British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bacabincrewmember
You said
A couple of minor points - btw I speak as one who has studied employment law.
Firstly, you quote from the DirectGov site, this is not the same as the legislation. No matter.
Secondly, the statement about what constitutes a 'blacklist' indicates that it must
a) contain information about trade union members or activists
and
b) have been complied to be used by employers or employment agencies to discriminate on grounds of trade union membership or activities when recruiting or when employing people
I put it to you that since you are already employed by BA any list of those who failed to report in for work on strike days could not be used by the company to discriminate when recruiting or employing you. Indeed, BA has a duty of care to maintain a list of all empoyees who have been rostered to work and all those who reported for work, By inference this also means that the company has an equal duty of care to know who has failed to report for work, such information being valuable in the event that a staff member is involved in, say, a road traffic accident whilst on their way to work. I believe that BA withdrew staff travel privileges from all staff who failed to report for work on any strike dates. This included any who were off sick. Any staff who could provide a doctor's certificate to substantiate their claim that they were sick as opposed to taking strike action had their staff travel restored.
On this basis I suggest that any attempt by Unite to pursue an action on the grounds of 'blacklist' legislation is doomed to fail.
Over to you.
[You are giving your interpretation of what the law says as if you are the Master of the Rolls]. Nope I am just quoting what the law states 
Quote:
For a list to be a 'blacklist' it must both:
Quote:
For a list to be a 'blacklist' it must both:
- contain information about trade union members or activists
- have been complied to be used by employers or employment agencies to discriminate on grounds of trade union membership or activities when recruiting or when employing people
Firstly, you quote from the DirectGov site, this is not the same as the legislation. No matter.
Secondly, the statement about what constitutes a 'blacklist' indicates that it must
a) contain information about trade union members or activists
and
b) have been complied to be used by employers or employment agencies to discriminate on grounds of trade union membership or activities when recruiting or when employing people
I put it to you that since you are already employed by BA any list of those who failed to report in for work on strike days could not be used by the company to discriminate when recruiting or employing you. Indeed, BA has a duty of care to maintain a list of all empoyees who have been rostered to work and all those who reported for work, By inference this also means that the company has an equal duty of care to know who has failed to report for work, such information being valuable in the event that a staff member is involved in, say, a road traffic accident whilst on their way to work. I believe that BA withdrew staff travel privileges from all staff who failed to report for work on any strike dates. This included any who were off sick. Any staff who could provide a doctor's certificate to substantiate their claim that they were sick as opposed to taking strike action had their staff travel restored.
On this basis I suggest that any attempt by Unite to pursue an action on the grounds of 'blacklist' legislation is doomed to fail.
Over to you.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*ping*
still no word from the BASSA supporters club either on
'what has Unite done for its cabin crew members?' (cue John Cleese in Life of Brian mode)
or
'BA has compiled an illegal blacklist'
Wonder why ? Especially as some of them seem to be logged on at the moment.
'what has Unite done for its cabin crew members?' (cue John Cleese in Life of Brian mode)
or
'BA has compiled an illegal blacklist'
Wonder why ? Especially as some of them seem to be logged on at the moment.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on blacklisting
There's an interesting paragraph in the government's guidance on the blacklisting regulations.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...s-guidance.pdf
So, according to the official guidance, even if the strikers are being discriminated against by having their ST removed and there is a list somewhere holding their names, a court would find in favour of BA if it decided a strike wasn't what was meant by "trade union activities" when the regulation was written.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...s-guidance.pdf
What are trade union activities?
There is no definition of this term in the Regulations. Participating in official industrial action would also probably be categorised as a trade union activity. This means that a list of strikers which was drawn up in order to discriminate against them in employment could constitute a blacklist.
So, according to the official guidance, even if the strikers are being discriminated against by having their ST removed and there is a list somewhere holding their names, a court would find in favour of BA if it decided a strike wasn't what was meant by "trade union activities" when the regulation was written.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's an interesting paragraph in the government's guidance on the blacklisting regulations.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...s-guidance.pdf
Quote:
What are trade union activities?
So, according to the official guidance, even if the strikers are being discriminated against by having their ST removed and there is a list somewhere holding their names, a court would find in favour of BA if it decided a strike wasn't what was meant by "trade union activities" when the regulation was written.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...s-guidance.pdf
Quote:
What are trade union activities?
There is no definition of this term in the Regulations. Participating in official industrial action would also probably be categorised as a trade union activity. This means that a list of strikers which was drawn up in order to discriminate against them in employment could constitute a blacklist.
So, according to the official guidance, even if the strikers are being discriminated against by having their ST removed and there is a list somewhere holding their names, a court would find in favour of BA if it decided a strike wasn't what was meant by "trade union activities" when the regulation was written.
It's potentially even simpler than that. My reading of the wording is that the intent of the legislation is to prevent an employer from using information relating to an individual's membership of a trade union to discriminate against actually employng them in the first place. So company A has applicant Z submit an application to join the company. The company may not approach a previous employer B and ask if Z was a TU member. Neither may company B as part of producing references indicate to company A that Z is/was a TU member.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The list that BA compiled contains my personal information (name address etc) and has been used in order to discriminate against me by removing Staff Travel after partaking in a lawful dispute
Notwithstanding that, the intent of the legislation is probably as outlined in the above posting.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel, I think you're mistaken
•
What is unlawful?
As well as the general prohibition against compiling, selling, supplying and
using a blacklist, the Regulations also make it unlawful for an employer
• to refuse a person employment for a reason related to a prohibited list;
As well as the general prohibition against compiling, selling, supplying and
using a blacklist, the Regulations also make it unlawful for an employer
• to refuse a person employment for a reason related to a prohibited list;
•
to dismiss an employee for a reason related to a prohibited list; and
•
•
to subject a worker to any other detriment for a reason related to a prohibited list.
The third bullet point seems to cover anything the employer might do to someone on a blacklist.
Having said that, a blacklist is a list of people who're union members or who were involved in union activities that has been compiled for the purpose of discriminating against them at some time in the future.
The removal of ST has already happened, so a list of people who've had ST removed is not a blacklist unless someone can satisfy a court that BA intends to impose some further sanction against the people on the list.
Having said that, a blacklist is a list of people who're union members or who were involved in union activities that has been compiled for the purpose of discriminating against them at some time in the future.
The removal of ST has already happened, so a list of people who've had ST removed is not a blacklist unless someone can satisfy a court that BA intends to impose some further sanction against the people on the list.
Last edited by DeThirdDefect; 27th Jul 2010 at 06:52.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACM you say that if staff travel was reinstated then you would sign up to the offer on the table. As there were several better offers on the table before the votes for IA and the eventual strikes I would like to ask,
Why did you vote for IA if there were better deals on the table that would have given you shares in the company and had you keeping staff travel, with an extra free bookable ticket each year?
Why did you then go on strike and lose your staff travel when you there was no need to do so as you say what is now on offer is acceptable to you even though what was on offer before the strikes started was better than todays deal?
I have been told of the existence of "hit lists" controlled by the BASSA posse, do these lists fall foul of the laws you are quoting?
Ava
As you live in Jo Burg I suppose you have some experience of race relations. How do you view the actions of your XXXX colleagues in the bar last week singing "I'd rather be a P**i than a Scab"? Do you think they would have garnered much sympathy from the other guests in the bar or the employees of the hotel, particularly the ones from the Rainbow Nation?
2-3 thousand pounds on tickets? Did you fly first class? Considering the time between the strikes finishing and now how have you managed to go home more than once?
Why did you vote for IA if there were better deals on the table that would have given you shares in the company and had you keeping staff travel, with an extra free bookable ticket each year?
Why did you then go on strike and lose your staff travel when you there was no need to do so as you say what is now on offer is acceptable to you even though what was on offer before the strikes started was better than todays deal?
I have been told of the existence of "hit lists" controlled by the BASSA posse, do these lists fall foul of the laws you are quoting?
Ava
As you live in Jo Burg I suppose you have some experience of race relations. How do you view the actions of your XXXX colleagues in the bar last week singing "I'd rather be a P**i than a Scab"? Do you think they would have garnered much sympathy from the other guests in the bar or the employees of the hotel, particularly the ones from the Rainbow Nation?
2-3 thousand pounds on tickets? Did you fly first class? Considering the time between the strikes finishing and now how have you managed to go home more than once?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I have no doubt that if Willie Walsh had fully reinstated staff travel, crew would have voted through the last offer.
This is why Walsh, like Hayward at BP and Crozier at the Royal Mail, is now the problem. Until he departs BA, there will be no settlement of this dispute. Through the unnecessary and unlawful punishment of strikers, Walsh has cost BA many millions more and has lengthened this dispute.
He might of thought it was a good wheeze, but the threat of removing ST failed as it did not prevent IA, and now Walsh cannot back down. All that money just to save one person's face.
This is why Walsh, like Hayward at BP and Crozier at the Royal Mail, is now the problem. Until he departs BA, there will be no settlement of this dispute. Through the unnecessary and unlawful punishment of strikers, Walsh has cost BA many millions more and has lengthened this dispute.
He might of thought it was a good wheeze, but the threat of removing ST failed as it did not prevent IA, and now Walsh cannot back down. All that money just to save one person's face.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has it failed? I met plenty of non-strikers who were only at work because of the threat of losing staff travel, and the strike has noticeably failed in extracting a better offer from Walsh, so I'd say the threat worked very well. And aren't you all up in arms and annoyed about it? What say you Manchurian Candidate?
PS Would you have voted for the offer if it included the return of staff travel but not the release of the hostages?
PS Would you have voted for the offer if it included the return of staff travel but not the release of the hostages?
He might of thought it was a good wheeze, but the threat of removing ST failed as it did not prevent IA, and now Walsh cannot back down. All that money just to save one person's face.
Beyond belief.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duggie
Yes I have no doubt that if Willie Walsh had fully reinstated staff travel, crew would have voted through the last offer.
This is why Walsh, like Hayward at BP and Crozier at the Royal Mail, is now the problem. Until he departs BA, there will be no settlement of this dispute. Through the unnecessary and unlawful punishment of strikers, Walsh has cost BA many millions more and has lengthened this dispute.
He might of thought it was a good wheeze, but the threat of removing ST failed as it did not prevent IA, and now Walsh cannot back down. All that money just to save one person's face.
This is why Walsh, like Hayward at BP and Crozier at the Royal Mail, is now the problem. Until he departs BA, there will be no settlement of this dispute. Through the unnecessary and unlawful punishment of strikers, Walsh has cost BA many millions more and has lengthened this dispute.
He might of thought it was a good wheeze, but the threat of removing ST failed as it did not prevent IA, and now Walsh cannot back down. All that money just to save one person's face.
You may come across as dedicated to them, but believe me, I and many staff have had enough of you guys thinking you're above every other staff member, that's why there are so many VCC's, because, AT LAST we have a CEO standing up to the likes of a minority. NO MORE!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why Walsh, like Hayward at BP and Crozier at the Royal Mail, is now the problem. Until he departs BA, there will be no settlement of this dispute. Through the unnecessary and unlawful punishment of strikers, Walsh has cost BA many millions more and has lengthened this dispute.
It will be up to the courts to decide if it was an "unlawful punishment", and as for Willie Walsh being the problem, he is infact only implementing the decissions of the board members.
It will be up to the courts to decide if it was an "unlawful punishment", and as for Willie Walsh being the problem, he is infact only implementing the decissions of the board members.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD. UNITE have stated that the "substantive" issues have been agreed. It is only Walsh's refusal to fully reinstate Staff Travel that is holding up a deal.
If there is any "red herring", it is Walsh saying that "something else" would be dreamed up by UNITE to prevent a deal. Walsh just cannot give way on anything, he has to score every point as Marc Meryon, of Bircham Dyson Bell stated in an interview on R4's Today. Meryon said that: "he (Walsh) has not left the union any room to manoeuvre".
Walsh is the problem and the sooner he goes, the better. I wonder when his departure is announced, how much BA shares will rise? BP shares aded £2 billion yesterday when Hayward stepped aside.
If there is any "red herring", it is Walsh saying that "something else" would be dreamed up by UNITE to prevent a deal. Walsh just cannot give way on anything, he has to score every point as Marc Meryon, of Bircham Dyson Bell stated in an interview on R4's Today. Meryon said that: "he (Walsh) has not left the union any room to manoeuvre".
Walsh is the problem and the sooner he goes, the better. I wonder when his departure is announced, how much BA shares will rise? BP shares aded £2 billion yesterday when Hayward stepped aside.
Last edited by Duggie Fashion; 27th Jul 2010 at 09:38.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So will you accept a deal that leaves Mark Everard and Duncan Holley twisting in the wind? Will you?
PS: BP shares up barely 5% on the news of the CEOs departure. BA shares up 5% this week on no news at all.
PS: BP shares up barely 5% on the news of the CEOs departure. BA shares up 5% this week on no news at all.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This regurgitated chanted from the BASSA faithful is now getting tedious. The truth is that until it goes to court, nobody knows if it is or isn't legal. The one thing you can count on is that BA legal teams are supperior to the mob representing BASSA in my opinion.
Either way, we'll find out in about 3 years time.
Either way, we'll find out in about 3 years time.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this excitement about Willie Walsh going in October is laughable. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't he going to be Keith Williams boss as the head of TOPCO? So still in charge, but even higher up the food chain.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly1234. If you are correct, then the pilot that has left BA was "allowed" to resign. He should have been sacked.
The cabin crew and union reps were not "allowed" to resign and once again just demonstrates the double standards at BA in dealing with disciplinary matters, depending what side of the fence you are on.
The cabin crew and union reps were not "allowed" to resign and once again just demonstrates the double standards at BA in dealing with disciplinary matters, depending what side of the fence you are on.
MrB
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duggie Fashion,
I have a friend who works in the finance industry. He showed friends, who he knows hold BA shares, your post about BA shares going to £12 if and when Walsh goes. They're willing to offer you a deal. Name the number of shares you'd like to buy, and they'll sell them to you for £10 within 5 business days of WW leaving BA (to go to IAG). They're basically offering you an option. Nothing to pay now, but they can require you to buy the shares at £10 each within 5 days of WW moving. That looks like a 20% profit to you if you're right about £12 per share if Walsh leaves. Do they have a deal?
I have a friend who works in the finance industry. He showed friends, who he knows hold BA shares, your post about BA shares going to £12 if and when Walsh goes. They're willing to offer you a deal. Name the number of shares you'd like to buy, and they'll sell them to you for £10 within 5 business days of WW leaving BA (to go to IAG). They're basically offering you an option. Nothing to pay now, but they can require you to buy the shares at £10 each within 5 days of WW moving. That looks like a 20% profit to you if you're right about £12 per share if Walsh leaves. Do they have a deal?