BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[Meal Chucker]

Litebulbs link makes very interesting reading -

From paragraph 26 -

During June 2009, there was a serious disagreement between the two union branches with the result that it was no longer possible to conduct meetings at which both branches were present. In late June, BA put forward a proposal which included specific reductions in crew complement. Two days later, Unite put forward a Pay and Productivity proposal which it claimed would save £173 million per annum. Although this proposal included some reduction in crew complements, these were not as significant as the BA proposal. BA then analysed the costings within the union's proposal and found that it would result in savings of only £53 million. It was therefore unacceptable. In July and September, there were several attempts at further negotiation, some involving ACAS. A particular difficulty was that the two branches of the union were still not prepared to work together.

From paragraph 29 -

There has, however, been considerable dissatisfaction both as to the effect of the new arrangements on working conditions and also with the manner in which the changes were effected. The judge recorded that many staff were resentful of the decision to impose the changes rather than to negotiate them. As to this, the judge appears to have been of the view that staff had not realised how much difficulty had been caused by the refusal of the two union branches to work together.

[Wirbelsturm]

The matters which determine the collective workload include (a) how many passengers are on board, (b) how the flight is configured and (c) what services are to be provided to the various categories of passengers. Factor (a) is outside the control of the parties. Factors (b) and (c) are matters for the decision of BA and are not dealt with in any provision of the WSA. Crew complements appear to have been agreed by reference to the anticipated or usual collective workload. If crew complements are reduced, it seems to me that there must be some impact on individual workload. The judge accepted that the changes instituted in November 2009 have resulted in increased stress and exhaustion on some occasions. However, I think it was implicit in the judge's findings that this impact was neither very frequent nor very serious.

Hmmm, welcome to the real world. Perhaps other branches could take BA to court if the workload incresed if it was icy and de-icing was required, raining and the pushback crews had to work in the rain. Windy, and the approach was exhausting etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps BASSA should concentrate now on representing all of its members and negotiate with BA as to how this whole situation should be taken forward into the future with the interests of ALL members taken forward not just getting the CSD back into their 'office'.

[ottergirl]

Thanks Litebulbs, for me it all comes down to this statement

As to this, the judge appears to have been of the view that staff had not realised how much difficulty had been caused by the refusal of the two union branches to work together.

Exactly right! Why can an outsider see this so clearly yet most of our crew can not?

[Flap62]

It is also interesting from the full finding that an educated, legal mind observed:

Issues which might usually be regarded as falling within the sphere of management are the subject of bilateral negotiation resulting in collective agreements.

Saying that - in a normal company the management would have the right to manage the company but in the disfunctional world of BA, CC unions have been allowed to run it by committee.

[Wirbelsturm]

disfunctional world of BA, CC unions have been allowed to run it by committee.

I seem to remember the old phrase:

'Irish parliament'

Being aptly used to describe such a decision or indecision making process!

(no offence to the Irish of course )

[MrBernoulli]

So, where to next, eh? Does anyone have any responses from the culpable crowd at the top of the BASSA (or Unite) hierarchy?

What a farce. Outside of BASSA it has been pretty obvious that this line of 'attack' would go nowhere, but will BASSA see that? Nope, they still won't! I am reasonably confident of that. The march over the cliff will continue apace. Why? Well, nobody of reasonable mind can explain that because there is no rhyme or reason within BASSA, just bloody-minded, senseless stubborness.

Good grief people, save yourselves from the BASSA vortex that is sucking you all in! There is no rainbow, or crock of gold, or whatever else it is you think it might be, in BASSA's tiny little world.

[DextersLaboratory]

Oh FFS, Lady Justice Smith wrote the judgement!

Look before para 1. to see her name, then at the bottom, Lord Justice Jackson and Lord Justice Ward both say 'I agree', para 66 and 67.

It would hardly be correct for her to say 'I agree with myself'.

[Abbey Road]

From the judgement, papagraph 8 (my bold):

The present position is that there are several collective agreements between BA and the relevant trade unions which appear to cover almost every aspect of the cabin crew working terms and conditions. None of these collective agreements is enforceable as between BA and the trade union in that in none of them is there any express intention recorded that the agreement should be enforceable, as is required by section 179 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Oh dear!

[TorC]

Nothing to say

According to the online FT, Unite have nothing to say about the ruling but are "hopeful" to ballot soon.

[swalesboy]

So all of these wonderful agreements that BASSA have negotiated over the years, and non strikers have been vilified over, are not legal or binding. What a fab union.

[Flap62]

Watersidewonker,

On 28th Oct you wrote:

with BASSA members remaining firm in the view that the courts will be finding in our favour on many counts

Care to comment?

No? thought not.

[TorC]

The present position is that there are several collective agreements between BA and the relevant trade unions which appear to cover almost every aspect of the cabin crew working terms and conditions. None of these collective agreements is enforceable as between BA and the trade union in that in none of them is there any express intention recorded that the agreement should be enforceable, as is required by section 179 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

So, back in the days when bassa WAS talking to BA, and putting the various agreements together, they failed to make sure that things were enforceable, but then led everyone on a wild goose chase by claiming that they were.

No wonder that Unite "has nothing to say"!

[apriliadriver]

I attended Court 72 today : after handing down the decision, the Appeal Judge asked whether the Appellants intended to appeal to the Supreme Court and, there being no answer, recorded that no appeal had been lodged. BA won costs.

[demomonkey]

Conspiracy theorist? Moi?

Maybe this is what UNITE wanted. Mr Simpson and Woodley let Duncan & Co drive the BASSA bus into the crash barrier and humiliate themselves in front of the membership and expose their lets say 'shortcomings'.

In my the meanwhile Uncle's Willie and Woodley have been having a cosy chat and cuppa putting together 'this is the plan going forward' deal which UNITE can now unveil knowing that Duncan & Co have finally shot themselves in both feet and most fingers! Strange don't you think that very little was announced from their recent and well publicized confabulation! And then suddenly ST is offered back like some sort of pre-sweetener just to prove there are no hard feelings....

So over a year later, many people lost their jobs, many £m wasted, many heated arguments, many friendships broken, many cars in the car park scratched etc etc etc.

Who were the real winners? The Legal Profession!

[MrBunker]

I'm not sure the hardcore will let this one be the end to the matter. From sources various today, over and above the stuff I mentioned earlier, I'm now being told with a straight face that the dismissal of appeal means that no-one one (couldn't make a legal judgement apparently), that BA being awarded costs means they're paying UNITE's bill, that to have won this one would've been bad for UNITE and BASSA anyway and that even if they'd won it would've been such a minor victory for them anyhow!

The only constant I ever see from this whole debacle is BASSA and their supporters' permanent ability to take a truth and form a distortion of reality that transcends the legal, social and industrial viewpoints on the matter. As demonstrated ably by the above comments.

MrB

[keel beam]

Gingerminge

Wondered how long it would take for the gloating to start!

Absolutley no gloating here!

Quite well summed up by Wirbelsturm. (post 996 at present time of writing)

Will this appeal result bring the BASSA leaders to their senses? (no answer required )

[maintprog]

As an outsider I do feel that the whole 'fighting for survival' was just smoke and mirrors to get rid of a union. I also have the feeling that Mr Walsh picked a fight thinking he'd win quite easily. How wrong he has been.

At the time I believe the market situation justified that statement and, aviation being the fickle business it is influenced by so many outside forces, only 20:20 hindsight and the subsequent market upturn allows us to think that it was disingenuous.

I do not believe that it is in BA's interest to get rid of the union but agree the 'long game' is to get a more appropriate power balance as to who manages BA.

[Scapa]

DeltaMikeCharlie

The court case was about whether crewing level's were contractual. The reasons for going on strike originally was about 'imposition' and going against agreements.

Sorry can't agree, these are one in the same, the contractual element of the crewing levels has been absolutely central to the BASSA/UNITE argument since the beginning.

As an outsider I do feel that the whole 'fighting for survival' was just smoke and mirrors to get rid of a union.

So the global downturn had no impact on us? Massive losses for the last two years. Spiking oil prices, massive reduction in premium traffic not helped by the collapse of one of our biggest clients. The only reason we are back to a vaguely sustainable position is the reduction in costs required during the downturn. All staff groups have contributed and engaged apart from one, lead into confrontation by their union. Please refer back to the original offer which included share options, no new fleet and a pay deal, not really the actions of a company hellbent on union busting.

I also have the feeling that Mr Walsh picked a fight thinking he'd win quite easily. How wrong he has been.

Again sorry cant agree, he hasn't been one step ahead all of the way through he has been several. At the beginning he had modest cost savings from crew, now he has original cost saving PLUS new fleet to give a permanent long term reduction year on year to the IFCE budget. He doesn't care about ST and disciplinary, the cold truth is that he has achieved more cost savings out of our crew than he could have every imagined at the outset, not because of what he has done, but through the reaction of the representatives.

I do hope things can be worked out soon.

I do agree with you here though.

[Juan Tugoh]

I think the cabin crew will get a little more sympathy for the one sided treatment it has been afforded.

If the cabin crew have received one sided treatment it is because BASSA has from the very start conducted the dispute appallingly. It is as if they had all the good advice they needed but at each stage decided to act exactly opposite to that good advice. The cabin crew themselves need our sympathy only for being too trusting, they trusted the self serving and frankly dim leadership of DH and LM. Ultimately you get treated in the manner you allow yourself to be treated, if that is one sided, you need to examine your own behaviour.

[ROSIEGIRL]

This is very disappointing. My and many others lives are being played out by lawyers and union officials.

Even in our own union BASSA I hear of huge amounts of money being paid to individuals and even one living in a house bought for nearly half a million pounds over 7 years ago.

I am seriously depressed. The fight is over and we have been trounced. I blame not Unite as is popular but BASSA and cc89 who it seems would not even talk to eachother never mind the company.

Very sad day