BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just trying to sort out the mess and organise IA,
It was done for the members not for himself.
It was done for the members not for himself.
He was firefighting an inability of his branch to organise a valid ballot. Why should BA pay?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: london
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But since we released news of Columbus I think our successes have outweighed our minuses. My conscience is very clean on that score.
As a member I would expect my branch secretary to organise the most important ballot in the past 10 years.
The company refused to give him the time off, what should he have done?
The company refused to give him the time off, what should he have done?
I believe he takes 5%
If that's true no wonder he's hanging on. For the last few years that makes over £40000 BA salary, allowances, about £100 per day for union business, and over £60000 from BASSA subs. MAybe about £130000 or so?
Aren't Woodley and Simpson on about half that?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe he takes 5%.
As a member I would expect my branch secretary to organise the most important ballot in the past 10 years.
The company refused to give him the time off, what should he have done?
As a member I would expect my branch secretary to organise the most important ballot in the past 10 years.
The company refused to give him the time off, what should he have done?
Are you saying that he did not have enough time within the facilities agreement that prevented him from arranging a ballot?
What should he have done? Reported for his rostered duty!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow. I'm reading through some of these responses and wondering where does this sense of entitlement come from. Does it begin your first day on the job or does it build up over time.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF the figures quoted are correct (or even remotely true) then, to be quite honest, it is unsurprising that we are where we are. If the reps stand to earn £100+ per day from the Union then it is obvious that LM, DH et al would find more reason to do Union work than BA work. Working for BASSA literally pays them NOT TO FLY. It explains why so many of the reps were off "sick" - no real reason to fly. There are only a few trips that would earn this kind of money, so no incentive to do the "real job".
This topic has therefore probably shown one of the huge flaws in all of this: the reps may have started out with the members' interests at heart, but with such ease and capability to line their own pockets, who's to say they attended plenty of meetings, not out of true concern for the members, but merely because it was financially beneficial to do so? And who can blame them, they are after all, only human?
Contrast this with the PCCC who are working tirelessly and entirely in their own time; who have not charged anyone a penny yet, and who are endeavouring to find a better way forward for the cabin crew and for our company. Surely this is the true essence of a "union"? Surely this is what representatives are supposed to do - unreservedly, and unfalteringly try to achieve the best deal for the community, without any outside interests or financial gain?
It's a clear Conflict of Interest, and it should have been the first Agenda item of every meeting. Anyone who stood to gain more from being there than on aeroplane, essentially had a conflict of interest.
It also explains why many have lost sight of their real job; the reps obviously feel more loyalty to Unite, due to the financial rewards, than BA. That is clearly wrong.
Whatever the outcome one thing is clear: working for a union (whether that is PCCC, BASSA or Amicus) should NOT be more financially beneficial than working for BA.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
This topic has therefore probably shown one of the huge flaws in all of this: the reps may have started out with the members' interests at heart, but with such ease and capability to line their own pockets, who's to say they attended plenty of meetings, not out of true concern for the members, but merely because it was financially beneficial to do so? And who can blame them, they are after all, only human?
Contrast this with the PCCC who are working tirelessly and entirely in their own time; who have not charged anyone a penny yet, and who are endeavouring to find a better way forward for the cabin crew and for our company. Surely this is the true essence of a "union"? Surely this is what representatives are supposed to do - unreservedly, and unfalteringly try to achieve the best deal for the community, without any outside interests or financial gain?
It's a clear Conflict of Interest, and it should have been the first Agenda item of every meeting. Anyone who stood to gain more from being there than on aeroplane, essentially had a conflict of interest.
It also explains why many have lost sight of their real job; the reps obviously feel more loyalty to Unite, due to the financial rewards, than BA. That is clearly wrong.
Whatever the outcome one thing is clear: working for a union (whether that is PCCC, BASSA or Amicus) should NOT be more financially beneficial than working for BA.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 7th Nov 2010 at 18:33.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Swindon
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm told by a BASSA rep (who has no time for old Dunc) that the Branch Secretary is entitled to 8% of subs to use as they see fit.
I have no idea if this particular individual takes this money but that's the entitlement.
Are the BASSA accounts (as a branch of Unite) available as public record?
I have no idea if this particular individual takes this money but that's the entitlement.
Are the BASSA accounts (as a branch of Unite) available as public record?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But since we released news of Columbus I think our successes have outweighed our minuses.
Mind you, if the branch secretary's percentage of the BASSA take is to be believed, he can probably be forgiven for being distracted from the detail.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Swindon
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But since we released news of Columbus I think our successes have outweighed our minuses
Numerous suspended
Loss of Union facilities/time off
Loss of staff travel
Public condemnation
Humiliation in the courts (on more than one occasion re ballots/in fighting)
Alienation from the rest of the company
Mixed Fleet not integrated
Mixed Fleet introduced early
Huge numbers of member resignatiions.
No solution to "imposition"
The death of BASSA in it's current form.
Actually the last one is a success Drunken.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, BASSA and, more frequently, their supporters have never resorted once to childish perversions of the participants' real names during this whole debacle, have they? It's noteworthy though that BA haven't responded in kind to the BASSA style of appellation.
However, I don't dispute that it adds nothing, but it's hardly a one-sided exercise.
MrB
However, I don't dispute that it adds nothing, but it's hardly a one-sided exercise.
MrB
Last edited by MrBunker; 7th Nov 2010 at 21:47.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I've been doing the sums and am quite staggered by the figures. Now to start with, I may have the BASSA monthly subs wrong, so would be obliged if someone can correct me on this. My belief is that they run out at £16pm. Based on a membership of 9000 that means BASSA hauls in £1.73M per year. If the branch sec cops 5% of this, that totals £86,400 p.a. Now I seem to recall that Mr Holley's reason for dismissal was due to his non-attendance on days he was rostered for duty. His defence was that he needed the time for union duties. Clearly, if he is raking in over £86k, courtesy of the membership, he can afford to take a few days unpaid leave to sort out any union work. Had he taken this tack, he might have still been employed.
As far as Duncan's assertion that he will hang in til next year before gving up the job of BASSA branch secretary, I wonder if this has anything to do with being able to draw a pension then. In the meantime he seems to be determined to milk the branch for every penny he can lay his mitts on. Are the BASSA supporters happy to have someone who is not a BA employee and not cabin crew creaming off a proportion of their subs ? What justification is there for paying this person who cannot call a strike ballot, is unaffected by the working conditions of branch members, holds no real power outside of the branch and yet seeks to affect the livelihoods of so many. It's not even like paying a consultant. With them, if they give you duff advice, you can sue.
As far as Duncan's assertion that he will hang in til next year before gving up the job of BASSA branch secretary, I wonder if this has anything to do with being able to draw a pension then. In the meantime he seems to be determined to milk the branch for every penny he can lay his mitts on. Are the BASSA supporters happy to have someone who is not a BA employee and not cabin crew creaming off a proportion of their subs ? What justification is there for paying this person who cannot call a strike ballot, is unaffected by the working conditions of branch members, holds no real power outside of the branch and yet seeks to affect the livelihoods of so many. It's not even like paying a consultant. With them, if they give you duff advice, you can sue.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hubert, the reason Duncan was not given time off for union duties, is that back in the summer BASSA withdrew from the Union Facilities Agreement.
Yes, BASSA did that - unilaterally. It's this agreement that arranges for reps to have time off for union business, so no agreement = no time off rostered.
Yes, BASSA did that - unilaterally. It's this agreement that arranges for reps to have time off for union business, so no agreement = no time off rostered.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from Duncan - you just knew, deep down, somehow, he couldn't go with it.
BALLOT UPDATE
Nov 8th, 2010 by admin
Understandably many of you are becoming increasingly frustrated with the delay in the ballot on the settlement document. For the last week, the issues delaying the ballot have been purely legal. There were lists to agree between Unite and BA of the names of all the crew who are in process or have been sanctioned or dismissed (one case only emerged on Friday, the victim having conducted his own defence not wishing to bother BASSA because he thought we were busy enough). This was for the purpose of any future arbitration. There was also the major issue of both sides agreeing exactly what legal cases would be conceded, and discontinued through the courts. It would appear Unite and BA agreed these on Friday, and Saturday lunchtime the senior BASSA reps saw the appendix containing the litigation details for the first time.
It would be fair to say all the reps now have major concerns with some of the cases that would have to be conceded should this deal be accepted by crew. Officially we are supposed to be “recommending” this deal, at least so all of you
have the democratic right to vote on it. Based on what we have just received, most, or all of us, will choke on the word recommend.
What we have decided to do is to call an emergency meeting of the available senior reps within the next 48 hours to discuss what we have just received. We are also asking Unite to delay sending out the ballot till we have met.
Apologies therefore for a couple of days further delay. We hope you will understand that the explanations to the
contents of the document have to be accurate, and that we have to be totally honest with you, with what the litigation
will mean - we also need to clarify some of the legal points. Once we have met we will update you.
Nov 8th, 2010 by admin
Understandably many of you are becoming increasingly frustrated with the delay in the ballot on the settlement document. For the last week, the issues delaying the ballot have been purely legal. There were lists to agree between Unite and BA of the names of all the crew who are in process or have been sanctioned or dismissed (one case only emerged on Friday, the victim having conducted his own defence not wishing to bother BASSA because he thought we were busy enough). This was for the purpose of any future arbitration. There was also the major issue of both sides agreeing exactly what legal cases would be conceded, and discontinued through the courts. It would appear Unite and BA agreed these on Friday, and Saturday lunchtime the senior BASSA reps saw the appendix containing the litigation details for the first time.
It would be fair to say all the reps now have major concerns with some of the cases that would have to be conceded should this deal be accepted by crew. Officially we are supposed to be “recommending” this deal, at least so all of you
have the democratic right to vote on it. Based on what we have just received, most, or all of us, will choke on the word recommend.
What we have decided to do is to call an emergency meeting of the available senior reps within the next 48 hours to discuss what we have just received. We are also asking Unite to delay sending out the ballot till we have met.
Apologies therefore for a couple of days further delay. We hope you will understand that the explanations to the
contents of the document have to be accurate, and that we have to be totally honest with you, with what the litigation
will mean - we also need to clarify some of the legal points. Once we have met we will update you.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And also
And just in case you weren't sure what BASSA really want you to vote (names at end removed to protect the "innocent"
Our futures depend on your votes.
The current proposal upon which you will shortly be asked to vote concerns, in part, the rights of cabin crew like us who have been sacked by BA because of the Industrial Dispute. It's nice to know we have our own appendix in BA’s offer but we have no vote on it.
BA has suggested that we must agree to binding ACAS arbitration by people over whom only BA have a right of veto. In return for this, our union, to whom we as loyal members have paid our dues over many years, will undertake to withdraw all direct and indirect financial and legal support if we should decide we wish to pursue our cases through the established system of an Employment Tribunal.
At the moment, we already have a legal right to request such arbitration and BA can accept this if they should wish to do so. Unfortunately they have not, as far as any of us are aware, agreed to any such arbitration. This proposal does not grant us any additional rights but instead strips away our Union's support for us as union members without any ability for us to have a democratic say in how our affairs should be managed in the future. Legal costs for such an action could exceed £20,000 if we were to be forced into this position and few of us would be able to pursue our cases if the Union, through their solicitors, were not able to back us at a Tribunal.
Worse still, at a Tribunal, individual managers are personally liable for any decision that they have taken as part of the disciplinary procedure. By removing our right to union representation at a Tribunal, none of those who have mistreated cabin crew, with their campaign to weaken our union through destroying individual careers, will ever be held to account. In fact such an arrangement will lift the fear of how they will be viewed by the Courts and could embolden such people even further. A vote to accept this offer could in fact lead to an increase in the number of cabin crew dismissed by BA purely because the hearing managers will no longer be worried about being held to such account in the courts.
As we have said above, as we are no longer employed by BA, we do not have a vote on this offer. However, our futures, our union’s backing and our legal rights are being traded between Unite and BA. We, it seems, are not people with civil liberties who should be consulted about any decisions on our lives but merely pawns in a bigger game.
If we did have a vote, it would be No.
When you have the chance to vote on this offer, we urge you to think of us. We can’t vote but we urge those of you that can, to do so wisely and in the full knowledge that our situation could also be yours.
Signed Alphabetically,
The current proposal upon which you will shortly be asked to vote concerns, in part, the rights of cabin crew like us who have been sacked by BA because of the Industrial Dispute. It's nice to know we have our own appendix in BA’s offer but we have no vote on it.
BA has suggested that we must agree to binding ACAS arbitration by people over whom only BA have a right of veto. In return for this, our union, to whom we as loyal members have paid our dues over many years, will undertake to withdraw all direct and indirect financial and legal support if we should decide we wish to pursue our cases through the established system of an Employment Tribunal.
At the moment, we already have a legal right to request such arbitration and BA can accept this if they should wish to do so. Unfortunately they have not, as far as any of us are aware, agreed to any such arbitration. This proposal does not grant us any additional rights but instead strips away our Union's support for us as union members without any ability for us to have a democratic say in how our affairs should be managed in the future. Legal costs for such an action could exceed £20,000 if we were to be forced into this position and few of us would be able to pursue our cases if the Union, through their solicitors, were not able to back us at a Tribunal.
Worse still, at a Tribunal, individual managers are personally liable for any decision that they have taken as part of the disciplinary procedure. By removing our right to union representation at a Tribunal, none of those who have mistreated cabin crew, with their campaign to weaken our union through destroying individual careers, will ever be held to account. In fact such an arrangement will lift the fear of how they will be viewed by the Courts and could embolden such people even further. A vote to accept this offer could in fact lead to an increase in the number of cabin crew dismissed by BA purely because the hearing managers will no longer be worried about being held to such account in the courts.
As we have said above, as we are no longer employed by BA, we do not have a vote on this offer. However, our futures, our union’s backing and our legal rights are being traded between Unite and BA. We, it seems, are not people with civil liberties who should be consulted about any decisions on our lives but merely pawns in a bigger game.
If we did have a vote, it would be No.
When you have the chance to vote on this offer, we urge you to think of us. We can’t vote but we urge those of you that can, to do so wisely and in the full knowledge that our situation could also be yours.
Signed Alphabetically,
DH commission from Unite
Not wishing to, in anyway defend Mr Holley, but when you work out the amount of commission he receives from members contributions you have to bear this in mind:
The BASSA subs are in two parts.
The first is the standard Unite subscription of £12 per month
The second is the Branch Fund which is, if believe, £5 per month
The Branch Secretary only gets commission on the £12 per month Unite subs also from this amount BA charges for what is known as 'check off'. this is around 2.5% of subs.
But on 8% of total membership x £12 it is not small change.
The BASSA subs are in two parts.
The first is the standard Unite subscription of £12 per month
The second is the Branch Fund which is, if believe, £5 per month
The Branch Secretary only gets commission on the £12 per month Unite subs also from this amount BA charges for what is known as 'check off'. this is around 2.5% of subs.
But on 8% of total membership x £12 it is not small change.
Last edited by vctenderness; 8th Nov 2010 at 09:32. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACAS vs Employment Tribunal
Somebody somewhere will undoubtedly correct me if i am wrong here so my apologies in advance as I have no documentation before me but........
An Industrial Tribunal is every British Employees right if they feel they have been unfairly dismissed so this is not really a negotiating point of any value to either party.
The ACAS intervention on the disciplinary cases was asked for by BASSA, wasn't it ? This actually takes Tribunals and BASSA out of the equation and into the discretionary hands of ACAS.
This is what they demanded and what they now want us to vote against.
I wonder who changed their minds on this one and then claimed to have 100% support as usual from every single Rep, Unite lawyer and the entire membership regardless of the fact that there hasn't been a branch meeting to substantiate it.
An Industrial Tribunal is every British Employees right if they feel they have been unfairly dismissed so this is not really a negotiating point of any value to either party.
The ACAS intervention on the disciplinary cases was asked for by BASSA, wasn't it ? This actually takes Tribunals and BASSA out of the equation and into the discretionary hands of ACAS.
This is what they demanded and what they now want us to vote against.
I wonder who changed their minds on this one and then claimed to have 100% support as usual from every single Rep, Unite lawyer and the entire membership regardless of the fact that there hasn't been a branch meeting to substantiate it.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we had a ballot on accepting this deal when it was announced we would have snapped their hands off to agree with it before Mr H tries to put his spin on it and fall foul of his instructions from Mr W and Mr S at Unite.
So what do we have now ? Mr H wants more time so that he can make up reasons to not like it very much and would not like anyone to vote on it in the meantime; atleast not until he can find a loophole (he's had a few weeks already and Unite are happy with it) and steer the vote in his favour so that he can "see you all at Bedfont" again.
too many headbangers I know !
So what do we have now ? Mr H wants more time so that he can make up reasons to not like it very much and would not like anyone to vote on it in the meantime; atleast not until he can find a loophole (he's had a few weeks already and Unite are happy with it) and steer the vote in his favour so that he can "see you all at Bedfont" again.
too many headbangers I know !
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lib dem,
I think you are right but from what I understand Unite have given an undertaking NOT to pursue it throught the courts in this agreement and that is what the sacked or suspended crew are upset about because although they could persue it in the courts as you say, they cannot have the financial assistance of their union.
Which of course is the main reason a lot of crew join the union for.
Some of the sacked and many of those, that might be about to be sacked are of course union reps! Which is what is complicating and clouding the whole issue.
I think you are right but from what I understand Unite have given an undertaking NOT to pursue it throught the courts in this agreement and that is what the sacked or suspended crew are upset about because although they could persue it in the courts as you say, they cannot have the financial assistance of their union.
Which of course is the main reason a lot of crew join the union for.
Some of the sacked and many of those, that might be about to be sacked are of course union reps! Which is what is complicating and clouding the whole issue.