BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[Wirbelsturm]

I'm beginning to see why crew abandon this discussion as an alternative to sitting through it.

This seems to be a common theme amongst those who can't or don't want to accept that there exists a different perception of the current dispute than that commonly accepted on other forums. That others exist who don't hold to the values accepted by those supporting the BASSA action seems to be greeted with incredularity that they 'can't see the light'.

The current BASSA stance of 'well, look hasn't the current situation got better as we said it would' is akin to a patient being told by a doctor that they don't need surgery. The patient then goes away and has the operation anyway and when the doctor next sees them 2 years later and say's 'I told you so'.

The rest of the company took the decision almost 2 years ago to accept that change was required. BASSA have provaricated for so long now that the rest of the company (37000 odd accepting the losses BASSA have had) have passed them by.

Unite, through Tony Woodley, has been trying to convince the BASSA board to accept negotiated agreements as even BA has seen the futility of trying to deal with BASSA, to no avail. The BASSA board won't even put deals to the vote unless they contain the requisite triggers and then only those with the least to lose vote leading to an apathetic and hollow victory for yet another round of useless strikes.

This is no longer, nor has it ever been about impostition or new fleet. This has never even been about the impact on the average crew member. BASSA have lost the grip of fear they had on the management and are desperate to wrest back whatever they can. Unless they can achieve a full U-Turn from either Willie Walsh or Kieth Williams they will not be happy.

[HiFlyer14]

HAHAHAHAHA

The statement that the PCCC has only 300 members is as accurate as the BASSA savings proposal. The "around 300" mark was the number of members on our forum, within a couple of weeks of the forum being set up. Not all our members choose to join the forum, and as this number was being confused as being our total membership numbers, we have now removed it from our forum. Hope this clarifies for you.

The only thing worthy of note regarding membership numbers is that the PCCC members are going up rapidly, whilst BASSA are losing members at a rate of knots.

You state "The Easter Deal that you refer to has been worked and reworked. That doesn’t deny the fact that is was rejected by the membership. Therefore not acceptable to the majority".
Please can you tell me when BA's offer of last October (the Halloween deal ) was put to the members and rejected? For clarity, this is the one that offered shares, bonuses and an extra free ticket.

[spin_doctor]

HiFlyer,

With numbers increasing and BASSA floundering, surely you must be considering making yourselves public pretty soon?

I fully understand the reasons for the anonymity at the start, but I think if you want to make the final push towards recognition you need to have a public face. At some point you are going to have to stand up and say who you are. Leave it too long and people may start to write you off as too timid to be of use to them.

Just a thought, and good luck by the way.

[plodding along]

I agree, The PCCC would do well to go public this week, if not BASSA will put the new proposal to the vote and just like last time most crew won't even vote as they are either fed up or won't want to betray the union.

If they had a public alternative they could confidently vote to accept the proposal and then "run" to you guys for support and protection.
They would at least have a public place to feel safe and away from the intimidation of BASSA.

This will be even more important should BASSA decide to go straight for a strike ballot, probably once again getting a majority yes vote from a minority of members.

This will go round and round in circles until crew actually find the strength to leave BASSA, they never will however, unless they have a viable alternative.

Time to step up to the plate. What's the worst that can happen?
You already wear backing BA lanyards and you can safely park your cars in a CCTV coverage area.

BASSA reps might be militant but they are not completely stupid.

[swalesboy]

Any news on an outcome from the courts yet?

[Syndicate9]

The PCCC needs 40% of crew to join to be able to secure negotiating rights. 300 won't do it and neither will 3,000. I'm afraid they have a long way to go yet. Their main problem is that most crew identify them with BA. For some that is not an issue but for moderates who still think they need a union rather than a bunch of sycophants it is a poisonous image.
The PCCC also promises it is open to everyone. I already know of two cabin crew members who told me that they simply had their membership terminated without any reason being given but their view was that their forum postings asked some uncomfortable truths. That makes it 298.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

The PCCC needs 40% of crew to join to be able to secure negotiating rights.

I don't think that this is the case. There is no obligation in law, to recognise a new "union", where another union has collective bargaining rights, unless you can establish that the union in question does not hold a majority of members within the workplace.

[spin_doctor]

Their main problem is that most crew identify them with BA

Based entirely on the lies and spin of BASSA. There is no secret shadowy link between the PCCC and BA, there really are some cabin crew who think BASSA are doing such a poor job that anything else has to be better.

Not what the BASSA hardliners want to hear though.

[upperdeckpsr]

Litebulbs

I don't think that this is the case. There is no obligation in law, to recognise a new "union", where another union has collective bargaining rights, unless you can establish that the union in question does not hold a majority of members within the workplace.

You are totally correct - also the BASSA membership figure has to fall below 50% of the workers employed in the bargaining unit before BA can de-recognise BASSA as the trades union acting on behalf of Cabin Crew.

BA could also go down the route of Statutory derecognition of BASSA owing to lack of support for bargaining arrangements. They would have to make a request to a BASSA to end collective bargaining arrangements on the grounds that the union no longer has the support of the bargaining unit. The union can decline the request.

However, if the union declines a request after three years of statutory recognition, BA can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) to hold a secret ballot.

[HiFlyer14]

The PCCC also promises it is open to everyone. I already know of two cabin crew members who told me that they simply had their membership terminated without any reason being given but their view was that their forum postings asked some uncomfortable truths. That makes it 298.

Complete claptrap. Anyone who reads our forum will know that you are lying. There are all sorts of questions on there - and people from all fleets, including Mixed Fleet, with varying views. Additionally, there are several threads asking for cabin crew views on certain subjects. Now, when have you ever seen that on CrewForum, or BASSA forum?

The forum is not "open to everyone". It is open to BA serving cabin crew only. One person, who has been sacked from BA, is no longer a member of our forum, by virtue of the fact that they no longer work for BA.

Unlike CrewForum, we feel that only the views of serving cabin crew are what count in this situation which affects us all. Getting retired CSDs (or even sacked employees) who have an axe to grind to put in their two pennuth is unhelpful and unnecessary. It simply serves to inflame the situation.

I guess, in a nutshell, you could say we have principles, and we abide by them. Cabin crew are enjoying the "freshness" that it brings.

Spindoctor and Plodding - thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Watch this space.

[HiFlyer14]

I don't think that this is the case. There is no obligation in law, to recognise a new "union", where another union has collective bargaining rights, unless you can establish that the union in question does not hold a majority of members within the workplace.

That may be true Litebulbs but since 1989 we have traditionally had two unions in our community - CC89 and BASSA. The merger of the two into Unite has proved the undoing of our community, with BASSA dictating terms. Had CC89 been seperate today, they would have undoubtedly come out of this with virtually 90% of the workforce.

Our community is crying out for moderation - and BA has already recognised this by taking the historic step of offering a deal to non-union members. The suggestion that they wouldn't recognise a moderate union with a sizeable number of members is therefore somewhat unrealistic.

Amicus had, I believe, in the region of 3000 members and they had full recognition from BA. Point to note, Syndicate9.

I am BA cabin crew and this is my viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Betty girl]

I agree with Highflyer.
But would also like to add that even if BA is unable to recognise the PCCC as an official negotiation body, I am sure they will be willing to listen and take on board how it's members feel about different issues.

I notice in the absence of Bassa, BA have taken to having focus groups with Pursers and CSDs about the future role of both groups in E/F. I have been to a couple of these and it was great to get my opinion over direct to BA instead of having Bassa put it's slant on things.

So I don't see any problem with the PCCC being able to talk with BA on behalf of it's members whether it is recognised or not. At least the PCCC actually asks it's member for their views on matters which is something that Bassa does not do.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by HiFlyer14

That may be true Litebulbs but since 1989 we have traditionally had two unions in our community - CC89 and BASSA. The merger of the two into Unite has proved the undoing of our community, with BASSA dictating terms. Had CC89 been seperate today, they would have undoubtedly come out of this with virtually 90% of the workforce.

Believe me, I agree with you on the local level benefits of the merger. I also think that if you get a sizable proportion of the workforce, you should approach BA to see about a voluntary recognition deal. It is what is best for you, not the parent union. It will be very interesting what comes out of this negotiation and how both parties (union) react.

[upperdeckpsr]

A Genuine Question

So I don't see any problem with the PCCC being able to talk with BA on behalf of it's members whether it is recognised or not. At least the PCCC actually asks it's member for their views on matters which is something that Bassa does not do.

I notice that you say the "PCCC members" - and these are real questions and not trying to catch anybody out !!

Do you have to physically join by signing something?
Is there a constitution?
When you say the PCCC asks it's members for their views, is this done by ballot, online poll or some other way?

Genuine questions from somebody curious how it all works

[Chesh01]

They think its all over!

I am a "BA Backer."
That's just a label. I back my family so crossing the picket line suited us and I suspect they suited the best interests for everyone else who crossed the line. Proudly or with a heavy heart.
However whilst the posts argue for and against why is nobody putting the spotlight on BASSA? Its quite clear they have no idea how many members they have so whats happening to all the contribution money? These union representatives are getting serious paper. They keep themselves in power and do not allow dissenters. What have they done for their members lately? BA are running things and BASSA is a dead parrot using rumour and lies to justify their existence. Its time for BASSA to have a complete change at the top. New leadership and a diffrent approach. Anybody on the BASSA side know how much they get? Are you getting value for money?
By the way give me a vcc over a xxxx any day of the week!

[Litebulbs]

Chesh01

Do you support independent binding arbitration for the dismissed from your department? When I say binding, I mean reinstatement?

[Chesh01]

They think its all over!

Let me get something else of my chest!

To HAHAHAHAH and all the other postees who make comparisons between flight crew and cabin crew to support their argument...STOP, STOP, STOP.

Do I really need to explain why?

[Chesh01]

To litebulb

I support what puts food on our table.

However as someone who has been through the diciplinery process and was allowed back to work (many years ago) I believe the process works. I can say that it is very difficult for BA to fire someone unless they shoot themselves in the foot at the diciplinery interview or bang to rights guilty. I strongly believe that any settlement should not involve any of these diciplinery cases.

[Litebulbs]

Chesh01

Thanks for the reply. I would normally agree with you about "bang to rights". It is just surprising that so many (21?) have been dismissed in a year or so. If Ba has nothing to fear and it believes it has a robust procedure, then surely an independent body would agree?

The difference between a tribunal and an ACAS arbitration is that a tribunal would not examine the case but the process itself. As long as the case was investigated and all stages of the disciplinary process were followed, then the actual case content would not matter. The tribunal is not there to decide whether the decision was right or wrong, unless there is the potential for discrimination in one of the protected characteristics, i.e. sex, age, religion etc...

[Chesh01]

follow up to litebulb.

If you follow my argument then it makes sense that the sacked do whatever they have to do to get back on the gravy train. They just will not have my support.
Furthermore everybody who enters the diciplinery phase will spin the details to make themselves the innocent victim....Everyone!
The only truth is what happens in that diciplinery interview room and that should be separate from this dispute.