BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[Juan Tugoh]

IlS27LEFT

We will certainly see.

Obviously a Judge should always give priority to the real intention of the Law when something it is not black and white.

This used to be the case in English law - and the test was that of the "reasonable man". The "reasonable man" was even defined as the man on the Clapham omnibus. European law has changed things as the intent of the law makers may not be clear given the differing native languages of the drafters of the legislation. This has drip fed into English law such that the letter of the written law can now be more important than the drafters intention and the "reasonable man".

[swalesboy]

With regard to SOSR and a 90 day contract. Wouldn't BA have to issue this to its entire CC on the same contract, not just cherry pick who was to be issued with the notice?

[Litebulbs]

I tired the reasonable person test on the BA dispute down the pub the other week. My trade union, protect the weak against big business views, definitely came off second best in that discussion. Still, thats my fault for having Sun reading white van owning self employed entrepreneurs as mates.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by swalesboy

With regard to SOSR and a 90 day contract. Wouldn't BA have to issue this to its entire CC on the same contract, not just cherry pick who was to be issued with the notice?

Yep, everyone on that contract.

[Hotel Mode]

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.

Tomkins, it has been there at least since the last rejig of the staff travel site over 2 years ago. It was also posted here before the strike. It is not new.

[ILS27LEFT]

true

Quote: "This used to be the case in English law - and the test was that of the "reasonable man". The "reasonable man" was even defined as the man on the Clapham omnibus. European law has changed things as the intent of the law makers may not be clear given the differing native languages of the drafters of the legislation. This has drip fed into English law such that the letter of the written law can now be more important than the drafters intention and the "reasonable man". "

I agree with the above comment, you are right about the languages risks but I know for sure that UK Judges have extremely bright minds.

We cannot even slightly guess what would have happened if AF, IB or AZ would have withdrawn ST to their legal strikers...


Quote: "With regard to SOSR and a 90 day contract. Wouldn't BA have to issue this to its entire CC on the same contract, not just cherry pick who was to be issued with the notice?"

It is the same legal point as ST: by the Law BA would have to issue this to the entire group on same contract, it cannot be done directly or indirectly as retaliation against IA targeting only a "guilty" group.

As long as a strike is legal each employee should feel free to participate to it being fully aware of the "penalties/losses" specifically provisioned by the legislation.

[Caribbean Boy]

swalesboy, I believe that to be the case as it would be discriminatory for BA to select SOSR for strikers only. As BA needs to keep onside the majority of non-striking, existing crew, then this is why I think that SOSR has not been served.

[swalesboy]

I do agree that I don't think the 90 day notice route will be taken.

However, small issue about the next strike being unprotected really should be investigated by future strikers. Didn't BA already tell Unite that they think they are putting their members at risk by potentially striking again? If the ballot returns a 'No' then I suspect that this point will be re-iterated to Unite.

Could BA survive and operate a full schedule if they did go to the extreme and dismiss future strikers. Would a threat of possible dismissal put off a few more hundred people from striking, leaving 2-3000 CC being shown the door. I think I am right when I say that BA cannot replace dismissed strikers for a period of 3 months.

[Juan Tugoh]

With regard to SOSR and a 90 day contract. Wouldn't BA have to issue this to its entire CC on the same contract, not just cherry pick who was to be issued with the notice?

I think this is an oversimplification, I understand that this is not the case. They could for instance SOSR a particular group of staff. ie all CSDs or all PSRs or all Maincrew. They cannot just SOSR all strikers. It would be interesting as to whether they could SOSR those that still remain in dispute, with those that have signed a deal being exempt.

That said, I re-iterate that I do not think they will do this.

[swalesboy]

I'm no expert, but wouldn't SOSR'ing only strikers definately be seen as victimising them.

Staff travel could be argued against as being a perk, but 90 day contract for strikers only would be a different kettle of fish altogether.

[Caribbean Boy]

swalesboy wrote:

Didn't BA already tell Unite that they think they are putting their members at risk by potentially striking again?

I think this was about striking again over the same issues as the previous strikes. (Unite would have to ballot on a different issue, and it's not clear that they can do this.)

Any strike for the same reason as the original would be illegal outside the 12-week protection period, so the strikers and their union could pay a severe penalty. Legally, the strikers could be sacked and Unite could be fined heavily.

[vctenderness]

Originally Posted by tomkins

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.

If you look back on this thread and the one that went before (for yonks) you will see verbatim quotes from the ST front page. In my opinion it has not changed. I'm not sure what you mean by 'have not noticed you before' I'm the one wearing the big yellow jacket, holding a dozen yellow pens, waving a yellow flag and eating custard! (sorry for sarcasm but WHAT!)

[Wobbler]

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?

A half year profit of £158 million does not make BA a viable company. That figure is just about what it costs to buy a new A380. With an ageing fleet of over 200 aircraft - it would take 100 years to replace the fleet! BA needs to be making a lot more than that now in order to replace aircraft in the medium term or it will cease to be.

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.

I am a complete legal numpty - but googling "industrial action and the law" I can only find references to protected action and being sacked (Employmet Relations Act 2004 I think) - in that it would automatically be unfair. However I can find no reference to any other sanction an employer may care to use. Could you provide a reference please?

[Colonel White]

That Reps letter...

Interesting reading. Loved the bit where Len McCluskey (they managed to spell his name right this time) is referred to as the next General Secretary of Unite. The reps must be clairvoyant as the election has only just opend and the result isn't due until November 24th. Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The whole tone of the piece is sending BASSA down the tubes. It clearly shows how divided the reps are as previous missives have spoken about the majority of reps accepting recommending the offer to members. That is not the message that comes across. BA could reasonably say that the union is not acting in good faith, but I doubt that they will. I suspect they will keep their powder dry until just before the closing date when they might make the same offer available again to any non-union people who didn't get their resignations in in time to get the deal last time around. The reps are being remarkably economic with the truth. They say that

The only other alternative would then be taking industrial action, the outcome of which of course is always unknown.

They know full well that further industrial action means no pay, potential dismissal, potential fines for the union etc. with BA operating a potential full programme.They haven't the guts to spell it out because to do so would be to admit defeat. They would rather see their members sacked than admit they were wrong. It truly is a shameful day when people who claim to represent the union membership can so callously choose to mislead, those same members to this extent. A truly Waco moment.

[yellowdog]

I am a complete legal numpty - but googling "industrial action and the law" I can only find references to protected action and being sacked (Employmet Relations Act 2004 I think) - in that it would automatically be unfair. However I can find no reference to any other sanction an employer may care to use. Could you provide a reference please?

I too am a legal numpty, but found this on the "working rights" website. I am not paid to be a judge (lol) nor am I a legal minded person but does removal of ST constitute "disciplinary action"?

Legal Protection for Workers Taking Industrial Action
As long as the procedures have been followed, workers involved in industrial action enjoy the protection of the law. The dispute has to be between specific workers and their employers, which has effectively killed off strikes in sympathy of workers involved in other disputes. The protection that the law offers is against dismissal or other disciplinary action for involvement in industrial action.

After 12 weeks of dispute the legal situation changes. Striking employees can claim unfair dismissal if the company can be shown to not have tried to settle the argument. In addition, workers who gave up the industrial action before the end of the 12 week, period but were subsequently dismissed, can claim unfair dismissal.

[harrypic]

Reality

The reality is on this that, despite the new offer being very generous in todays austerity and exceeding every reasonable box anyone would hope for, there will probably be a no vote. Its a superb offer but it will be rejected.............DH has no interest in any settlement, whatsoever - a settlement will mean a leadership election in BASSA in which he wont be eligible to stand. So, you can see BASSA's stance, lets keep the dispute going and I can continue as leader, raking off my percentage.....sod our members....and he influences 90% of BASSA members....

That is the sad reality.

CC, you have a great offer, accept it and be happy - Unite will soon lose interest in this, even red len, with the more important battles they have to fight soon, with many 1000's of public sector workers losing their jobs, dignity and livelyhood...............not their staff travel but their lives......how many of those poor fellows, facing the breadline, will be at the picket line drinking Pimms, eating cakes and arriving in their BMW M3 Convertibles, with Unite flags on...?

Red Len aint stupid.....

[MrBernoulli]

Red Len aint stupid.....

I beg to differ......

[Wirbelsturm]

Red Len aint stupid.....

Ask all those who followed his and Derek Hattons rhetoric into obscurity in Liverpool. Len has come out of it smelling of the proverbial Unionistic roses in his well funded job for life. The rest of those employed by the industry destroyed by the Dockworkers Union had to congratulate themselves all the way to the job centre and into the arms of the tax payer.

Red Len ain't stupid? From his cushy, well paid Union job perspective, no, you're probably right.

[keel beam]

Perhaps the legalities of staff travel removal for strikers should be heard in court to give a definitive answer once and for all.

I think think the union would be on dodgy grounds. The strikers did not have their staff travel removed because they were on strike, they had their staff travel removed because they were told it was going to be removed if they went on strike. I think this thin line of being told before hand would be in the favour of the airline (like other poster's caveats, I have no legal back ground so this is just an opinion) On that basis it would not be discriminatory.

As for SOSR, it would be in the airlines' interest that this was not instigated, however if this latest offer is rejected then a 90 day notice of new contracts may be applied. (Using the contract already signed by the non union cabin crew)

[Juan Tugoh]

As for SOSR, it would be in the airlines' interest that this was not instigated, however if this latest offer is rejected then a 90 day notice of new contracts may be applied. (Using the contract already signed by the non union cabin crew)

I don't think BA will use SOSR as they already have what they want, with the notable exception of an end to the dispute. However, if they do use SOSR, I suspect they will be a little more radical than the contract of the non-union crew contract. I suspect a lot more clauses will appear in the contract. One of the main benefits of using SOSR to change contracts is that it would invalidate the current union recognition agreement and open the door for BASSA's demise.