worldwide crew members will be instructed to carry out some of the duties of the removed purser and or main crew position, with no reduction of their already high workload.
7. Eurofleet crew compliments will be unilaterally reduced from 1st December 2009.
8. You are replacing one Purser position with a main crew member on the 777 aircraft at London Gatwick from 1st December 2009.
9. You are imposing a two year freeze to base pay and allowances on all cabin crew.
10.You have imposed a 20% reduction in employee food subsidies at both Heathrow and Gatwick.
11.You are reducing transfer and promotion opportunities within all grades and bases within the established crew compliments.
12.You are ending working up payments
13.You are linking long and short haul sectors within the same duty between Gatwick/LCY and JFK via SNN– in breach of the Gatwick Fleet MOA.
14.You are ignoring the maximum planned duty period allowed by the Gatwick Fleet MOA, intentionally misinterpreting the same in order to facilitate the Maldives itinerary.
15.You are unilaterally removing the ability for crew to transfer between Gatwick Fleet and Heathrow Fleet presently available under the Ops and Choice Agreement ratified at NSP
16.You are refusing to recognise and failing to adhere to the IFC- Terms of Reference and other specific agreements. These agreements and terms of reference relate to product development, product changes and crewing levels onboard both long haul and short haul services from Heathrow and Gatwick.
17.You have re-imposed the concept of using part time cabin crew during their unavailable period, without agreement to cover flying duties. This contravenes the agreement reached with the trade unions in the dispute settlement document in 2006/7.
18.You have failed to honour the Dispute Settlement Document of 2006/7, in that there are a number of outstanding items that have not been implemented or addressed by British Airways.
Your refusal to either engage in any meaningful way or negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement on contractual matters as well as industrial agreements is unacceptable.
This coupled with your confirmed actions in imposing fundamental changes to working arrangements, practices and contractual matters affecting our members leave us in dispute.
1. One crew member will be removed from all Heathrow Worldwide 747 flights from 16th November 2009.
2. One purser will be removed from all Heathrow Worldwide 777 flights from 16th November 2009.
3. One crew member will also be removed from Long range 777 Worldwide routes from 16th November 2009.
4. An additional crewmember will also be removed from specified high work load 747 and 777 routes from 16th November 2009. As per agreement reached post September 11th 2001.
5. All worldwide CSD’s will be instructed to carry out some of the duties of the removed crew member, in addition to and with no reduction of their already high workload. This is without any reference to the negotiated job description as defined in the CSD framework.
6. All remaining worldwide crew members will be instructed to carry out some of the duties of the removed purser and or main crew position, with no reduction of their already high workload.
7. Eurofleet crew compliments will be unilaterally reduced from 1st December 2009.
8. You are replacing one Purser position with a main crew member on the 777 aircraft at London Gatwick from 1st December 2009.
9. You are imposing a two year freeze to base pay and allowances on all cabin crew.
10.You have imposed a 20% reduction in employee food subsidies at both Heathrow and Gatwick.
11.You are reducing transfer and promotion opportunities within all grades and bases within the established crew compliments.
12.You are ending working up payments
13.You are linking long and short haul sectors within the same duty between Gatwick/LCY and JFK via SNN– in breach of the Gatwick Fleet MOA.
14.You are ignoring the maximum planned duty period allowed by the Gatwick Fleet MOA, intentionally misinterpreting the same in order to facilitate the Maldives itinerary.
15.You are unilaterally removing the ability for crew to transfer between Gatwick Fleet and Heathrow Fleet presently available under the Ops and Choice Agreement ratified at NSP
16.You are refusing to recognise and failing to adhere to the IFC- Terms of Reference and other specific agreements. These agreements and terms of reference relate to product development, product changes and crewing levels onboard both long haul and short haul services from Heathrow and Gatwick.
17.You have re-imposed the concept of using part time cabin crew during their unavailable period, without agreement to cover flying duties. This contravenes the agreement reached with the trade unions in the dispute settlement document in 2006/7.
18.You have failed to honour the Dispute Settlement Document of 2006/7, in that there are a number of outstanding items that have not been implemented or addressed by British Airways.
Your refusal to either engage in any meaningful way or negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement on contractual matters as well as industrial agreements is unacceptable.
This coupled with your confirmed actions in imposing fundamental changes to working arrangements, practices and contractual matters affecting our members leave us in dispute.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bacabincrew,
Please be assured this is not a personal attack. I appreciate your argument but (after a year or so) I still find I'm not entirely sure about where Unite is truly coming from and as you are one of the few pro-BASSA posters on this thread (which is greatly appreciated), unfortunately you get the chance to answer the questions which seem too difficult for your union leadership.
No more churlish than announcing strike dates when it was part of an agreed deal not to. 
This brings us back to where we started. If the union didn't feel the offer was in the member's interests last week, hence they rejected it and announced the strikes, why would the same offer now be in the member's interests this week? Alternatively, if it still isn't in the member's interests, why bother asking for it to be put to them?
-----------------------------------------
Ref your post above, while some of the points are perhaps valid complaints (although whether it's worth striking about is a different question):
10. This effects all groups, not just cabin crew.
13. LCY-SNN-JFK is crewed by volunteers, all of whom were quite happy to do it, despite their MOA.
Clearly, while (I hope) BASSA are not striking about the base catering subsidy, surely as no-one is being forced to operate LCY-SNN-JFK outside their agreements, that negates any complaint on those grounds. Doesn't it?
Please be assured this is not a personal attack. I appreciate your argument but (after a year or so) I still find I'm not entirely sure about where Unite is truly coming from and as you are one of the few pro-BASSA posters on this thread (which is greatly appreciated), unfortunately you get the chance to answer the questions which seem too difficult for your union leadership.
As the Union where minded not to recommend the offer maybe it wasn't in the members best interests - however to me it seems churlish to withdraw it
This brings us back to where we started. If the union didn't feel the offer was in the member's interests last week, hence they rejected it and announced the strikes, why would the same offer now be in the member's interests this week? Alternatively, if it still isn't in the member's interests, why bother asking for it to be put to them?
-----------------------------------------
Ref your post above, while some of the points are perhaps valid complaints (although whether it's worth striking about is a different question):
10. This effects all groups, not just cabin crew.
13. LCY-SNN-JFK is crewed by volunteers, all of whom were quite happy to do it, despite their MOA.
Clearly, while (I hope) BASSA are not striking about the base catering subsidy, surely as no-one is being forced to operate LCY-SNN-JFK outside their agreements, that negates any complaint on those grounds. Doesn't it?
Last edited by Human Factor; 26th Mar 2010 at 16:38.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bacabincrew
You have your viewpoint and I resect that.We will agree to disagree on this one as I cannot find any evidence of Bassa getting the best possible deal for their members.
Before you go ahead and throw away your pay and staff travel take the time to read your ESS messages.Read the letter you got today from Bill Francis.It says current crew will be protected.How long will his patience last?
The fact that cc are employing their own lawyers to help them now shows the incompetance of Unite.
Please read both sides carefully.Have a look at the offer from last June that was posted this afternoon.What was wrong with that?
You have your viewpoint and I resect that.We will agree to disagree on this one as I cannot find any evidence of Bassa getting the best possible deal for their members.
Before you go ahead and throw away your pay and staff travel take the time to read your ESS messages.Read the letter you got today from Bill Francis.It says current crew will be protected.How long will his patience last?
The fact that cc are employing their own lawyers to help them now shows the incompetance of Unite.
Please read both sides carefully.Have a look at the offer from last June that was posted this afternoon.What was wrong with that?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why has the union for once been proactive and propose the now expired proposals to its members?
If accepted they would have a new bargaining tool to end this long and damaging disgraceful nightmare.
If accepted they would have a new bargaining tool to end this long and damaging disgraceful nightmare.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite claimed that a union representative had been sacked today - the first
person to be dismissed since the dispute started.
person to be dismissed since the dispute started.
In a separate announcement BA said it had dismissed a member of long-haul cabin crew at Heathrow "for gross misconduct with regards to bullying, intimidation and harassment of another member of staff".
BA have been briefing the press all day today. One of the topics is the misleading nature of the plan to produce P60s.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imposition again
Hi bacabincrew,
You repeated what Unite has told you.
But will you acknowledge that Unite and BA had argued about all of this for months without resolution? This is a basic fact which cannot be ignored. It is also an important fact because it completely undermines the claim that BA imposed changes without negotiation.
You repeated what Unite has told you.
But will you acknowledge that Unite and BA had argued about all of this for months without resolution? This is a basic fact which cannot be ignored. It is also an important fact because it completely undermines the claim that BA imposed changes without negotiation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly12345
Before I go - and I really have to go....
The truth in all of this are that the Cabin Crew are scared, genuinely scared for their futures, they see this imposition as the thin end of the wedge, we all know that BA needs to cut costs, we all want to play a part in that, we all love working for BA, however we simply have no trust in the actions of our management (both IFCE and above) - New Fleet is seen by many as a 'Trojan Horse' much as Openskies was perceived to be.
Yes I agree the Union may have handled things better - however in my opinion the biggest failing in all of this is the way that BA have communicated the need for change to their employees - that is the massive failure through all of this. We have a constantly changing Head of IFCE/Cabin Services - call it what you like - and because of that constant change there is no consistency in the messages we are given. If I where on the Board of BA I wold be asking how can we alienate such a massive part of our workforce in what is perceived by most to be the most important customer facing role in the company.
Change management - or lack of it - that is the massive failing here
The truth in all of this are that the Cabin Crew are scared, genuinely scared for their futures, they see this imposition as the thin end of the wedge, we all know that BA needs to cut costs, we all want to play a part in that, we all love working for BA, however we simply have no trust in the actions of our management (both IFCE and above) - New Fleet is seen by many as a 'Trojan Horse' much as Openskies was perceived to be.
Yes I agree the Union may have handled things better - however in my opinion the biggest failing in all of this is the way that BA have communicated the need for change to their employees - that is the massive failure through all of this. We have a constantly changing Head of IFCE/Cabin Services - call it what you like - and because of that constant change there is no consistency in the messages we are given. If I where on the Board of BA I wold be asking how can we alienate such a massive part of our workforce in what is perceived by most to be the most important customer facing role in the company.
Change management - or lack of it - that is the massive failing here
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree the Union may have handled things better - however in my opinion the biggest failing in all of this is the way that BA have communicated the need for change to their employees - that is the massive failure through all of this. We have a constantly changing Head of IFCE/Cabin Services - call it what you like - and because of that constant change there is no consistency in the messages we are given. If I where on the Board of BA I wold be asking how can we alienate such a massive part of our workforce in what is perceived by most to be the most important customer facing role in the company.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
removal of ST from striking staff
the recent post by ILS27LEFT (specifically the misguided view that ST removal is "probably not lawful") highlights how a minority of CC seem still to be deluding themselves on this thorny topic. I'm not sure whether this happens because many long-servers have no prior experience outside the industry, or whether they have been brainwashed by BASSA's oddball unsubstantiated theories
let me try this ........
ST removal is directly connected to current strike action ; and it is also NOT connected to current strike action
how so ??
well, like various perks in many other industries (eg retail discount), ST benefit is provided totally at the discretion of senior mgt, and as such can be withdrawn at ANY time. It is NOT, repeat NOT legally contractual, so please stop kidding yourself that is. That said, WW would be most unlikely to withdraw it in normal circumstances because he knows how much this would damage the goodwill & loyalty of staff. However when confronted with IA he has taken the view that striking staff are no longer showing loyalty or goodwill so why should he show goodwill in return by maintaining a valuable privilege ??
Now you may well disagree with his action, many CC do. You may think he's being 'unfair' BUT please stop kidding yourself that he is acting illegally or that he will somehow be 'forced' to re-instate ST as part of future negotiations
finally ..... WW has never questioned the legality of the strike itself. But, just as he recognises the right of staff to strike, so strikers must recognise HIS right to take whatever action in response he sees fit in his role as CEO. His prime responsibility is to protect the interests of the organisation and its shareholders, and ultimately he will be judged - as with any CEO - on just how well he manages to do this.
At the risk of stating the obvious WW and his team must continue to pay careful heed to what staff and customers are thinking and doing. But you can be sure that whatever happens, BASSA/Unite will NOT be the final arbiter in all this ........
let me try this ........
ST removal is directly connected to current strike action ; and it is also NOT connected to current strike action
how so ??
well, like various perks in many other industries (eg retail discount), ST benefit is provided totally at the discretion of senior mgt, and as such can be withdrawn at ANY time. It is NOT, repeat NOT legally contractual, so please stop kidding yourself that is. That said, WW would be most unlikely to withdraw it in normal circumstances because he knows how much this would damage the goodwill & loyalty of staff. However when confronted with IA he has taken the view that striking staff are no longer showing loyalty or goodwill so why should he show goodwill in return by maintaining a valuable privilege ??
Now you may well disagree with his action, many CC do. You may think he's being 'unfair' BUT please stop kidding yourself that he is acting illegally or that he will somehow be 'forced' to re-instate ST as part of future negotiations
finally ..... WW has never questioned the legality of the strike itself. But, just as he recognises the right of staff to strike, so strikers must recognise HIS right to take whatever action in response he sees fit in his role as CEO. His prime responsibility is to protect the interests of the organisation and its shareholders, and ultimately he will be judged - as with any CEO - on just how well he manages to do this.
At the risk of stating the obvious WW and his team must continue to pay careful heed to what staff and customers are thinking and doing. But you can be sure that whatever happens, BASSA/Unite will NOT be the final arbiter in all this ........
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bacabincrew
That last post was excellent.
Don't want to say too much on a public forum but I think the low level management of cc is very hit or miss.
There was a post on this by a Cpt saying about the problems he encountered with the issue of strikers and non strikers meeting up.The first manager was apathetic,the second sorted it out.
That is the reason that the crew turn to Bassa if they are in need.
However,at this moment in time,the higher levels of management who are dealing with this are not being underhand.
That last post was excellent.
Don't want to say too much on a public forum but I think the low level management of cc is very hit or miss.
There was a post on this by a Cpt saying about the problems he encountered with the issue of strikers and non strikers meeting up.The first manager was apathetic,the second sorted it out.
That is the reason that the crew turn to Bassa if they are in need.
However,at this moment in time,the higher levels of management who are dealing with this are not being underhand.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bacabincrew,
How can you say that ba cabin crew are scared for their future when they are doing everything and more to destroy any possibility and chance to have a decent future?
Are we forgetting that despite all the self inflicted problems our company is still losing half a billion pounds and counting??
Time for reflection me thinks!
How can you say that ba cabin crew are scared for their future when they are doing everything and more to destroy any possibility and chance to have a decent future?
Are we forgetting that despite all the self inflicted problems our company is still losing half a billion pounds and counting??
Time for reflection me thinks!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAcabincrew
A good posting. I think it sums up the thoughts of many of our crew members. Thin end of the wedge.
Would it be fair to say that people are going to strike over what MIGHT happen as opposed to what has happened?
Do the crew take any value in BA's assurances that the current crew will not be affected? I do worry for the CC, as reading BASSA account of the strike costs so far, there is no information I could honestly say was true.
A good posting. I think it sums up the thoughts of many of our crew members. Thin end of the wedge.
Would it be fair to say that people are going to strike over what MIGHT happen as opposed to what has happened?
Do the crew take any value in BA's assurances that the current crew will not be affected? I do worry for the CC, as reading BASSA account of the strike costs so far, there is no information I could honestly say was true.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree the Union may have handled things better - however in my opinion the biggest failing in all of this is the way that BA have communicated the need for change to their employees - that is the massive failure through all of this. We have a constantly changing Head of IFCE/Cabin Services - call it what you like - and because of that constant change there is no consistency in the messages we are given. If I where on the Board of BA I wold be asking how can we alienate such a massive part of our workforce in what is perceived by most to be the most important customer facing role in the company.
Change management - or lack of it - that is the massive failing here
Change management - or lack of it - that is the massive failing here
If the union could communicate in as clear a manner as you have here, I doubt there would be a strike at present. It does however take two to tango, so to speak.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA Planning for Bedfont Fun Day Tomorrow
OK, it's not strictly on topic and I've no doubt it'll be moderated away but hey,
it made me laugh.
On a serious note, am I alone in thinking that the publicity from holding a family fun day at the field HQ of a debilitating and publicly disliked strike is liable to blow up in Unite's face. Much like Sammy the Snake later on in that episode.
MrB
Last edited by MrBunker; 26th Mar 2010 at 18:03. Reason: To add....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dispute and intimidation.
-Fear of talking to the media-
It is true that all large Organisations have strict policies in relation to employees talking to the media but it is the first time many experienced journalists have witnessed a situation where basically all "strikers" talking to media e.g. SKY News, BBC News, etc were doing so without deliberately showing their faces or their real voices because otherwise they would have been dismissed by BA. Fear, fear, fear.
The strikers are seriously frightened by this CEO and this is not a well managed dispute in a mature democracy.
Either you think the right to strike is not a legal option at all or you agree with the present legislation and accept the fact that this action is a legal right and therefore it is an 100% legal strike and you cannot intimidate those who decide to strike.
Then if we all agree that this is a legal strike, why does the CEO decide to penalise those who are or went on strike? Where is the logic behind this decision?
The truth is that this CEO wants to retaliate against those who went on strike to frighten and intimidate all CC for the future. This behaviour is typical of bullying tactics. You cannot have a legal established recognised right and at the same time greatly punish those who actually materialise this right by instigating lawful strike action.
If you are a responsible Employer you can never discriminate unlawfully. Full stop.
A judge will decide and this post will make sense.
Unfortunately we can carry on for ever in debating which side is right or wrong and we will probably never agree as it is a complex issue and both sides have their valid points indeed: I do not have a prejudice and I am not on any side from the beginning, I have been confused and I have changed my mind, I am willing to change side again if convinced by the events, the main fact remains that this specific strike remains a completely legal action taken in a democratic EU country and it is unacceptable that the strikers travel benefits have officially been removed only because of this lawful strike action. This is clearly and simply an unlawful act by the CEO and BA Board will have to admit this huge mistake soon or later.
Hopefully I am wrong and the CEO is right. I hope to be wrong.
"finally ..... WW has never questioned the legality of the strike itself. But, just as he recognises the right of staff to strike, so strikers must recognise HIS right to take whatever action in response he sees fit in his role as CEO. His prime responsibility is to protect the interests of the organisation and its shareholders, and ultimately he will be judged - as with any CEO - on just how well he manages to do this."
Exactly, I totally agree with the above comment. But if Willie is really a great successfull CEO he should know that the interests of the organisation and shareholders must necessary also include the engagement, morale and dedication of the BA Cabin Crew, the front line customer facing people. He has done exactly the opposite by suspending travel benefits. He has told his valuable and loyal CC Team: "you strike --->I punish you". All legislation in relation to strike rights wanted to avoid exactly this type of Employer retaliation otherwise the right to strike is basically indirectly denied. It is so simple.
A judge will take over.
It is true that all large Organisations have strict policies in relation to employees talking to the media but it is the first time many experienced journalists have witnessed a situation where basically all "strikers" talking to media e.g. SKY News, BBC News, etc were doing so without deliberately showing their faces or their real voices because otherwise they would have been dismissed by BA. Fear, fear, fear.
The strikers are seriously frightened by this CEO and this is not a well managed dispute in a mature democracy.
Either you think the right to strike is not a legal option at all or you agree with the present legislation and accept the fact that this action is a legal right and therefore it is an 100% legal strike and you cannot intimidate those who decide to strike.
Then if we all agree that this is a legal strike, why does the CEO decide to penalise those who are or went on strike? Where is the logic behind this decision?
The truth is that this CEO wants to retaliate against those who went on strike to frighten and intimidate all CC for the future. This behaviour is typical of bullying tactics. You cannot have a legal established recognised right and at the same time greatly punish those who actually materialise this right by instigating lawful strike action.
If you are a responsible Employer you can never discriminate unlawfully. Full stop.
A judge will decide and this post will make sense.
Unfortunately we can carry on for ever in debating which side is right or wrong and we will probably never agree as it is a complex issue and both sides have their valid points indeed: I do not have a prejudice and I am not on any side from the beginning, I have been confused and I have changed my mind, I am willing to change side again if convinced by the events, the main fact remains that this specific strike remains a completely legal action taken in a democratic EU country and it is unacceptable that the strikers travel benefits have officially been removed only because of this lawful strike action. This is clearly and simply an unlawful act by the CEO and BA Board will have to admit this huge mistake soon or later.
Hopefully I am wrong and the CEO is right. I hope to be wrong.
"finally ..... WW has never questioned the legality of the strike itself. But, just as he recognises the right of staff to strike, so strikers must recognise HIS right to take whatever action in response he sees fit in his role as CEO. His prime responsibility is to protect the interests of the organisation and its shareholders, and ultimately he will be judged - as with any CEO - on just how well he manages to do this."
Exactly, I totally agree with the above comment. But if Willie is really a great successfull CEO he should know that the interests of the organisation and shareholders must necessary also include the engagement, morale and dedication of the BA Cabin Crew, the front line customer facing people. He has done exactly the opposite by suspending travel benefits. He has told his valuable and loyal CC Team: "you strike --->I punish you". All legislation in relation to strike rights wanted to avoid exactly this type of Employer retaliation otherwise the right to strike is basically indirectly denied.
It is so simple.A judge will take over.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC reporting that Walsh's decision to remove travel perks is probably unlawful and staff could legitimately claim compensation. It is all to do with employment law preventing certain employees of a company being blacklisted against others.
He's doing it to intimidate staff, but here's to the crew that get together and take him to court over unlawful blacklisting.
He's doing it to intimidate staff, but here's to the crew that get together and take him to court over unlawful blacklisting.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we need any evidence that there are some thoughtless individuals within our airline then please drive along the A 264 towards Copthorne. Here a caravan has been abandoned at a layby and graffitied all over with Walsh out, back Ba cabin crew. Whilst everyone has the right to demonstrate peacefully, what kind of message do you think this conveys? I've never felt so ashamed to wear my uniform. This kind of act of vandalism makes us all look like thugs.