BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that BA have returned to profit, albeit a small one, do any of you agree that an SOSR dismissal will be harder to justify? That route was not followed when the "fight for survival" was on, so how could it be justified now?
Also, what happens if the offer is rejected, but no action is proposed? Will it just be rolling redundancies as one fleet grows and the other diminishes? That will bring problems too, on the fairness due to selection pools.
Also, what happens if the offer is rejected, but no action is proposed? Will it just be rolling redundancies as one fleet grows and the other diminishes? That will bring problems too, on the fairness due to selection pools.
I agree that SOSR might be less likely but I don't think it would be too difficult to prove that if the current (and last) offer is rejected and the company lurches back into IA then the losses would be significant. SOSR doesn't have to be based on the current position, merely the position that might occur if the action is not taken out.
BA could argue that they have tried to negotiate, gave concessions and were met by intransigence. If the eventual outcome is going to be significantly damaging in terms of IA or even loss of revenue through threat of IA then I'm sure they could find a judge that would agree that it was necessary for survival of the business.
Personally, I don't think this will happen. If BA haven't used it already (and by God, they must have been tempted) I don't think they will. I think there will simply be an acceleration of MF and no say so of the transfer of routes etc so the "legacy crew" will simply wither on the vine. If this offer is not accepted I would be amazed if in 2 years time MF were not doing all "premium" trips. Happy days.
BA could argue that they have tried to negotiate, gave concessions and were met by intransigence. If the eventual outcome is going to be significantly damaging in terms of IA or even loss of revenue through threat of IA then I'm sure they could find a judge that would agree that it was necessary for survival of the business.
Personally, I don't think this will happen. If BA haven't used it already (and by God, they must have been tempted) I don't think they will. I think there will simply be an acceleration of MF and no say so of the transfer of routes etc so the "legacy crew" will simply wither on the vine. If this offer is not accepted I would be amazed if in 2 years time MF were not doing all "premium" trips. Happy days.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps62,
Don't forget that 1000 of us have signed the offer. So the scenario you suggest of all the good routes going to Mixed Fleet is just fiction.
Those that signed the offer have an undertaking that it will be done in a fair and transparent way.
If the strikers don't accept the offer things will just carry on as now. The only difference being that the strikers wont get there full staff travel back in 2013.
I doubt that they will strike because I doubt they would get a mandate for that but maybe the staff travel debacle will carry on in the courts. Who knows.
BA have managed to get huge savings from reduced crew compliments and further savings will amass as Mixed Fleet grows and this will grow as Current crew leave through natural wastage and retirements.
So BA I am sure are very happy with the situation.
If however, a few diehards do get the mandate to strike, no doubt BA might take advantage and get rid of them.Who knows! One thing I do know is that BA are currently making huge savings right now.
Don't forget that 1000 of us have signed the offer. So the scenario you suggest of all the good routes going to Mixed Fleet is just fiction.
Those that signed the offer have an undertaking that it will be done in a fair and transparent way.
If the strikers don't accept the offer things will just carry on as now. The only difference being that the strikers wont get there full staff travel back in 2013.
I doubt that they will strike because I doubt they would get a mandate for that but maybe the staff travel debacle will carry on in the courts. Who knows.
BA have managed to get huge savings from reduced crew compliments and further savings will amass as Mixed Fleet grows and this will grow as Current crew leave through natural wastage and retirements.
So BA I am sure are very happy with the situation.
If however, a few diehards do get the mandate to strike, no doubt BA might take advantage and get rid of them.Who knows! One thing I do know is that BA are currently making huge savings right now.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Now that BA have returned to profit, albeit a small one, do any of you agree that an SOSR dismissal will be harder to justify?
One thing that BA has done consistently throughout the dispute has been to consistently support the line that it believed that the changes it was imposing were required. BASSA and UNITE have failed to challenge this line effectively, and have allowed BA to have the option of using the SOSR route to dismiss if necessary. Indeed BASSA's own QC has allowed the route to remain open by admitting it is a option in open court.
The court of public opinion may differ and BASSA may gain some sympathy if BA use SOSR, but that will not make it any the less irrelevant to those who are on the wrong end of any such action.
BettyGirl,
As LM has already stated the cost savings of MF on the Singapore terminator are £4million on that route alone. If you think the company are going to let that and other similar savings go because 1000 signed up to a deal while the other 12 thousand odd live off the fat, still enjoying SIN/HKG/NRT etc then I think you might be disappointed.
Don't forget that 1000 of us have signed the offer. So the scenario you suggest of all the good routes going to Mixed Fleet is just fiction.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The saving would only be £4million per year if no payment protection scheme is in place.
If all crew signed the current deal than it wouldn't matter if MF took NRT/SIN/HKG because crew would all get their wages topped up to the average level of earnings before routes had been transferred.
That's the whole point of the top up agreement is it not?
The main worry from crew seems to be losing money, the company offered the MTP to prevent this. Crew weren't happy with this and asked for the minimum top up scheme instead.
Can I ask why trips like SIN and HKG pay such huge box payments?
Presumably because they are so long and arduous that it is a form of compensation?
Surely then with a payment protection system it would actually be beneficial to lose these routes would it not?
Current crew would still get the same money but could happily earn it on nice short Gulf or stateside trips, mixed fleet would then do all the hard 11/12/13 hour sectors instead.
If on the other hand crew want to fly to HKG and SIN then why do the company pay such huge amounts of money?
If the latest proposal gets rejected then perhaps BA should just carry on and transfer the money routes, the 1000 crew who signed up already would be protected by the top up payment and the company could claw back some of the lost revenue.
If all crew signed the current deal than it wouldn't matter if MF took NRT/SIN/HKG because crew would all get their wages topped up to the average level of earnings before routes had been transferred.
That's the whole point of the top up agreement is it not?
The main worry from crew seems to be losing money, the company offered the MTP to prevent this. Crew weren't happy with this and asked for the minimum top up scheme instead.
Can I ask why trips like SIN and HKG pay such huge box payments?
Presumably because they are so long and arduous that it is a form of compensation?
Surely then with a payment protection system it would actually be beneficial to lose these routes would it not?
Current crew would still get the same money but could happily earn it on nice short Gulf or stateside trips, mixed fleet would then do all the hard 11/12/13 hour sectors instead.
If on the other hand crew want to fly to HKG and SIN then why do the company pay such huge amounts of money?
If the latest proposal gets rejected then perhaps BA should just carry on and transfer the money routes, the 1000 crew who signed up already would be protected by the top up payment and the company could claw back some of the lost revenue.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no requirement to justify an SOSR dismissal, the test in law is that the dismissal is based on a genuinely held belief by the company that it had a substantial reason that was not "whimsical or capricious." Whether the unions like it or not the company does not need to prove that their reasons are substantial, that is not the appropriate test in law. There is case evidence to support this and the legal precedents have already been set.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
What would constitute the substantial reason to change the terms? That would still be explored, but as you say, would not need to be proved.
Importantly the ET is highly unlikely to try to rule that a person dismissed in such a fashion must be re-employed, I'm not even sure they have that power, I think the best they can do is award limited compensation.
It seems that SOSR dismissal while remaining an option is not one that BA seem keen to take. I do note that they have done enough to establish that they do have a genuinely held belief that the imposition was required.
I suspect that SOSR would only be used should someone fail to sign a new contract, offered as a take it or leave it deal.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan Tugoh
It is my understanding that you have to have a reason and the reason has to be substantial. I doubt if you could just state that we believe we have a substantial reason.
What is the new contract doing? Is the reason guaranteeing a pay rise? Is is guaranteeing the protection of allowances?
It would seem that BA want its existing employees on a new contract. To get them to that will require them to be dismissed from their existing contract, not dismissing them from the business.
What is the new contract doing? Is the reason guaranteeing a pay rise? Is is guaranteeing the protection of allowances?
It would seem that BA want its existing employees on a new contract. To get them to that will require them to be dismissed from their existing contract, not dismissing them from the business.
New posting on Unite website:
We have received many requests for clarity surrounding the return of staff travel to strikers from 26th October 2010.
Specifically, those questions centred upon the appearance of some word which appear during the login process to the staff travel system. We have therefore sought legal advice and this is provided in summary as follows:
We understand that BA require members to signify agreement to the following terms before being able to use their staff travel entitlement :
"Staff travel is a non-contractual and discretionary benefit granted at the sole discretion of BA and as such can be withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the company at any time."
We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.
Members are concerned at the implications of agreeing to this statement. We understand that there is concern that, by consenting to this statement, members will weaken their ability to claim that staff travel is a contractual right and/or preclude themselves from joining the High Court action against BA, or even the case being brought against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights.
The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. However, the statement appears to claim that BA have the right to vary and withdraw these entitlements at their sole discretion. This is potentially harmful to the membership's ability to participate in legal proceedings in the High Court. It should not affect the European Court of Human Rights case.
Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.
How they don't know that the ST wording has not changed for a number of years illustrates their total ignorance or stupidity and is beyond belief!
We have received many requests for clarity surrounding the return of staff travel to strikers from 26th October 2010.
Specifically, those questions centred upon the appearance of some word which appear during the login process to the staff travel system. We have therefore sought legal advice and this is provided in summary as follows:
We understand that BA require members to signify agreement to the following terms before being able to use their staff travel entitlement :
"Staff travel is a non-contractual and discretionary benefit granted at the sole discretion of BA and as such can be withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the company at any time."
We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.
Members are concerned at the implications of agreeing to this statement. We understand that there is concern that, by consenting to this statement, members will weaken their ability to claim that staff travel is a contractual right and/or preclude themselves from joining the High Court action against BA, or even the case being brought against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights.
The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. However, the statement appears to claim that BA have the right to vary and withdraw these entitlements at their sole discretion. This is potentially harmful to the membership's ability to participate in legal proceedings in the High Court. It should not affect the European Court of Human Rights case.
Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.
How they don't know that the ST wording has not changed for a number of years illustrates their total ignorance or stupidity and is beyond belief!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arent they supposed to be recommending the offer?
BASSA > Latest News
A LETTER FROM THE REPS
Oct 31st, 2010 by admin
This letter will also go out with the ballot, it is from your reps to try and explain where we are and why it is important that you ultimately decide, acceptance or rejection. With the ballot there will also be a deeper explanation of the offer and how it has changed since the last time. It is hoped the ballot will be out this week but there remains legal complications, which makes it impossible to knoe precisely when.
Dear Friends,
We have, and are still, engaged in one of the bitterest disputes in recent trade union history. Unite General Secretary, Tony Woodley and (hopefully, with your support) the next General Secretary, Len McCluskey, have both described this as the most difficult dispute they have ever witnessed in forty years with the union movement.
Both men have lived through long disputes in the car industry and the Liverpool docks and yet they still consider this their most difficult challenge.
Considering that our members are mainly middle class, often female, many of whom are also mothers, this is a quite astonishing fact and goes some way to highlight the level of aggressive management tactics and victimisation that we have had to endure.
The reason for this was never about a so-called “fight for survival”. “Backing BA” involved nothing more than backing a plan to crush our union’s ability to be able to represent cabin crew within British Airways, paving the way to introduce cheaper workers to replace you over time. This overtly aggressive method by which our leadership team sought to achieve this aim and the underhand tactics used have been quite frightening.
We all know the pain and loss that this dispute has caused, yet there was little alternative but to stand and fight, and that is exactly what the majority of us have done.
British Airways has now given a revised offer for you to consider; as it is largely based on the offer rejected in June, many members could not understand why it has not already been rejected by your reps.
The answer is simple: rejection for you alone to decide.
The offer is not perfect, nobody is saying that, and yet if you are weary of the battle, then this will bring it to an end, though it comes at a price. It spells out some of the safeguards you can expect: staff travel returns in full, albeit over an almost three-year period, and some of the victims of this dispute will at least be able to ask ACAS to scrutinise their cases.
There is of course no need to have this protracted wait for staff travel to be returned, other than a vindictive desire to punish; it doesn’t in anyway help bring a settlement nearer.
ACAS reviewing the cases is welcome, but will give no guarantees as to the outcome.
Additionally we must also forfeit our rights to challenge ALL of these issues through the courts.
We should also remember that these are consequences of the dispute, not the cause. That root cause remains entwined throughout this offer. Imposition and not honouring our agreements were the original catalysts, alongside a genuine fear for our future. New fleet will still be introduced; it will still gradually take your current work, you must decide if the now “permanent” top-up payment is sufficient for you to be unconcerned when that begins to happen.
The original desire to reduce Trade Union representation for cabin crew, alongside the worsening of employment policies (sickness, redeployment etc) is still there, and eight weeks from the acceptance of this agreement, it will be in place and yes, this will affect you.
There is no doubt that in the future we will not be able to represent you as we have in the past; when this new way of working comes about, our ability to influence will be far less. You must decide the value that has to you.
Will the climate of fear that has been created, where crew dare not speak openly to each other, end? Will the bullying by some members of flight deck continue? Will the ongoing devaluing of the cabin crew role continue? Again, this is for you to decide.
If you have confidence in management then the deal is not all bad and in some areas, good; if you do not, it remains the beginning of the end.
Lastly, it is worth noting that this is an offer, if it is rejected, then there is in effect NO offer - what then happens with staff travel and the “hostages” is unknown, it could be worse. There are NO guarantees. This is probably the best that negotiation could produce at the current time. The only other alternative would then be taking industrial action, the outcome of which of course is always unknown.
Your single vote will literally shape your own future and by using it, you will have played your part. Please use it wisely for your own sake. The decision is yours, yet along with that goes the responsibility of living with the choice you make.
We can only urge you to read the document and the analysis thoroughly and make an informed decision, it’s not rocket science, it’s all about you and your job, so please encourage ALL your colleagues to take an interest and vote.
If we can help, contact us.
What happens next is for you to decide, and be assured that we will respect your decision, whatever that may be.
Thank you for all your loyalty, support and friendship and of course, your vote.
Sincerely
Your Reps
A LETTER FROM THE REPS
Oct 31st, 2010 by admin
This letter will also go out with the ballot, it is from your reps to try and explain where we are and why it is important that you ultimately decide, acceptance or rejection. With the ballot there will also be a deeper explanation of the offer and how it has changed since the last time. It is hoped the ballot will be out this week but there remains legal complications, which makes it impossible to knoe precisely when.
Dear Friends,
We have, and are still, engaged in one of the bitterest disputes in recent trade union history. Unite General Secretary, Tony Woodley and (hopefully, with your support) the next General Secretary, Len McCluskey, have both described this as the most difficult dispute they have ever witnessed in forty years with the union movement.
Both men have lived through long disputes in the car industry and the Liverpool docks and yet they still consider this their most difficult challenge.
Considering that our members are mainly middle class, often female, many of whom are also mothers, this is a quite astonishing fact and goes some way to highlight the level of aggressive management tactics and victimisation that we have had to endure.
The reason for this was never about a so-called “fight for survival”. “Backing BA” involved nothing more than backing a plan to crush our union’s ability to be able to represent cabin crew within British Airways, paving the way to introduce cheaper workers to replace you over time. This overtly aggressive method by which our leadership team sought to achieve this aim and the underhand tactics used have been quite frightening.
We all know the pain and loss that this dispute has caused, yet there was little alternative but to stand and fight, and that is exactly what the majority of us have done.
British Airways has now given a revised offer for you to consider; as it is largely based on the offer rejected in June, many members could not understand why it has not already been rejected by your reps.
The answer is simple: rejection for you alone to decide.
The offer is not perfect, nobody is saying that, and yet if you are weary of the battle, then this will bring it to an end, though it comes at a price. It spells out some of the safeguards you can expect: staff travel returns in full, albeit over an almost three-year period, and some of the victims of this dispute will at least be able to ask ACAS to scrutinise their cases.
There is of course no need to have this protracted wait for staff travel to be returned, other than a vindictive desire to punish; it doesn’t in anyway help bring a settlement nearer.
ACAS reviewing the cases is welcome, but will give no guarantees as to the outcome.
Additionally we must also forfeit our rights to challenge ALL of these issues through the courts.
We should also remember that these are consequences of the dispute, not the cause. That root cause remains entwined throughout this offer. Imposition and not honouring our agreements were the original catalysts, alongside a genuine fear for our future. New fleet will still be introduced; it will still gradually take your current work, you must decide if the now “permanent” top-up payment is sufficient for you to be unconcerned when that begins to happen.
The original desire to reduce Trade Union representation for cabin crew, alongside the worsening of employment policies (sickness, redeployment etc) is still there, and eight weeks from the acceptance of this agreement, it will be in place and yes, this will affect you.
There is no doubt that in the future we will not be able to represent you as we have in the past; when this new way of working comes about, our ability to influence will be far less. You must decide the value that has to you.
Will the climate of fear that has been created, where crew dare not speak openly to each other, end? Will the bullying by some members of flight deck continue? Will the ongoing devaluing of the cabin crew role continue? Again, this is for you to decide.
If you have confidence in management then the deal is not all bad and in some areas, good; if you do not, it remains the beginning of the end.
Lastly, it is worth noting that this is an offer, if it is rejected, then there is in effect NO offer - what then happens with staff travel and the “hostages” is unknown, it could be worse. There are NO guarantees. This is probably the best that negotiation could produce at the current time. The only other alternative would then be taking industrial action, the outcome of which of course is always unknown.
Your single vote will literally shape your own future and by using it, you will have played your part. Please use it wisely for your own sake. The decision is yours, yet along with that goes the responsibility of living with the choice you make.
We can only urge you to read the document and the analysis thoroughly and make an informed decision, it’s not rocket science, it’s all about you and your job, so please encourage ALL your colleagues to take an interest and vote.
If we can help, contact us.
What happens next is for you to decide, and be assured that we will respect your decision, whatever that may be.
Thank you for all your loyalty, support and friendship and of course, your vote.
Sincerely
Your Reps
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
BA don't have to do anything. If the latest offer is rejected, they can leave it at that. The onus is on Unite to make a move. If the union cannot find a reason for calling a strike ballot that is on a wholly new topic, unrelated in any way to the previous action, then the can try that. The snag is that they will need to not only get a majority in favour, but also be able to ensure that sufficient numbers walk out such that BA's operation is severely hampered. That's where the problem now lies. Unite have lost a chunk of members. There are a raft of new joiners in Mixed fleet who may be less inclined to walk out and there are all the volunteers. So the strike weapon has been effectively neutralised. BASSA's teeth have been drawn. I reckon that over time a growing number will become disillusioned with the branch and leave. This may get to the point where the branch is derecognised. Those who went on strike will eventually start feeling the pinch as they will not be getting the pay rises that the non-union folk have signed up for. Neither will they be getting the top up payments. Those who relied on staff travel for commuting purposes will find it increasingly expensive to get into work. All told I reckon there will be an increase in staff turnover as these folk find it less attractive to work for the airline. Their replacements will join Mixed Fleet. I can also see that BA might make the offer - minus the staff travel seniority return - at some point in the future to those who are no longer in the union. What BASSA are doing is accelerating the time scales for the introduction of Mixed fleet by sticthing up their members. The fact that it will bring about the branch's own demise seems to have escaped them.
I doubt that BA will go for dismissals for SOSR, simply because that might invite a further dispute.
BA don't have to do anything. If the latest offer is rejected, they can leave it at that. The onus is on Unite to make a move. If the union cannot find a reason for calling a strike ballot that is on a wholly new topic, unrelated in any way to the previous action, then the can try that. The snag is that they will need to not only get a majority in favour, but also be able to ensure that sufficient numbers walk out such that BA's operation is severely hampered. That's where the problem now lies. Unite have lost a chunk of members. There are a raft of new joiners in Mixed fleet who may be less inclined to walk out and there are all the volunteers. So the strike weapon has been effectively neutralised. BASSA's teeth have been drawn. I reckon that over time a growing number will become disillusioned with the branch and leave. This may get to the point where the branch is derecognised. Those who went on strike will eventually start feeling the pinch as they will not be getting the pay rises that the non-union folk have signed up for. Neither will they be getting the top up payments. Those who relied on staff travel for commuting purposes will find it increasingly expensive to get into work. All told I reckon there will be an increase in staff turnover as these folk find it less attractive to work for the airline. Their replacements will join Mixed Fleet. I can also see that BA might make the offer - minus the staff travel seniority return - at some point in the future to those who are no longer in the union. What BASSA are doing is accelerating the time scales for the introduction of Mixed fleet by sticthing up their members. The fact that it will bring about the branch's own demise seems to have escaped them.
I doubt that BA will go for dismissals for SOSR, simply because that might invite a further dispute.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
I think that you are missing my point - I should explain it a little better.
throughout this dispute, from Day 1, BA has carried a clear and constant message. They believe that structural change is required in order to survive and thrive in the long term. They have, at every turn, acted in accordance with this belief.
The one remaining, largely unreconstructed staff group is the cabin crew. There are some that have accepted new T&Cs - the 1000 or so non-union crews that have taken the new deal. The majority group of cabin crew represented by UNITE have accepted no changes to their T&Cs, they have had some changes imposed upon them and are fighting these changes.
The Q2 results - which are not even a full years results, has in no way affected or changed the core belief that structural change is required in order for BA to survive and subsequently thrive. This is the substantial reason - the Q2 results do not change that.
You can argue as to whether you believe that is a valid reason, but (VERY IMPORTANTLY) the only test in law is whether BA believes it is a substantial reason, not whether they are right in this belief. The very fact that BA are still in dispute with BASSA and UNITE tells you that they do believe it. If they did not, why would they put the company in financial peril by prolonging the dispute when they could cave in and continue operations?
I do not think that BA will use the SOSR dismissal route unless pushed by the union, but I think they have made all the required preparations to use it as a last resort.
throughout this dispute, from Day 1, BA has carried a clear and constant message. They believe that structural change is required in order to survive and thrive in the long term. They have, at every turn, acted in accordance with this belief.
The one remaining, largely unreconstructed staff group is the cabin crew. There are some that have accepted new T&Cs - the 1000 or so non-union crews that have taken the new deal. The majority group of cabin crew represented by UNITE have accepted no changes to their T&Cs, they have had some changes imposed upon them and are fighting these changes.
The Q2 results - which are not even a full years results, has in no way affected or changed the core belief that structural change is required in order for BA to survive and subsequently thrive. This is the substantial reason - the Q2 results do not change that.
You can argue as to whether you believe that is a valid reason, but (VERY IMPORTANTLY) the only test in law is whether BA believes it is a substantial reason, not whether they are right in this belief. The very fact that BA are still in dispute with BASSA and UNITE tells you that they do believe it. If they did not, why would they put the company in financial peril by prolonging the dispute when they could cave in and continue operations?
I do not think that BA will use the SOSR dismissal route unless pushed by the union, but I think they have made all the required preparations to use it as a last resort.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vctenderness
have never noticed the last scentence in staff travel terms and conditions before.Are you sure that it has not been added recently.When I logged on a few days ago it seemed to jump out although I wasn't paying too much attention at the time,as if to say, I havnt noticed you before.
have never noticed the last scentence in staff travel terms and conditions before.Are you sure that it has not been added recently.When I logged on a few days ago it seemed to jump out although I wasn't paying too much attention at the time,as if to say, I havnt noticed you before.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good valid point
Quote: "I cannot speak for Strikers but maybe it is not the Staff Travel but the unfairness in their eyes of it's removal that drives them on. Some of them would like their day in court because they want to prove to everyone that Willie Walsh should not have punished them by removing it. Also some, not all, of suspensions and dismissals are seen as over the top also."
I agree with the comment above.
The legal issue around the removal of ST could seriously damage WW and BA in this dispute. Contractual or non-contractual is not the real issue here, the Judge will have to assess only and exclusively if the ST removal was done as retaliation against legal strikers for participating in the strike or not. This will be the legal point.
The law on strike discrimination and punishments is very clear and an Employer can never discriminate legal strikers for their legal strike action, directly or indirectly. Otherwise the legal right to strike is obstructed.
I do not think BA has got a chance to win the ST legal battle if the Law is correctly interpreted by the Judge.
This specific Law was actually introduced by the Law makers with the specific intention to allow legal striker to go on a "safe" strike without risks.
Very easy to understand I think.
I agree with the comment above.
The legal issue around the removal of ST could seriously damage WW and BA in this dispute. Contractual or non-contractual is not the real issue here, the Judge will have to assess only and exclusively if the ST removal was done as retaliation against legal strikers for participating in the strike or not. This will be the legal point.
The law on strike discrimination and punishments is very clear and an Employer can never discriminate legal strikers for their legal strike action, directly or indirectly. Otherwise the legal right to strike is obstructed.
I do not think BA has got a chance to win the ST legal battle if the Law is correctly interpreted by the Judge.
This specific Law was actually introduced by the Law makers with the specific intention to allow legal striker to go on a "safe" strike without risks.
Very easy to understand I think.
Last edited by ILS27LEFT; 31st Oct 2010 at 15:34.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IlS27LEFT
The law on strike discrimination and punishments is very clear and an Employer can never discriminate legal strikers for their legal strike action, directly or indirectly. Otherwise the legal right to strike is obstructed
None of these things are as black and white as we would like them to be - if they were then Barristers would be paupers. Now there's a dream we can all hold in common
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan,
I tend to believe what Colonel has written and I missed the point, that it was an offer to end the dispute, not a reason to change contracts.
As to a reason for further IA, I imagine the dismissals would be a just reason.
I tend to believe what Colonel has written and I missed the point, that it was an offer to end the dispute, not a reason to change contracts.
As to a reason for further IA, I imagine the dismissals would be a just reason.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote : "I think you overstate the case. Your employer does not pay you for days you are on strike, is this then discrimination? "
This will be the exact legal point: the Law specifically warns you that if you go on a legal strike then your Employer has got the perfectly legal option to withdraw your pay, your Employer can also apply the following "the days you took industrial action on will not usually count towards your total length of service with your employer".
All the rest "in theory" cannot be modified: for example your rank, your salary, your perks. This is the theory behind it.
This was the original intention behind the Law: the practical protection of a legal striker. You cannot have at the same time a legal right on one side and a legal punishment/retaliation versus this same right on the other side....unless the same Law allows it (as deduction of pay)
Obviously a Judge should always give priority to the real intention of the Law when something it is not black and white.
If then the politicians are not happy with the present Law they will have to change it but a Judge should never take a political decision.
We will see.
This will be the exact legal point: the Law specifically warns you that if you go on a legal strike then your Employer has got the perfectly legal option to withdraw your pay, your Employer can also apply the following "the days you took industrial action on will not usually count towards your total length of service with your employer".
All the rest "in theory" cannot be modified: for example your rank, your salary, your perks. This is the theory behind it.
This was the original intention behind the Law: the practical protection of a legal striker. You cannot have at the same time a legal right on one side and a legal punishment/retaliation versus this same right on the other side....unless the same Law allows it (as deduction of pay)
Obviously a Judge should always give priority to the real intention of the Law when something it is not black and white.
If then the politicians are not happy with the present Law they will have to change it but a Judge should never take a political decision.
We will see.