BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel torn between a rock and a hard place.
What has made mainline cabin crew admired and looked upon as elite professionals in the airline community is the stance the union has made to always improve the T&C's on behalf of said crew. I think its great that for once a group of people in this field have been taken seriously. Now, before you all get ready to eat me up and spit me out... I admit.. Bassa have gone too far and the greed and selfishness of the hereditry crews make you want to see them working on the new contract. But, I can't help think, both sides have been provocative.. such a pitty. Where will all end?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA members being misled
If this prevents otherwise decent crew from being sacked it's worth the trouble.
So here goes.
First read the actual legislation that applies to industrial action and statutory protection;
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
The above is a government website.
From the Act;
191 Termination of employment during protected period.
(1) Where the employee is employed by the employer during the protected period and—
(a) he is fairly dismissed by his employer [F374 otherwise than as redundant], or
(b) he unreasonably terminates the contract of employment,
then, subject to the following provisions, he is not entitled to remuneration under the protective award in respect of any period during which but for that dismissal or termination he would have been employed.
(2) If an employer makes an employee an offer (whether in writing or not and whether before or after the ending of his employment under the previous contract) to renew his contract of employment, or to re-engage him under a new contract, so that the renewal or re-engagement would take effect before or during the protected period, and either—
(a) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed, and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment, would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the previous contract, or
(b) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee, the following subsections have effect.
(3) If the employee unreasonably refuses the offer, he is not entitled to remuneration under the protective award in respect of a period during which but for that refusal he would have been employed.
(4) If the employee’s contract of employment is renewed, or he is re-engaged under a new contract of employment, in pursuance of such an offer as is referred to in subsection (2)
(b), there shall be a trial period in relation to the contract as renewed, or the new contract (whether or not there has been a previous trial period under this section).
(5) The trial period begins with the ending of his employment under the previous contract and ends with the expiration of the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the he starts work under the contract as renewed, or the new contract, or such longer period as may be agreed in accordance with subsection (6) for the purpose of retraining the employee for employment under that contract.
(6) Any such agreement—
(a) shall be made between the employer and the employee or his representative before the employee starts work under the contract as renewed or, as the case may be, the new contract,
(b) shall be in writing,
(c) shall specify the date of the end of the trial period, and
(d) shall specify the terms and conditions of employment which will apply in the employee’s case after the end of that period.
(7) If during the trial period—
(a) the employee, for whatever reason, terminates the contract, or gives notice to terminate it and the contract is thereafter, in consequence, terminated, or (b) the employer, for a reason connected with or arising out of the change to the renewed, or new, employment, terminates the contract, or gives notice to terminate it and the contract is thereafter, in consequence, terminated,the employee remains entitled under the protective award unless, in a case falling within paragraph (a), he acted unreasonably in terminating or giving notice to terminate the contract.
There are other VERY relevant sections contained within this Act.
I've heard that BA have written to Unite formally advising them that they do not consider any further industrial action to be "protected" from tort liability. Says it all folks.
Your Branch Secretary is driving you into a cul de sac where you have the choice between a Mixed Fleet contract or being dismissed (with no chance of compensation for unfair dismissal).
Perhaps someone can educate those that are about to commit Hari-kari.
So here goes.
First read the actual legislation that applies to industrial action and statutory protection;
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
The above is a government website.
From the Act;
191 Termination of employment during protected period.
(1) Where the employee is employed by the employer during the protected period and—
(a) he is fairly dismissed by his employer [F374 otherwise than as redundant], or
(b) he unreasonably terminates the contract of employment,
then, subject to the following provisions, he is not entitled to remuneration under the protective award in respect of any period during which but for that dismissal or termination he would have been employed.
(2) If an employer makes an employee an offer (whether in writing or not and whether before or after the ending of his employment under the previous contract) to renew his contract of employment, or to re-engage him under a new contract, so that the renewal or re-engagement would take effect before or during the protected period, and either—
(a) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed, and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment, would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the previous contract, or
(b) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee, the following subsections have effect.
(3) If the employee unreasonably refuses the offer, he is not entitled to remuneration under the protective award in respect of a period during which but for that refusal he would have been employed.
(4) If the employee’s contract of employment is renewed, or he is re-engaged under a new contract of employment, in pursuance of such an offer as is referred to in subsection (2)
(b), there shall be a trial period in relation to the contract as renewed, or the new contract (whether or not there has been a previous trial period under this section).
(5) The trial period begins with the ending of his employment under the previous contract and ends with the expiration of the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the he starts work under the contract as renewed, or the new contract, or such longer period as may be agreed in accordance with subsection (6) for the purpose of retraining the employee for employment under that contract.
(6) Any such agreement—
(a) shall be made between the employer and the employee or his representative before the employee starts work under the contract as renewed or, as the case may be, the new contract,
(b) shall be in writing,
(c) shall specify the date of the end of the trial period, and
(d) shall specify the terms and conditions of employment which will apply in the employee’s case after the end of that period.
(7) If during the trial period—
(a) the employee, for whatever reason, terminates the contract, or gives notice to terminate it and the contract is thereafter, in consequence, terminated, or (b) the employer, for a reason connected with or arising out of the change to the renewed, or new, employment, terminates the contract, or gives notice to terminate it and the contract is thereafter, in consequence, terminated,the employee remains entitled under the protective award unless, in a case falling within paragraph (a), he acted unreasonably in terminating or giving notice to terminate the contract.
There are other VERY relevant sections contained within this Act.
I've heard that BA have written to Unite formally advising them that they do not consider any further industrial action to be "protected" from tort liability. Says it all folks.
Your Branch Secretary is driving you into a cul de sac where you have the choice between a Mixed Fleet contract or being dismissed (with no chance of compensation for unfair dismissal).
Perhaps someone can educate those that are about to commit Hari-kari.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ice & Slice
What has made mainline cabin crew admired and looked upon as elite professionals in the airline community is the stance the union has made to always improve the T&C's
The acts of BASSA, and it's hard line adherents have, over the last 18 months, done more damage to the reputation of BA CC than it is possible to fathom. Portrayal of the CEO as a devil, wandering around in pants, drinking Pimms and loafing around in a convertible M3, singing songs about fornicating with loaders rather than non-strikers, etc etc etc. ALL the above has done endless harm to the reputation of BA CC. There is no reputation now as elite or professional, the idiots at Bedfont saw to that.
It does not really matter who said what to whom, or which side made a provocative act on what date. As you asked at the end of your post, where will it end? There is an opportunity to end it now, though my personal belief is that the hard core vote will be sufficient to scupper this.
A No vote would bring this to an end, IA only works as a tool when there is some form of viable threat associated with it. "Give us a pay rise or we will bring the company to it's knees", when there is no ability to bring the company to it's knees the threat is empty. Another strike will only really harm those that go on strike, the last set of strikes was not well enough supported to do enough damage to BA to make it effective. There is no evidence to suggest another strike will be any better supported and BA is far more prepared now than it was before.
Strikers will lose pay, probably ST again and indeed risk losing their jobs. It will either end in a NO vote or it will end in a very ugly manner for the strikers. BA have proven that the strikes are an inconvenience and nothing more, when the inconvenience becomes too great they will "clean house" and the real world of job hunting is cold and lean and mean. It will only get worse as the public spending cuts bite. It is time for BASSA to sue for peace, admit they lost and start acting as a union and give up their pretensions to run the company.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have to disagree
What has made mainline cabin crew admired and looked upon as elite professionals in the airline community
Now I am no fan of BASSA, but to be fair to a union that probably started with good intentions/leaders (before their power and lunacy corrupted) they probably did have some minor influence on what you claim. The selection, training, service style and uniform, I guess, they would have had minor inputs into during the 'formative years'.
I think it is important to focus upon formative years, as most people (both in the industry and outside) would view BA as being a market-leader from our dominance of many markets from when BEA/BOAC first joined together. This being a market leader and a higly deserved safety record, along with well maintained fleet and good route network led to this image. Not Cabin Crews T+C's.
The Cabin Crew flying on British Airways aircraft who are (I think more and more the term should be 'were') looked upon as proffesional and elite has stemmed from the development of our airline, which owes much to our (UK) postion after the war and the joining of BOAC/BEA (ok and Cambrian, don't want to upset the Welsh
) and the high safety standards of the UK Civil Aviation Authority - This allowed us to have a National Airline that was the envy of many countries.Sadly since we became privatised, air travel has got cheaper, the standards of World Air Travel have been raised with things like JAR-OPS etc and the rise of many eastern economies bringing money to aviation there. The playing field we enjoyed has been changed dramtically. The odds are no longer in our favour and, despite the fact I think THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR CREW ARE EXCELLENT, to believe they are superior to most other airlines is, I believe arrogant. Yes there are many that are well below us, but also many that are on a par (or perhaps even in front). To then sugest that our crews are better because of their terms and conditions that the union fought for them, does not stack up for me. I know of many excellent crew (and airlines) where their crews are nowhere near the package of benefits our crews enjoy and they maintain their excellence, pride in their work and their companies GROWING reputation despite their lower T+C.
This is NOT an attack on our crew, just a defence of other crews and an arguement over why our crew are as good as they are...before I am attacked for crew bashing!!!
Last edited by Ops_Room_Junkie; 4th Jan 2011 at 13:40. Reason: editorial
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be some mis-information spreading about whether or not CABIN crew could be dismissed following the next round of strike action. The source of the confusion is what is meant by 'legal industrial action'.
For clarity there are three forms of industrial action:
1. Illegal Industrial Action
This is the case during 'wild-cat' strikes, walkouts or industrial action following a ballot that has not been conducted in accordance with the law. [This is what scuppered the first round of strikes proposed by BASSA in 2010].
2. Legal, Protected Industrial Action
If the ballot has been conducted in accordance with the law, the first 12 weeks of industrial action are 'protected'. All that means is that if an employer dismisses staff for striking during the 'protected period' the dismissal is automatically unfair.
3. Legal, Unprotected Industrial Action
Once the 12 week period has expired the further industrial action remains 'legal' [as long as any subsequent ballots involved are conducted in accordance with the law], but the IA in no longer 'protected'. That means that if an employer dismisses staff the dismissal may be deemed unfair. But it may not. An employment tribunal would have to make a judgment based on evidence from both the employer and the employee.
Simply talking about 'legal' industrial action is not sufficient to determine what action an employer could take. Discussions need to be in the context of 'legal and protected' or 'legal and unprotected'.
The question for crew is: Is the next round of strikes 'legal and protected', or 'legal and unprotected'? One way of answering this is to determine whether or not the two rounds of IA are linked in any way. Since BASSA are balloting members over issues arising from the first round of IA (loss of pay, loss of Staff Travel etc.) it is clear that this 'new' dispute is a dispute about the 'previous' dispute. Hence, by definition, the two disputes are related.
So the next round of IA will probably be legal [ballot conducted correctly], but unprotected [same dispute, outside 12 week]. Meaning that BA will be able to dismiss strikers without the dismissals being automatically unfair.
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether IA is protected or unprotected. BA may be happy for that test to take place after it has applied sanctions.
So, why haven't BA announced what sanctions it will use against strikers in the next round of IA? Simple: No strike action has been announced yet, so there is no need for BA to jump the gun by announcing anything yet. When the result of the ballot is made public BA will be in a position to announce what (if any) sanctions may be used. I say may, because the sanctions used will probably depend on the number of strikers. As pointed out elsewhere, BA are unlikely to dismiss 7,000 cabin crew due to the impact on the operation. But if only 2,000 cabin crew strike BA may take a harder line. 2,000 cabin crew could easily be replaced by MF, volunteers and temporarily reducing crewing levels until MF numbers are up to the required level.
When you hear or read material that discusses BA's options in 'black and white' terms, your source is probably not up to speed on the realities of employment law, or is trying to give you false confidence in one particular course of action. Nothing - including BA's options - is set in stone. They have many options, and dismissal of strikers may be one of those. Of course, dismissal is subject to various ifs and buts, but it does remain and option if the cards fall in the wrong way.
For clarity there are three forms of industrial action:
1. Illegal Industrial Action
This is the case during 'wild-cat' strikes, walkouts or industrial action following a ballot that has not been conducted in accordance with the law. [This is what scuppered the first round of strikes proposed by BASSA in 2010].
2. Legal, Protected Industrial Action
If the ballot has been conducted in accordance with the law, the first 12 weeks of industrial action are 'protected'. All that means is that if an employer dismisses staff for striking during the 'protected period' the dismissal is automatically unfair.
3. Legal, Unprotected Industrial Action
Once the 12 week period has expired the further industrial action remains 'legal' [as long as any subsequent ballots involved are conducted in accordance with the law], but the IA in no longer 'protected'. That means that if an employer dismisses staff the dismissal may be deemed unfair. But it may not. An employment tribunal would have to make a judgment based on evidence from both the employer and the employee.
Simply talking about 'legal' industrial action is not sufficient to determine what action an employer could take. Discussions need to be in the context of 'legal and protected' or 'legal and unprotected'.
The question for crew is: Is the next round of strikes 'legal and protected', or 'legal and unprotected'? One way of answering this is to determine whether or not the two rounds of IA are linked in any way. Since BASSA are balloting members over issues arising from the first round of IA (loss of pay, loss of Staff Travel etc.) it is clear that this 'new' dispute is a dispute about the 'previous' dispute. Hence, by definition, the two disputes are related.
So the next round of IA will probably be legal [ballot conducted correctly], but unprotected [same dispute, outside 12 week]. Meaning that BA will be able to dismiss strikers without the dismissals being automatically unfair.
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether IA is protected or unprotected. BA may be happy for that test to take place after it has applied sanctions.
So, why haven't BA announced what sanctions it will use against strikers in the next round of IA? Simple: No strike action has been announced yet, so there is no need for BA to jump the gun by announcing anything yet. When the result of the ballot is made public BA will be in a position to announce what (if any) sanctions may be used. I say may, because the sanctions used will probably depend on the number of strikers. As pointed out elsewhere, BA are unlikely to dismiss 7,000 cabin crew due to the impact on the operation. But if only 2,000 cabin crew strike BA may take a harder line. 2,000 cabin crew could easily be replaced by MF, volunteers and temporarily reducing crewing levels until MF numbers are up to the required level.
When you hear or read material that discusses BA's options in 'black and white' terms, your source is probably not up to speed on the realities of employment law, or is trying to give you false confidence in one particular course of action. Nothing - including BA's options - is set in stone. They have many options, and dismissal of strikers may be one of those. Of course, dismissal is subject to various ifs and buts, but it does remain and option if the cards fall in the wrong way.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swiss
That is a very accurate post according to my friend who is experienced in indutrial relations and law.
I'm pleased that I won't be facing dismissal as I will be in work.
I was at my friend's earlier who was on the BASSA forum and even though someone on there admitted to being on pprune today they did not repeat the facts about dismissal, even though they are widely respected.
The masses are very much in the dark and who can blame them when they are told that by BASSA and dissenting voices are just NOT ALLOWED, as I have found out personally.
That is a very accurate post according to my friend who is experienced in indutrial relations and law.
I'm pleased that I won't be facing dismissal as I will be in work.
I was at my friend's earlier who was on the BASSA forum and even though someone on there admitted to being on pprune today they did not repeat the facts about dismissal, even though they are widely respected.
The masses are very much in the dark and who can blame them when they are told that by BASSA and dissenting voices are just NOT ALLOWED, as I have found out personally.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Charon
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SwissNeutral:
Surely a more effective option would be to dismiss strikers on day 1 of any industrial action? Or if action is in blocks of 3 or 4 days to dismiss those. It would send a message loud and clear.
As pointed out elsewhere, BA are unlikely to dismiss 7,000 cabin crew due to the impact on the operation. But if only 2,000 cabin crew strike BA may take a harder line. 2,000 cabin crew could easily be replaced by MF, volunteers and temporarily reducing crewing levels until MF numbers are up to the required level.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that SwissNeutral was in anyway attempting to suggest that the options they outlined were the only options available to BA should a strike occur. There may well be very many options available that have not been discussed here, BA do seem to have a very capable team in place to manage this dispute and they seem to make some unorthodox moves that catch BASSA somewhat flatfooted.
One thing that is worthy of restating is that should one find oneself sacked in relation to IA and seek justice at an Employment Tribunal is that a re-instatement order is seldom made and is unenforceable. At best a re-instatement order allows a slightly higher compensation award to be made. Either way, if one should find oneself sacked by BA during such a period of IA the chances of getting one's job back are exceptionally low.
One thing that is worthy of restating is that should one find oneself sacked in relation to IA and seek justice at an Employment Tribunal is that a re-instatement order is seldom made and is unenforceable. At best a re-instatement order allows a slightly higher compensation award to be made. Either way, if one should find oneself sacked by BA during such a period of IA the chances of getting one's job back are exceptionally low.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If industrial action is taken outside the protected period, the employer can take action against both the union and the strikers. BA could, for example, sue Unite for the costs of the strikes and discipline the strikers.
I can certainly see BA suing Unite, but it is much less clear that strikers would be sacked as this would maintain the running sore between Unite and BA. However, I won't be at all surprised if some form of lesser action is taken, such as removing ST again.
I can certainly see BA suing Unite, but it is much less clear that strikers would be sacked as this would maintain the running sore between Unite and BA. However, I won't be at all surprised if some form of lesser action is taken, such as removing ST again.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can be sacked at any time for any thing. As has also been stated, you may succeed in an unfair dismissal claim, but even that does not guarantee getting your job back.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point that tends to be missed, is that you have to actually be dismissed, BEFORE you can seek redress. Whether you could seek an injunction prior to dismissal, if the dismissal is most likely to be unfair, is something (amongst many other things) I do not know.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether you could seek an injunction prior to dismissal, if the dismissal is most likely to be unfair, is something (amongst many other things) I do not know.
So LB I think the answer is most likely no and any attempt to commence such a case would, as best as I can find, be completely new legal territory.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
6 Posts
vctenderness.
No to you last point aimed at me.
Bassa have been informed and are suspicious that BA have been contacting cabin crew and offering incentives to them if they agree to vary their contracts.
The allegation involves emails so I would imagine it could be cleared up rather sharpish.
No to you last point aimed at me.
Bassa have been informed and are suspicious that BA have been contacting cabin crew and offering incentives to them if they agree to vary their contracts.
The allegation involves emails so I would imagine it could be cleared up rather sharpish.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC 767,
I can understand the concern that BASSA may have and agree if accusations have been made then the electronic trail is going to be pretty simple to follow for the people with the right knowledge.
The one part that I see little problem with is that Cabin Crew, if they are no longer members of the union are being contacted by BA and being offered different or amended contracts.
The collective bargaining/negotiating power of BASSA is completely undermined and so if individuals can personally improve their lot then why not?
Opening a can of worms...absolutely. What BA would ideally want? Not a chance...individually negotiated terms for 35,000 staff would be a logistical nightmare. However given the current circumstances it seems to be a very good way of building a staff group able to quickly move into new positions IF BA decide to press this nuclear button we so often hear about when/if BASSA/UNITE call further strike dates!!!
Time will tell...
Jazzy
I can understand the concern that BASSA may have and agree if accusations have been made then the electronic trail is going to be pretty simple to follow for the people with the right knowledge.
The one part that I see little problem with is that Cabin Crew, if they are no longer members of the union are being contacted by BA and being offered different or amended contracts.
The collective bargaining/negotiating power of BASSA is completely undermined and so if individuals can personally improve their lot then why not?
Opening a can of worms...absolutely. What BA would ideally want? Not a chance...individually negotiated terms for 35,000 staff would be a logistical nightmare. However given the current circumstances it seems to be a very good way of building a staff group able to quickly move into new positions IF BA decide to press this nuclear button we so often hear about when/if BASSA/UNITE call further strike dates!!!
Time will tell...
Jazzy
Last edited by JazzyKex; 5th Jan 2011 at 14:34. Reason: terrible grammar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal discussion re Strikes and the BA strike
This is a link to the BBC Radio programme "Unreliable Evidence", hosted by Clive Anderson, it has as guests the Barristers David Reade QC (recently acting for BA) and John Hendy QC (recently acting for Unite). The bit regarding BA specifically starts at 18 minutes in but for those who want an absolute statement as to the Right to Strike it is at 30:15. Enjoy.
BBC iPlayer - Unreliable Evidence: Trade Unions
BBC iPlayer - Unreliable Evidence: Trade Unions
Last edited by Juan Tugoh; 6th Jan 2011 at 08:13.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
essessdeedee:
I have no doubt at all that the ballot will be a massive majority 'YES' vote seeing as most of us that would have voted 'NO' have already left the union. I think the reason that management don't seem bothered is that this strike will have even less impact than the last. According to BA's figures 660 crew that took IA in March were back to work by the end of the 22 strike days. From my friends alone that went on strike I know that this figure is bound to increase as they are now coming in to work if further IA is taken. Combine this with a larger army of VCC's and 400+ MF cabin crew of all grades that the company can utilise and I think that answers the companies stance on the matter. No doubt any action taken will cause the company some disruption and damage, but the estimated 100% LH and 80% SH should be easily achievable. The only real damage will be to the strikers themselves who will most certainly lose pay, possibly staff travel again and even more if this strike is deemed illegal!
Betty Girl:
The radio interview that JT kindly linked to a previous thread is indeed very interesting. Maybe he should send it to DH before he makes any more sweeping statements misinforming his membership regarding being sacked for taking LEGAL IA. Especially as a few of us union leavers are getting ballot papers through the letterbox - surely that already makes the ballot ILLEGAL?
I have no doubt at all that the ballot will be a massive majority 'YES' vote seeing as most of us that would have voted 'NO' have already left the union. I think the reason that management don't seem bothered is that this strike will have even less impact than the last. According to BA's figures 660 crew that took IA in March were back to work by the end of the 22 strike days. From my friends alone that went on strike I know that this figure is bound to increase as they are now coming in to work if further IA is taken. Combine this with a larger army of VCC's and 400+ MF cabin crew of all grades that the company can utilise and I think that answers the companies stance on the matter. No doubt any action taken will cause the company some disruption and damage, but the estimated 100% LH and 80% SH should be easily achievable. The only real damage will be to the strikers themselves who will most certainly lose pay, possibly staff travel again and even more if this strike is deemed illegal!
Betty Girl:
The radio interview that JT kindly linked to a previous thread is indeed very interesting. Maybe he should send it to DH before he makes any more sweeping statements misinforming his membership regarding being sacked for taking LEGAL IA. Especially as a few of us union leavers are getting ballot papers through the letterbox - surely that already makes the ballot ILLEGAL?