British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[Juan Tugoh]

Again yourself / Juan Tugoh mention future sackings of crew, if they participate in any future IA linked to any previous strikes.
Your wrong on this, all crew will still be protected

This has been done to death and the law is well established and understood.

Unless a new ballot is about a new issue, one that has not been part of the previous dispute then the crew individually be taking part in unprotected IA. (Note I do not say that BA will do this, rather that these are the ramifications should they sack you.) This means that should they be sacked by the company then it will not be automatically deemed to be unlawful dismissal. They would have to go to an industrial tribunal to establish that they had been unlawfully dismissed, and even if they win the chances of the Tribunal ordering reinstatement are slim. Even if reinstatement is ordered, and this is highly unlikely, it is not enforceable. The best that someone in this situation could hope for would be some compensation which is capped and defined by a strict formula.

The Union will also be unprotected from being sued for losses incurred by the taking of IA. They would have to prove that the issues being struck over are new and separate from any previous IA taken. Losses from the last set of IA ran at £7m a day, how long could UNITE cope with a bill for these losses? So before UNITE will sanction a further ballot, they will have to be very sure that they have a cast iron case.

As I understand the issue, only UNITE can authorise a ballot and call a strike; once started only BASSA can call off the strike. So ask yourself, for all DHs rantings and the outcome of any tub thumping on the 6th, do UNITE feel they have a brand new unrelated dispute? If the answer is no then the chances of IA are small.

On a personal level, given the current employment market, how many CC are willing to put themselves out of a job "that they love" on a gamble?

If as, Shah100 feels, you believe that all the above is wrong, then go ahead and spin the wheel. Take that chance with your life, before you do so make sure you do a little research as to what the law actually allows rather than what BASSA tells you the law allows.

[Lib Dem]

Bassa newsletter drivel and statistics !

In error, Bassa still sent me their latest newsletter that had little news to offer. One of the alleged dismissed crew photgraphed on the front has not yet been dismissed as it clearly acknowledges who that person is on the next few pages as she is a suspended Rep.
There are three separate reasons stated for the suspension of a Bassa Rep yet even Bassa will not repeat what the Rep had actually said or done so we know not whether to support her cause or not. I feel very sorry for her as Bassa/Unite are not helping her situation by merely sensationalising it.
By the figures in this newsletter there are approx 13,000 crew and they have received strike-pay claims from approx 6,300.
They then claim that 75% were on strike. You do the Maths.
Now that it transpires that Bassa, according to earlier posts on this thread, are the worst perpetrators of bullying and harrassment beyond all previously known boundaries. These hate campaigns from the Secretary of Bassa are inhumaine and illegal; surely.
It was addressed with a page entitled "possibly the last ever bassa newsletter".
Such irony........................

[Betty girl]

Lib Dem,
I noticed that too. Her photo was crossed out like she was one of the 13 but actually she is just suspended. It makes you wonder if the other photos are real.
It sounds like she was telling crew not to tell BA what someone else had told them and only to say what they saw. So she was asking them to lie about what they new. We don't know how much pressure she put on these crew. They were obviously upset by it because they told BA what she had been saying to them.

[Lib Dem]

If a TU Rep is mistreated for reasons purely to do with their rights to do their elected duties; then I will support that person.
I know nothing about the currently suspended Rep or the reasons for her dilemma so I cannot comment.
However, Bassa has been publicly starting smear postings and hate campaigns directed at Board Members, Strikers, Ex Reps, (not forgetting the pilots) and anyone who has thoughts that are not condusive to the curent Bassa leadership. They are then actively encouraging their members to join in with them; these poor misguided souls may then suffer the consequences for merely doing as directed by Bassa.
Last I heard the total number of suspended Crew was, including those whose disciplinaries have now concluded, about to reach 100.
Bassa are now trying to close the barn door long after they invited the horse to bolt. It's always someone else's fault !

[Meal Chucker]

Shah,

You seem to like 'spinning' your statistics.

You can spin the recent crew ballot figures all you want, but only 10% of crew decided to accept BA's offer

Or put another way, approx 90% of those eligible took BA's offer.

[malcolmf]

It sounds like she was telling crew not to tell BA what someone else had told them and only to say what they saw. So she was asking them to lie about what they new

But that would probably be sensible advice, in a court of law that would be regarded as hearsay and not admissible. If someone is acting as a witness, they can't just say what they heard on Galley FM.

[Betty girl]

Hear say is when someone else tells you something about another person or what another person is suposed to have said.

It is not hearsay if you are reporting what someone said to you personally.

So for instance if someone was proudly bragging that they poured some milk over a bunk to you. That would not be hearsay.

Even though you personally did not see them pouring it, I think it would be reasonable to report what was said to you.

We do not know the exact details and we also do not know if this rep was putting pressure on these crew not to say what they new. I can clearly understand that she was trying to help the accused crew member but how she was going about it must be the reason for her suspension.

[malcolmf]

So for instance if someone was proudly bragging that they poured some milk over a bunk to you. That would not be hearsay.

I can see that. It's obviously a very fine line to walk. As you say we don't have any details. It's a shame in one way that the cases aren't reported factually, there's far too much rumour and conjecture going the rounds.

[Betty girl]

I agree malcomf,

Sometimes we all talk about things when we don't know the true detail. I think we are all guilty of that myself included.

But I expect that's why it is called a rumour network!!!!

[malcolmf]

I've certainly had a couple of conversations with crew where when I have told them of facts behind one of the disciplinaries they have been literally speechless. At the moment, because of the understandable silence from BA on any disciplinary matters we end up with martyrs.

[Hand Solo]

Martyrs indeed, innocent victims of a BA witchhunt I was told. So imagine my surprise to open the Unite newsletter and there, on the front page, was the face of a well known trouble maker, who'd been on my personal watchlist for at least 5 years, staring out at me. Fancy that. Coincidence?

[Colonel White]

Shah,

responding to your points. As others have pointed out, by all accounts the take-up by non-union cabin crew of the deal on offer was pretty much 100%. Anyone in the union was bound by the collective decision of the members. The law expressly forbids BA from attempting to reduce union membership by offering inducements. Hence only those staff who were not members of the union could take up the offer. Perhaps you could direct me to evidence of these alleged union busting techniques deployed by BA. I do hope you are not referring to the usual BASSA puff stuff, full of dodgy assumptions, white lies and omissions.

Regarding the 100% schedule. Willie Walsh is no fool. He knows that having announced that BA will run a 100% longhaul schedule, that is precisely what the travelling public will expect. Failure to deliver would rebound badly on the brand. Thus it has to indicate the degree of confidence he has in the numbers of cabin crew who will ignore any strike call plus VCC plus Mixed fleet.

As far as the consultative ballot goes, nobody can say for certain who voted which way - that's the point of a secret ballot. However, the fact that less than half of those balloted actually voted suggests that either insufficient time was allowed for the ballot process, or papers were lost or not sent to the correct address, or over half the crew have simply had enough and want someone else to make the decision for them. Now two out of the three reasons I put forward were within BASSA's area of control. Let's look at BASSA's number for strikers. They claim that 7,000+ people walked out. So how come under half that number voted to reject the deal. You would have thought that if they were that incensed, then all 7000 odd would have voted to reject. Doesn't that sound a little strange ? I suggest that there may be many crew who rely on staff travel to get to work who probably didn't get ballot papers in time. They include those who lost their staff travel as well as those who worked through the strike. So your assertion that these folk are holding firm doesn't quite add up, does it ?

Juan Tugoh has very eloquently covered the point on the potential for strikers to be sacked. BASSA made the crucial mistake of broadening the basis for the last industrial action. They have no ammunition left now and consequently will struggle to put forward a viable basis for any future action. Perhaps the time has arrived for fresh leadership elections.

On that note I see that BASSA have displayed their usual outstanding inefficiency regarding nominations for the General Secretary of Unite. I believe the call for an extraordinary meeting went out today for a session to be held at noon on Friday. The nominations close at noon on Monday. Wonderful considering the paperwork for this was sent out in June. I can't quite work out whether this is a further display of ineptitude, arrogance that the executive didn't believe it needed to ballot members (especially as the recent flyer said that the branch supports Len McCluskey ) or an attempt to rig the result by the executive by allowing insufficient notice.

[stormin norman]

Perhaps BASSA and UNITE could find the time to have an extraordinary meeting with BA and try and solve this dispute.

[asperge]

In the interests of fairness, whoever produced this obviously fake and tasteless parody of a Union information leaflet should face the same consequences as the maker of the equally ridiculous Scabbin Crew News.

What happened to them then? I quite enjoyed Scabbin Crew News.

BA does not know who is in the union and who is not.

BA knows who is in BASSA as all union deductions are made by BA payroll. They still chose to send out the ballot form to BASSA members unnecessarily costing the company thousands of pounds.

[asperge]

there goes Lord Lucan riding Shergar down the Bath Road

Was he wearing stripes?
As this is supposed to be a part of the forum for cabin crew, why is it that our colleagues from other departments can't resist poking their noses in here? Is it boring in your own bits then?

[blimey]

asperge

Don't forget that many of your colleagues from other departments are also cabin crew

[Snas]

BA knows who is in BASSA as all union deductions are made by BA payroll. They still chose to send out the ballot form to BASSA members unnecessarily costing the company thousands of pounds.

Incorrect. Many / some members pay by direct debit and BA are not involved in the process at all.

BASSA dont know who are members remember.

[Betty girl]

asperge.
Just because a union sub was taken from you in May it does not mean that on 25 June you were still a union member. You may well have resigned during thoes 25 days or even prior to that.

So no BA cannot be sure who is or is not in either union.

The letter was a copy of the offer that BA were asking the union to accept on your behalf, so that is why we ALL got a copy.

The Company included an acceptance letter at the request of non union members because we, quite frankly, were sick of Bassa turning down offers we would have liked to accept. It clearly stated that it was for people that were not in the union on 25 June and therefore unable to participate in the union vote.

[spin_doctor]

It's our problem too

As this is supposed to be a part of the forum for cabin crew, why is it that our colleagues from other departments can't resist poking their noses in here?

Because contrary to the views of most BASSA supporters, cabin crew in BA are not 'the airline', the rest of us who make up the flight ops, sales, engineering, network planning, HR, ground staff, A/c movements and finance (amongst other) departments are quite keen to keep the airline running and return it to profitability.

The only department who don't seem to want to do that is cabin crew, hence this is where all the 'action' is at the moment.

[3Greens]

Asperge

As PPRUNE stands for professional PILOTS rumour network, the question could be asked as to why non-pilots even visit the website