BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might add that I resigned from BALPA on the very issue of democracy, and my point of principal was the way the pay cut was foisted on us.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Meeting
The show of hand at the bassa meeting isn't quite as simple as yea or ney to the out come of the talks.
The show of hands will be a straw pole as to whether the proposal from the talks is good enough to do a paper or electronic ballot of the whole membership.
After two years or so of industrial discord it will be abundantly obvious to those in attendance whether the 10 points in dispute have been resolved or not.
It's my understanding that this is almost the case and todays extension to talks is a positive step.
As you know the mandate to strike runs out this coming Sunday and 7 days notice will have to be given realistically by Friday.
As far as I can see to call a meeting to put the proposals to the membership is the only way Unite can get the opinion of the membership as per the branch constitution and still legally give notice for industrial action.
Not ideal I know, but these talks have dragged out to the 11th hours leaving the union little choice other than an expensive re ballot and further uncertainty as we head into the summer months.
After some 46 day period of talks, if solution hasn't been reached then I find it hard to believe that either side want's a settlement. I believe both sides know this industrial discord can't go on and finding a reasonable settlement is the only way forward for the benefit of the company and the crew.
In my opinion one of the biggest issue is the fare share of work, which needs to be distributed in a open,honest and fair way. Just having a view of tough isn't the way to move forward. BA can do what they like isn't gong to find a solution anytime soon. Many crew like doing the sin and the BKK etc for the social side as well as the money. A lot of the variable pay , not including the allowances, is relied on by crew to pay bills at home and to take this away by transferring the so called expensive routes is not going to keep people happy.
The other sticking point I hear is the sacked crew in this dispute, BA are resolute in their belief in the robust and fair way they conduct dismissals. BA should have no issues with having a binding ruling from ACAS in these cases as the robust way they conduct these hearings and subsequent dismissals should meet ACAS minimums and would save expensive tribunals.
For those who think Unite have been far too militant remember a company only usually gets a union they deserve. Playing hard ball with an employees union usually only results in the Union playing hard ball back.
Hopefully this dispute will be resolved this week and we can go back to building this once great airline back to where it should be , the best in the sky.
The show of hands will be a straw pole as to whether the proposal from the talks is good enough to do a paper or electronic ballot of the whole membership.
After two years or so of industrial discord it will be abundantly obvious to those in attendance whether the 10 points in dispute have been resolved or not.
It's my understanding that this is almost the case and todays extension to talks is a positive step.
As you know the mandate to strike runs out this coming Sunday and 7 days notice will have to be given realistically by Friday.
As far as I can see to call a meeting to put the proposals to the membership is the only way Unite can get the opinion of the membership as per the branch constitution and still legally give notice for industrial action.
Not ideal I know, but these talks have dragged out to the 11th hours leaving the union little choice other than an expensive re ballot and further uncertainty as we head into the summer months.
After some 46 day period of talks, if solution hasn't been reached then I find it hard to believe that either side want's a settlement. I believe both sides know this industrial discord can't go on and finding a reasonable settlement is the only way forward for the benefit of the company and the crew.
In my opinion one of the biggest issue is the fare share of work, which needs to be distributed in a open,honest and fair way. Just having a view of tough isn't the way to move forward. BA can do what they like isn't gong to find a solution anytime soon. Many crew like doing the sin and the BKK etc for the social side as well as the money. A lot of the variable pay , not including the allowances, is relied on by crew to pay bills at home and to take this away by transferring the so called expensive routes is not going to keep people happy.
The other sticking point I hear is the sacked crew in this dispute, BA are resolute in their belief in the robust and fair way they conduct dismissals. BA should have no issues with having a binding ruling from ACAS in these cases as the robust way they conduct these hearings and subsequent dismissals should meet ACAS minimums and would save expensive tribunals.
For those who think Unite have been far too militant remember a company only usually gets a union they deserve. Playing hard ball with an employees union usually only results in the Union playing hard ball back.
Hopefully this dispute will be resolved this week and we can go back to building this once great airline back to where it should be , the best in the sky.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyeruk,
Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful post.
I very much agree with a lot of what you say, I think BA were heavy handed but I do also think that Bassa was somewhat intransigent in their dealings and I think the strike initially was rushed into and that was one of the reasons that I and many like me could not support it.
Anyway lets hope someone like you has been in the negotiating room and something good for all, BA and us, comes out of these talks.
Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful post.
I very much agree with a lot of what you say, I think BA were heavy handed but I do also think that Bassa was somewhat intransigent in their dealings and I think the strike initially was rushed into and that was one of the reasons that I and many like me could not support it.
Anyway lets hope someone like you has been in the negotiating room and something good for all, BA and us, comes out of these talks.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BG
I guess that goes back to action and reaction in human nature.
I was told by our previous leader (about 18 months ago) the reason they were playing hard ball was because they didn't want to be still in dispute in 18 months time. Which to me shows a lack of understanding of how quickly crew get used to things and 18 months to 2 years later the damage done is going to take a massive repair job.
Removing a crew member with an agreement of reviewing crewing levels at agreed increments, I'm sure, would have been agreed to and avoided all this.
If this had been the case the current industrial dispute wouldn't have escalated to where it is today.
For me whether the initial ballot for strike action was rushed into or not, the agreement being broken was enough for me to support the ballot.
While I don't agree with your stance in much the same way as you probably don't agree with mine, I do accept it and hope you accept mine.
I do think the current situation could have been resolved without brinkmanship on both sides.
I guess that goes back to action and reaction in human nature.
I was told by our previous leader (about 18 months ago) the reason they were playing hard ball was because they didn't want to be still in dispute in 18 months time. Which to me shows a lack of understanding of how quickly crew get used to things and 18 months to 2 years later the damage done is going to take a massive repair job.
Removing a crew member with an agreement of reviewing crewing levels at agreed increments, I'm sure, would have been agreed to and avoided all this.
If this had been the case the current industrial dispute wouldn't have escalated to where it is today.
For me whether the initial ballot for strike action was rushed into or not, the agreement being broken was enough for me to support the ballot.
While I don't agree with your stance in much the same way as you probably don't agree with mine, I do accept it and hope you accept mine.
I do think the current situation could have been resolved without brinkmanship on both sides.
Last edited by flyeruk69; 11th May 2011 at 12:37.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree again.
It's a great shame that more normal well balanced and reasoned Bassa supporters like you, don't post on here more often.
I try and explain to people on here, all the time, that a lot of Bassa supporters are just normal crew that took a different path to me and that the posters that tend to post on here are not representative of most crew and also some of the pilots that post on here are not representative of the ones I fly with too.
Thanks for you input and views. I think that the thing that drives most of us, on either side of the debate, is fear of our earnings dropping and fear of the airline, that most of us still love, changing!! I think we all share these feelings but some of us didn't agree the way that Bassa lead us and some of us did.
It's a great shame that more normal well balanced and reasoned Bassa supporters like you, don't post on here more often.
I try and explain to people on here, all the time, that a lot of Bassa supporters are just normal crew that took a different path to me and that the posters that tend to post on here are not representative of most crew and also some of the pilots that post on here are not representative of the ones I fly with too.
Thanks for you input and views. I think that the thing that drives most of us, on either side of the debate, is fear of our earnings dropping and fear of the airline, that most of us still love, changing!! I think we all share these feelings but some of us didn't agree the way that Bassa lead us and some of us did.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful...
Betty Girl, Flyeruk69:
Steady on! We are in danger of finding ourselves in an adult, balanced, reasoned discussion. If you two aren't careful you'll get yourselves banned.
Good on ya both.
M
Steady on! We are in danger of finding ourselves in an adult, balanced, reasoned discussion. If you two aren't careful you'll get yourselves banned.
Good on ya both.
M
Last edited by Mesmer; 11th May 2011 at 21:12.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North East
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA cabin crew mass meeting
BA cabin crew prepare for mass meeting|14May11|Socialist Worker
Same article below:
Cabin crew at British Airways (BA) were set to attend a mass meeting on Thursday of this week to finally hear about their Unite union’s discussions with BA bosses.
Crew are engaged in a long‑running dispute over attacks on jobs, pay, conditions and their union.
Unite has already begun to compromise on key issues.
It is demanding “the immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including victimisation, intimidation and exclusion”.
It should be demanding the immediate reinstatement of all crew who have been sacked or suspended during the dispute.
Unite also opposes “the introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union”.
But the mixed fleet is a separate crew, employed on lower wages and worse conditions than other fleets.
Ultimately it will mean BA can drive down pay and conditions across the workforce.
The union should oppose it outright.
Any deal must reinstate all sacked or suspended crew and workers’ staff travel concessions.
It must end the mixed fleet.
But it should also reverse the job cuts that former boss Willie Walsh imposed in November 2009.
Any compromise will give BA bosses the green light to push further attacks.
Crew have shown their willingness to fight in five ballots. Unite has until midnight this Sunday to call strike dates.
If there is a shoddy deal on Thursday, workers must demand that Unite call a series of strikes that can force BA bosses to retreat.
Same article below:
Cabin crew at British Airways (BA) were set to attend a mass meeting on Thursday of this week to finally hear about their Unite union’s discussions with BA bosses.
Crew are engaged in a long‑running dispute over attacks on jobs, pay, conditions and their union.
Unite has already begun to compromise on key issues.
It is demanding “the immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including victimisation, intimidation and exclusion”.
It should be demanding the immediate reinstatement of all crew who have been sacked or suspended during the dispute.
Unite also opposes “the introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union”.
But the mixed fleet is a separate crew, employed on lower wages and worse conditions than other fleets.
Ultimately it will mean BA can drive down pay and conditions across the workforce.
The union should oppose it outright.
Any deal must reinstate all sacked or suspended crew and workers’ staff travel concessions.
It must end the mixed fleet.
But it should also reverse the job cuts that former boss Willie Walsh imposed in November 2009.
Any compromise will give BA bosses the green light to push further attacks.
Crew have shown their willingness to fight in five ballots. Unite has until midnight this Sunday to call strike dates.
If there is a shoddy deal on Thursday, workers must demand that Unite call a series of strikes that can force BA bosses to retreat.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all over ?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talks concluded
just posted that the talks have concluded to the satisfaction of both parties.Proposal to be presented tomorrow.This is great news and certainly not before time.i look forward to examining the settlement in detail.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am happy that the end is near and I very much hope it is a good outcome.
I hope it was worth this 18 months of mental torture that we have been through. If it is similar to what was on offer at the start, I wonder if Bassa will explain what all this pain has been for?
I am very pleased with the way KW has dealt with this dispute and it is very different to the way WW dealt with things. Before you all say that WW has got himself the prise of M/F, I know but at a high cost in staff moral, I think. Maybe if both sides had acted a little differently, this could have been concluded a long time ago!
Anyway off to bed!
I hope it was worth this 18 months of mental torture that we have been through. If it is similar to what was on offer at the start, I wonder if Bassa will explain what all this pain has been for?
I am very pleased with the way KW has dealt with this dispute and it is very different to the way WW dealt with things. Before you all say that WW has got himself the prise of M/F, I know but at a high cost in staff moral, I think. Maybe if both sides had acted a little differently, this could have been concluded a long time ago!
Anyway off to bed!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyeruk
Beg to differ with your carefully considered post. If the deal that appears to have been put together by the two sides is acceptable to both, then surely te logical next step is to put it to the membership in a postal ballot. The shilly-shallying around in holding a meeting where only a small percentage of the membership will be able to attend and then asking those attendees to determine whether the ofer should be put to the wider membership is pure nonsense. It arises sheerly because the union is reluctant to reballot for industrial action. The pretext given is that there is a mandate out there which expires pdq so the union needs to do something in order to be able to use it. Bat that is pure baloney. If the membership feel that the deal is not up to the mark, they can be reballoted on IA. Of course, where the wheels fall off is that Unite have put so many items down as a reason for balloting, that they may have run out of grievances.
Regarding cabin crew being dependant on high levels of variable pay in order to make ends meet, that, sadly, is not the company's problem. Another thought - The union claim that the allowances are only there to cover the high living costs encountered in some destinations. See the £15 yoghurt story. So the only elements that should provide an income for staff are the box and long range payments and the like. Yet it is patently clear that cabin crew do make money out of the allowances system, either by self catering or by eating on the cheap.
Does a company get the union it deserves ? Probably. But in this instance, weak management in IFCE in the past has meant that the union has been able to dictate terms. This dispute has lasted as long as it has because the current management recognised that rolling over and playing dead was not the correct approach to industrial relations. The fact that they are less acquiescent was something that took the union by surprise.
Should sacked crew be reinstated ? Should ACAS arbitrate on them ? Well, no. Anyone who feels that they have been unjustly treated has the option to go to a tribunal. If Unite believe that there is better than a 50% chance of success, they will provide financial and legal support. So why the need to go to ACAS ?
Beg to differ with your carefully considered post. If the deal that appears to have been put together by the two sides is acceptable to both, then surely te logical next step is to put it to the membership in a postal ballot. The shilly-shallying around in holding a meeting where only a small percentage of the membership will be able to attend and then asking those attendees to determine whether the ofer should be put to the wider membership is pure nonsense. It arises sheerly because the union is reluctant to reballot for industrial action. The pretext given is that there is a mandate out there which expires pdq so the union needs to do something in order to be able to use it. Bat that is pure baloney. If the membership feel that the deal is not up to the mark, they can be reballoted on IA. Of course, where the wheels fall off is that Unite have put so many items down as a reason for balloting, that they may have run out of grievances.
Regarding cabin crew being dependant on high levels of variable pay in order to make ends meet, that, sadly, is not the company's problem. Another thought - The union claim that the allowances are only there to cover the high living costs encountered in some destinations. See the £15 yoghurt story. So the only elements that should provide an income for staff are the box and long range payments and the like. Yet it is patently clear that cabin crew do make money out of the allowances system, either by self catering or by eating on the cheap.
Does a company get the union it deserves ? Probably. But in this instance, weak management in IFCE in the past has meant that the union has been able to dictate terms. This dispute has lasted as long as it has because the current management recognised that rolling over and playing dead was not the correct approach to industrial relations. The fact that they are less acquiescent was something that took the union by surprise.
Should sacked crew be reinstated ? Should ACAS arbitrate on them ? Well, no. Anyone who feels that they have been unjustly treated has the option to go to a tribunal. If Unite believe that there is better than a 50% chance of success, they will provide financial and legal support. So why the need to go to ACAS ?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel White
A couple of points, if I may?
Representatives report back to the workforce. This is what that meeting is about.
An employment tribunal will establish fairness. That is a legal rather than moral term, as an ET will not substitute its view for that of the employer, just establish if a fair procedure has been followed. The ET will not look at whether the employer is fair, but Acas may do.
Representatives report back to the workforce. This is what that meeting is about.
An employment tribunal will establish fairness. That is a legal rather than moral term, as an ET will not substitute its view for that of the employer, just establish if a fair procedure has been followed. The ET will not look at whether the employer is fair, but Acas may do.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel White
While some may disagree with my view of the next day or so and in a perfect world the negotiated proposal would be balloted without a meeting on Thursday. But we are where we are and thats just how it is, no amount of hard line stance from posters is going to change that. Whether the branch constitution changes in the future only time will tell.
If the proposal is recommended by the branch committee, and it looks like it will, then we have nothing to worry about it will be put to a full postal ballot foregoing the current mandate.
I don't believe the sacked should be reinstated without due investigation, however the investigation should be concluded as quickly as possible. The reason being that the tribunals take time and it is the view of many crew the
punishment didn't justify the crime in many cases and to insist these going to employment tribunal would likely spoil what sounds like a settlement. True or not, none of us really know the whole truth.
Saying these cases should be at the sole discretion of employment tribunals is a kin to the hardline stance that brought us to where we are now. Keeping the investigations in house or at ACAS reduces the costs on both sides and will enable both sides to move on and rebuild. In my book thats a good thing.
As for variable pay, I 'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I was talking about none meal allowance variable pay which forms part of the current crew's pay, which crew rely on to form part of their monthly take home pay. I believe it is the company's problem as that is the way crew are paid through the agreements in place. To cut or reduce this will cause hardship as contrary to what the daily mail would have you believe many don't crew take home huge amounts of money each month.
As for crew making profit on meal allowances, yes some crew do and rightly or wrongly it's the way crew choose to spend meal allowances.
As for companies getting the union they deserve, IFCE may well have had a management unwilling to take on the unions in the past, however massive step change doesn't work either (as we've seen) playing hard ball just results in unions and their membership digging their heals in and resisting step change.
It's a far better management style to bring the unionised workforce with you than push change through at any cost.
The next day or so will see what has been achieved how we aim to move forward. As for the unions being surprised at IFCE being less acquiescent isn't as true as some would like to think. The union got the measure of this dispute early on and it was published on many occasions this wasn't going to be a quick dispute and finding a settlement that was acceptable on both sides was going to be a long haul.
To KW's credit it seems he's achieved more in 3 months than WW achieved in 15 months or so.
While some may disagree with my view of the next day or so and in a perfect world the negotiated proposal would be balloted without a meeting on Thursday. But we are where we are and thats just how it is, no amount of hard line stance from posters is going to change that. Whether the branch constitution changes in the future only time will tell.
If the proposal is recommended by the branch committee, and it looks like it will, then we have nothing to worry about it will be put to a full postal ballot foregoing the current mandate.
I don't believe the sacked should be reinstated without due investigation, however the investigation should be concluded as quickly as possible. The reason being that the tribunals take time and it is the view of many crew the
punishment didn't justify the crime in many cases and to insist these going to employment tribunal would likely spoil what sounds like a settlement. True or not, none of us really know the whole truth.
Saying these cases should be at the sole discretion of employment tribunals is a kin to the hardline stance that brought us to where we are now. Keeping the investigations in house or at ACAS reduces the costs on both sides and will enable both sides to move on and rebuild. In my book thats a good thing.
As for variable pay, I 'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I was talking about none meal allowance variable pay which forms part of the current crew's pay, which crew rely on to form part of their monthly take home pay. I believe it is the company's problem as that is the way crew are paid through the agreements in place. To cut or reduce this will cause hardship as contrary to what the daily mail would have you believe many don't crew take home huge amounts of money each month.
As for crew making profit on meal allowances, yes some crew do and rightly or wrongly it's the way crew choose to spend meal allowances.
As for companies getting the union they deserve, IFCE may well have had a management unwilling to take on the unions in the past, however massive step change doesn't work either (as we've seen) playing hard ball just results in unions and their membership digging their heals in and resisting step change.
It's a far better management style to bring the unionised workforce with you than push change through at any cost.
The next day or so will see what has been achieved how we aim to move forward. As for the unions being surprised at IFCE being less acquiescent isn't as true as some would like to think. The union got the measure of this dispute early on and it was published on many occasions this wasn't going to be a quick dispute and finding a settlement that was acceptable on both sides was going to be a long haul.
To KW's credit it seems he's achieved more in 3 months than WW achieved in 15 months or so.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To KW's credit it seems he's achieved more in 3 months than WW achieved in 15 months or so.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Europe
Age: 53
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The union got the measure of this dispute early on and it was published on many occasions this wasn't going to be a quick dispute and finding a settlement that was acceptable on both sides was going to be a long haul
-Imposed crewing levels
-Introduction of Mixed Fleet with no union input
But on the plus side
-No-one sacked without good reason and
-The same staff travel benefits as enjoyed by all employees of BA
you think the members would have jumped at it? This is what they have managed to achieve in 18 months.
I'm happy it looks like we'll finally be able to move on from the fiasco, but for BASSA to claim this as anything other than a total failure of their members is a joke.
The big question now is how do we go about repairing the poisonous relationship between employer/employee and between work groups, which has been stirred up by some elements in order to push through their respective agendas.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be good to see an end to this.
A return of staff travel is fair enough.
The review of sackings is likely to be the "sell" to BASSA with the actual outcome of those reviews highly likely to be "no change" as BA was especially careful to adhere to it's own disciplinary policies for this very reason.
Logic says they vote in favour. However, this is BASSA we're talking about....
A return of staff travel is fair enough.
The review of sackings is likely to be the "sell" to BASSA with the actual outcome of those reviews highly likely to be "no change" as BA was especially careful to adhere to it's own disciplinary policies for this very reason.
Logic says they vote in favour. However, this is BASSA we're talking about....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a reminder what the 10 points were just 3 months ago
24th February 2011 - 10 Items of Dispute
The items of dispute are as follow.
*
1.***** The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken.
*
2.***** Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.
*
3.***** The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
*
4.***** Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by the company in relation to this.
*
5.***** The immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including; victimization; intimidation and exclusion.
*
6.***** The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union.
*
7.***** The discrimination applied to union members in the allocation of part time contracts and transfers in breach of the Ops and Choice framework.
*
8.***** The company's continued and specific disregard for necessary union agreement in advance of any application of the disruption agreement.
*
9.***** The continued use of volunteer and/or temporary crew from outside the recognised NSP on both the Eurofleet and Worldwide fleets and their employment on terms and arrangements outside of existing agreements between BA and the union.
*
10. The company's offer of a separate pay settlement and variations to terms and conditions for those willing to accept non-negotiated changes to their contracts.
*
Should be interesting
24th February 2011 - 10 Items of Dispute
The items of dispute are as follow.
*
1.***** The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken.
*
2.***** Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.
*
3.***** The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
*
4.***** Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by the company in relation to this.
*
5.***** The immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including; victimization; intimidation and exclusion.
*
6.***** The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union.
*
7.***** The discrimination applied to union members in the allocation of part time contracts and transfers in breach of the Ops and Choice framework.
*
8.***** The company's continued and specific disregard for necessary union agreement in advance of any application of the disruption agreement.
*
9.***** The continued use of volunteer and/or temporary crew from outside the recognised NSP on both the Eurofleet and Worldwide fleets and their employment on terms and arrangements outside of existing agreements between BA and the union.
*
10. The company's offer of a separate pay settlement and variations to terms and conditions for those willing to accept non-negotiated changes to their contracts.
*
Should be interesting
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - BA strike: Airline and union agree to end dispute
Not much detail in there, but the headline is good at least.
The BBC content in that link is growing now since I posted..
Not much detail in there, but the headline is good at least.
The BBC content in that link is growing now since I posted..