|
British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
As requested by many of you:
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union Queen's Bench Division 17 December 2009 Case Digest Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot. BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period. Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A . According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike. Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental. Held: (1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite. Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A. Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment. Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so. Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed. (2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year. Application granted.
|
I'm delighted that BA manged to get an injunction against Unite to prevent strike action. Sadly we will be damged through lost bookings to our competitors. Strike action isn't the way forward, get your Unions to negotiate, negotiate and negotiate!
I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's. |
Did Ottergirl ever get a reply to her pension question (#6532 I think ?)
Presume NAPS is a defined benefit scheme for which I would think you become effectively a 'deferred' pensioner with your entitlement fixed in terms of number of years and salary but adjusted each year in line withe the rules (eg by rpi up to maximum of x% or, if you are luckly, fully indexed). Same as if you left the company. You could transfer out but be very very careful you understand what you are giving up (strong default is to stay put).
|
The pilots attempted industrial action was injuncted over the issues that they had chosen to ballot over - ours was not. It was obtained by exploiting a legal loophole by a judge who was willing to allow, what is in essence a technicality, to push the balance of the law even further towards an employer that without conscience, was willing to use it. The law is designed to make it as hard as possible for ordinary people to take industrial action; this ruling has made it even harder. It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action There is no verb, to my knowledge, to injuct. So one cannot injunct, or be injuncted. It is a noun (injunction) or adjective (injunctive). So not content with making up content, are we now making up verbs? "A technicality?" Err no, it is the law. Are all laws technicalities then? Sorry your honour for drink driving and causing mayhem on the roads, it was just a technicality. "The law is designed to make it as hard as possible." INCORRECT. EMPLOYMENT law is designed to make it as easy as possible and Industrial Tribunals are written in clear language so that any individual can pursue one. "It stemmed from a new and far reaching procedure" INCORRECT. It stemmed from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A . 1992 - so the same ballot procedure BASSA used in 1997 and again 2007. So not so new and far reaching. I could go on, but WHAT IS THE POINT?.:bored: As others have pointed out on here this Union appears to be a cult now. There is little that anyone can say or do to change the minds of the militants. Some more reasonable people have seen the light and will be unlikely to vote yes next time. We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame. A couple of weeks ago, my CV looked quite good with my years of BA experience and the different things I have done here. Now it is not worth the paper it is written on. And that is entirely BASSA's fault. Members of BASSA are paying for their own demise with their subscription fees. And they have achieved absolutely nothing. If they cannot see that by now, then I'm afraid the cancer does, as stated earlier, need to be surgically removed. |
pension
Thank you Mr O,
One of the other contributors kindly sent me a PM explaining the future if the pension fund is closed. I think I understand the position better and am resolved to read up further. Thanks again. |
I'm a non-CC BA worker and have been lurking around here for quite some time.
As others have pointed out on here this Union appears to be a cult now. There is little that anyone can say or do to change the minds of the militants. Some more reasonable people have seen the light and will be unlikely to vote yes next time. We need to start afresh. We need to get rid of this cancer that is ruining this company and has brought our once proud community into public shame. But I don't think that many Cabin Crew will be changing their mind. If the second ballot will go ahead, I'll expect a very strong YES result once again. BASSA have been brainwashing crew very well and I believe that CC will be even more militant than before. Passengers will think twice before booking with BA, as our future is very uncertain at this stage. I'm not recommending BA to friends anymore and I've stopped selling Hotlines to them, as I couldn't bear the thought of them being stuck in IA or unable to go on holiday because of this very selfish fraction of our company. I used to be very proud of working for BA, but have become very embarrassed of what has become of it. Not only that the strike threat has given us a bad name, but the recent change of our inflight product make us look rather poor, too. I wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?! Doesn't it make the CC look ridiculous and a target for abuse from passengers? Customer at the heart of the business? Customer = person who pays for our wages??? |
they see these 'fat cats' sitting pretty on decent terms and conditions of employment I wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?! |
Apologies for the length of this post, but hopefully it sums up where we are at the moment. Perhaps useful at the start of a new thread?!
I think Henky is pretty much spot on when he says that this isn't about money. If it were, then I think it would be pretty easy to come to some sort of agreement after some hard negotiating. In fact, the problems are more deep seated and will take longer to correct, IMHO. Henky mentions that many of the cabin crew on here refer to BA as another entity, separate from themselves, rather than being part of BA itself and therefore part of the problem and its solution. The post today from Bassa describes cabin crew being the face of BA, yet most comments I hear from cabin crew refer to BA being the 'other side', the 'enemy', with them being on the side of Bassa who are the good guys in this fight. It's BA, those other guys, who have conducted nasty tricks, screwed up fuel hedging, messed up T5 etc. They don't see themselves as having ownership of the problems within the company, and as having a part to play in the recovery of the company. The blame doesn't just lie with Bassa. When I joined I was amazed how the company abrogates most personnel management responsibilities and allows the unions to operate as the admin executives for many basic personnel functions. I myself experienced it a few years ago when I had to decide whether to take a short haul command or stay right seat long haul. I needed lots of info regarding pay scales, seniority levels, fleet movement etc. The manager I went to just said 'Ask your union'. This applies in IFCE to an even greater extent where the union is seen as the source of unbiased fact ("the company will just tell you what suits it best, probably to your disadvantage") and the company allows this to continue. Any problems are referred to the union in the first instance, even to the extent that the union is contacted on board the aircraft if there is any discrepancy between what the Captain wants the crew to do and what they might want. Firstly, on board, the Captain should be the authority, and secondly, if anyone should be contacted, the cabin crew should ask to use the phone to speak to management. But that rarely happens - Bassa decide. Bassa has also enjoyed an over-inflated influence over the operation, unknown in any other airline, to the extent that aircraft are diverted in flight, or flights are cancelled, purely in the defence of cabin crew agreements. The problem with this set up is that, whilst it keeps management and admin costs down (the union phone line gets more use than the cabin crew admin line, I would imagine), there is a problem building up for the time when established practices have to change. Especially in a crisis when change has to happen quickly. The time has now come where the company can no longer afford the downside of the strength of the union, and has to make the company more efficient. That means more work or less pay, and some specific inefficiencies have to be addressed. This disconnect between the cabin crew and the company means that when the company has a financial problem, the cabin crew don't empathise with the company. They look to their union for the facts. However, the union has a different problem. The changes that will increase efficiency also mean that the union is now facing the prospect of losing its influence and the status that its representatives enjoy. They come to work each day and know that they can influence the operation themselves, delays, disruption, cancellations, sicknesses are referred to the reps who can decide what happens. WW has decided that this arrangement is a luxury that he cannot afford to allow to continue. The appalling effect that such decisions had on our operational effectiveness last February during the snow disruption were the final straw. The argument that Ottergirl uses that the adherence to such agreements makes for a fairer system as it avoids nepotism is a totally spurious one. The avoidance of nepotism is hardly an argument for commercial inefficiency. So how do we move forward? I can only suggest a way of avoiding the problem in the future. Henky says that the employees need to be more involved in the decision making in the company. I agree, but don't feel that is part of the union's role. Cabin crew regularly complain that their leadership comprises very few experienced cabin crew members - to me that is a fundamental problem. The line between the cabin crew and the running of the department should be much more fuzzy, more on the lines of Flt Ops, where most of the managers are pilots - not just ex-pilots, but current pilots. There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA. I was immensely proud that until recently there was a pilot on the Board, (there's still an ex-pilot there!!!), and I'm sure cabin crew would respect and trust their leaders much more if they knew the guys running their department. (At the moment they see their union as their leaders.) There would be a greater connect between the two groups if they were effectively blended together at the edges, with mixing between the two. The upside of this is that there isn't any need for union agreement - their influence will atrophy, but that will happen organically, without revolution. They will return to being just the guys who sort out the pay deal, and speak for the workforce on a few big issues, but will lose ther day to day input and importance. The downside is that it won't happen overnight. My argument won't solve our current issues but I believe it might give us a way of avoiding them in the future. And I think it explains why it's not about money, as Henky says. |
There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA. There is no reason why a CC member should not rise to be the DFO - all they would need to do is understand the operational side of the airline. In the more dysfunctional BA model the CC generally have a great understanding of the IFCE side of things but generally a very poor grasp of operational matters. This is largely due to there being no need for them to have an understanding of the more technical side of the airline business - it certainly does not imply any lack of ability, more a lack of opportunity. Similarly the FC community are generally less aware of the day to day stuff that CC have to deal with for the same reasons. |
Posted by Jadzia wonder where the union was when they'd changed the sarnies to birdseed bags?! Ottergirl replied, Like we had any say over that! As you say, its us that take the stick so we would hardly be choosing to serve something you speak of with derision! Believe me, its been hard to convince the crew to go out and deliver it with pride. Well said, Ottergirl! In most aspects of product changes to customers, we have very little or no say at all. That said, BA does work with us on the delivery aspects. The removal of sandwiches which was replaced by Skybites( birdseed) was part of the product cost savings. Naturally feedback on behalf of our customers has been given back to the company . I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's. |
Midman
In the eighties and ninties there was the role of Fleet Director .They still flew as crew mostly to check out the CSD/PSR but they were part of the seniority list and flying agreement.It was a more friendly type of crew manager .However BA felt that the Performance Management of crew wasn't strong enough so the role changed to MCS (Manager Customer Service)some had flown so came in new to BA they were not part of the flying agreement. A slightly tougher stance was taken. I can understand what you say and do agree in principle with you .However putting it into practice won't work (just my opinion) . The problem with the crew community is winging is part of the culture it always has been and always will be.I would say most crew don't even like their CSD's on the day.It is part of the culture.When i was on Longhaul you would often see the CSD having breakfast by themselves.I have seen pretty nasty behaviour towards CSD's /PSR's who performance manage onboard crew don't like it .The easy way out now for crew is "your a bully" I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there. There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew they think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly. IFS is a mess in BA.Take BMI cabin crew the enviroment is much more polished especially with SEP and uniform standards etc.Crew are not managed properly that is the problem.Please don't get me wrong cabin crew need to be managed in a supportive caring way beating someone with a stick is NOT the correct approach .However cabin crew need to take onboard that they work for BA .BA does not work for them . |
Seriously depressed now. Just read lala's latest missive and I'm lost for words. No matter how much you hate ww/daily mail/thatcher/capitalism/pilots you would have to be beyond help if you are unable to see past the lies, half truths and childish spin that it contains.
I now don't see what option the company had but to just fight bassa with it's own tactics. Go nuclear, hang the consequences. Remove the csd role, make them re-apply for their jobs and sack the ones you dint want to keep. 'cut out the disease.' Hey use the money saved (66% of the pay going to 33% of crew, solidarity sisters and brothers, but some pigs are more equal, Orwell not offence) to let the new contraact crew, most of you, keep what you've got. What options have unite/bassa left ww with? The constant mantra of negotiation not imposition flies totally in the face of the last years worth of talks, that cc are proud of their union after it's latest debacle is insanity on a stick! I now expect that we won't survive. I was ready to strike over OS but that was before the present meltdown. Right now I'd pretty much give my right nut to keep this job being paid the same as my mates at easy and virgin but having read the likes of watersidew, fume, otter, pib etc etc I've accepted that I'll be starting again at BAOC mk2 on less than I've got now. Only time will tell if watching the crew live in the new reality will make my pill easier to swallow. I retire from this thread wishing everyone a wonderful Christmas and a reflective and peaceful new year, one none of us in BA deserve. I hope we use the time to watch a country find hope in difficult times whilst in the company of family and loved ones and remeber that we where prepared to destroy that to prove a point whilst hastening our end. I hope that I'm wrong but I'll be flying aircraft full of passengers who resent us and crew who hold us all in contempt. Henky is right, we will get the future we deserve. Adios amigo's, I loved it, I really did. |
A few yrs ago BMI got rid of all their CSD's .I don't think that is the way to go .However i do think that the CSD's and PSR's who are wingers and not performing should be weeded out .The tone of the day starts from the briefing.Call me old fashioned but i do think that if you are doing a job it should be done properly .
|
Posted by Weather Map I would say it's not all the crews fault as one day they fly with a CSD who cares the next they fly with another who doesn't the poor cabin crew have to fit in on the day .I think that the CSD's and PSR's who are not peforming properly should be weeded out as it all starts from there. There should be more of a set standard how procedures on board are followed .If you have a miserable CSD who does not question crew crew think they can get away with it and so on this the makes it harder for the CSD that does want to do the job properly. Inconsistency is one of our biggest problems and in all my years of flying, it's never changed and it never will. There are set standards in all procedures and aspects of our role, however many see the job as a popularity contest and won't performance manage. I agree with you that it starts at the top, and those CSDs and Pursers who don't perform should be performance managed themselves. |
Lurker
Is that in the same way I find bassa's use of war poetry and imagery offence. I've had the pleasure of being part of a real one which had ethnic cleansing, mass murder random rape and destruction. I watched hate, lies, distrust and misunderstanding destroy a country and now I get to see it destroy my company.
I lost my mother to it a young age and given it's effect on my life I fully understand it's a word that carries emotion. It's about as perfect a word as I can find to describe the actions of your union within our company. No disrespect intended to your loss, I'm sure we both hate the word given what it's cost us. I feel it's appropriate, I respect you don't. I in no way seek to trivialise it but given I have no desire to upset you it's changed. Rgds. Ps. Really am off, will miss you 2. Edit due to a change of heart and in respect of the too many mums and dads lost to early. |
Posted by A Lurker in response to Weather Map Some good points - whenever I pull crew over their uniform or the various attachments that they adorn their bags with they look at me as if I am an alien! The problem is - crew have never been managed correctly - again due to the fact that there has been a weak 'manage down' policy within BA Uniform standards has been and is one of our biggest problems. It's one where I really draw the line, it's either black or white in my case. The trouble with crew when they are 'corrected' on the day as I call it, they'll fly with someone else the next day who'll take a different stance and it's all back to square one if you know what I mean. (This is really getting scary as I find myself agreeing with you yet again! I promise it is the last time!) |
Performance Managing
Weather Map I TOTALLY agree with you. There are MANY truly excellent CSDs and PSRs and they need to be commended and rewarded as such to motivate them to continue. These are the ones who lead by example, have high standards in both safety and service standards and who encourage and motivate other crew to have the same and manage any crew who do not perform. Unfortunately speaking as a main crew member who do have many poor performing CSDs and PSRs which is actually frustrating for me as a main crew member as I do like to do things properly and do hate complacency particularly with SEP standards, but also with service. I have even flown with some SCCMs (a minority) who chat during the briefing then say ''we have done a oven fire today'' they wink and do not ask the mandatory questions! Even SCCMs who do not lead by example. It is frustrating for us main crew who are enthusiastic about our job and BA and would like promotion as we care and these SCCMs don't if you see what I'm saying. HOWEVER as I said there are MANY truly fab PSRs/CSDs, some current, some have left now :sad: who do make me proud to work for BA!
Shame not all are like that but as Tiramisu says it is a long standing problem - and probably is at many other airlines although I think a new performance management system for these people should be introduced, as some people do not peform as they know they can get away with it! |
Just as an aside, I'm sure I've read somewhere some airline like Virgin and either qantas or Air New Zealand have their CSD/FSMs who fly with crew but also have some management responsibilities. I don't know but that could be a good idea to keep the CSD role ''alive'' if you know what I mean and also give PSRs another level to reach and also means that managers actually fly with crew on the line. Obviously there would be a problem that CTMs (crew team managers) would be out of a job but couldn't they work purely on the ground just managing the CSDs. Just an idea. I know this is slightly off track but it is still slightly related lol.
|
I have even flown with some SCCMs (a minority) who chat during the briefing then say ''we have done a oven fire today'' they wink and do not ask the mandatory questions! Even SCCMs who do not lead by example. It is frustrating for us main crew who are enthusiastic about our job and BA and would like promotion as we care and these SCCMs don't if you see what I'm saying. HOWEVER as I said there are MANY truly fab PSRs/CSDs, some current, some have left now http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...y_dog_eyes.gif who do make me proud to work for BA! Both you and I know that every pre-flight briefing should be carried out as per 'Inlight Service Preflight Safety Briefing Checklist' which every CSD/Purser should be in possession of. It is a 'Red Notice/OMN' and a mandatory part of every briefing. If the SCCM does not carry out this required part of the briefing, they should be reported by CC. I know this is easier said than done! |
True Tiramisu, it is easier said than done though. I know lot's of fellow crew love it if a sccm doesn't ask these questions but it is mandatory. Personally, I don't actually mind being asked questions, it keeps you thinking about your drills so they are fresh in your mind but that is just me!! But yeah they should be reported. However it can be hard especially as MC to report someone more senior. Although it shouldn't be as we all have a responsibility to SEP.
|
I agree very much with A Lurker, it is very offensive to some people to see the word cancer used when descibing anything to do with this topic. You never know if anyone reading these threads is suffering from cancer or lost someone to it.
Like Lurker I lost both my parents this time of year. Please try and use alternative words to decribe opinions. |
A Lurker, my mother died of a heart attack, does that mean we can't use the words "heart" or "attack" in our posts?
Romans, I am pretty sure that if the company removed the imposition tomorrow BASSA would not expect things to return to normal overnight. As I said in previous posts, there are ways of going around it, especially as the winter schedule is coming. I truly believe that, were there is a will there is a way. Are you still not getting the point? No doubt Lizanne tells you that 2 Billion is a "fighting fund" or some such nonsense. Well the answer is, it isn't there to fund the cushy lives of BASSA members. I actually wonder if BA will be able to reveal even provisional figures for 2009 before your union next attempt to destroy the company. A figure of 500-600 million pounds lost would normally make people think twice. I prefer to think of BASSA as a parasite on the company. Those who've lost relatives to tapeworm, you have my deepest sympathy. And for the odious Malone, Rudyard Kipling? For God's sake woman, how long before you and your bumbling colleagues start quoting Rupert Brooke? Which would be ironic, because you are the generals sending the privates to the slaughter. Notwithstanding the potential destruction of a great company, I suppose there is very little point in banging one's head against a wall. Who's for a game of football between the trenches? :) Ironic that we talk of early deaths on the morning young Brittany Murphy collapsed and died of cardiac arrest at the too young age of 32. May I wish the very best for the festive season to all PPRUNER's, and hope and pray that some common sense prevails, and that this isn't the last Christmas we will be talking about British Airways in its current form. |
Here is the ruling on the Metrobus case, of which BA were clearly aware. What mystifies me is how UNITE didn't know this was coming. Wasn't John Hendy the QC representing them last week?
Where an employer sought an injunction to restrain a strike, a union’s failure to comply with its obligation under s 231A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practicable of the result of the ballot could justify the grant of an injunction restraining the strike. S 231A, and also ss 226 and 234A, were not disproportionate restrictions on the rights of association conferred by art 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The obligations under those sections could not be regarded as onerous so that they could be said to constitute a serious impediment on a union’s ability to call a strike. The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the defendant, Unite the Union, from the decision of King J on 9 October 2008 by which he granted an interim injunction restraining Unite from calling a strike by members who were bus drivers working for, inter alia, the claimant, Metrobus Ltd. The judge found that there were fatal defects in the notice of the ballot, in the two strike notices, and in the failure of Unite to notify Metrobus sufficiently promptly of the result of the ballot. Unite contended that the grounds on which the judge granted the injunction constituted a serious impediment on its ability and that of any other union to call a strike. LLOYD LJ said that Unite submitted that the provisions of the 1992 Act as regards industrial action were to be seen in the light of fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association including the right to form and to join trade unions conferred in art 11 of the Convention. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights recognised that collective bargaining and strike action were important means by which a citizen’s rights might be protected without any formal recognition of either as an essential element of the art 11 right (see Unison v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 497) and had now recognised that the right to collective bargaining was an essential element in that right: see Demir and Baykara v Turkey(Application No 34503/97) 12 November 2008. Unite also submitted that EC law recognised the fundamental nature of the right to strike: see International Transport Workers’ Federation v Viking Line (Case C-438/05) [2008] ICR 741. Unite submitted that the relevance of the European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction was that restrictions on the ability of a trade union to call a strike had to stand up to scrutiny under art 11. Were they appropriate? Such restrictions could be justified in the interests of members of the union, who were entitled to be protected against the calling of a strike which did not have the support of a majority of the relevant members, not that such restrictions could be a necessary protection for employers. In his Lordship’s view the legislation did take account of the legitimate interests of employers. A balance was necessary between the rights afforded to workers by art 11 on the one hand and the rights of the employer under art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention on the other. The binding effect of art 11 did not restrict the scope for a wide variety of different legislative approaches. Such variety was to be expected and was permitted by the margin of appreciation permitted to member states as regards conformity with the Convention. Section 231A of the 1992 Act imposed a freestanding obligation on the union to inform the employer as soon as reasonably practical of the outcome of the ballot, regardless of the union’s decision as to industrial action, and His Lordship agreed with the judge that the union had not complied with it. This point affected also the ballot notice and the strike notices. Unite might have misunderstood the application of s 226A(2C)(ii). If so, it ignored the assistance provided by the Code of Practice. In assessing the reasonableness of the legislation it was legitimate to take account of the fact that that code was there to help in cases of doubt or difficulty. The requirement of an explanation was not an onerous obligation. Nor was it unreasonable for a trade union, when supplying information from its own sources, to be obliged to say something about how the information supplied had been arrived at. Assessing the requirements imposed by ss 226A and 234A, it did not seem to His Lordship that the obligation to provide an explanation of the figures could be said to be unreasonable, excessively onerous or disproportionate. MAURICE KAY LJ and SIR MARK POTTER P delivered judgments concurring in the result Appearances: John Hendy QC and Simon Gorton (instructed by EAD Solicitors LLP, Liverpool ) for the union; Charles Béar QC and Paul Gott (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell ) for the employer. Ah yes, I checked: In response on Thursday, John Hendy QC for Unite said the union had been "assiduous" in its efforts to comply with the law. |
Opinion piece from Graham Robertson:
British Airways crew dig the hole even deeper By Graham Robertson Its hard to look anywhere these days without hearing about the British Airways strike. I was very reluctant to write yet another post about something that’s been covered to death in both mainstream media as well as in the blogesphere, but now that the strike as been called off I feel I can add my two cents. So what caused the flight crew to walk off the job over Christmas? Mainly, BA’s proposal to cut one staff per flight and freeze pay for two years. To be totally honest, I don’t think even that would be enough to stop the bleeding - BA lost £401m last year and it looks like it’s only going to get worse. My first reaction to this was disappointment. Those of us that actually work in the travel industry have been through one of the worst years anyone can remember. We’ve all made sacrifices, we’ve all taken on more work than we thought we could handle and we did it happily because we had faith in our organizations as well as our industry to rebound. It will be very sad if these unions have destroyed BA’s chance to recover in 2010. There has already been murmurings that the strike may only have been postponed, further damaging consumer trust with the vague threat of a strike still looming. I am all for employee rights and it’s never a good thing when someone loses their job, but sometimes these things cannot be avoided. Hopefully BA can get through this without any lasting effects; if not they will join the ranks of the many other UK airlines to go bust this year. Tampa, Florida - A little winter sun was being spoiled by the possibility of having to deal with the mayhem caused by the planned 12 day British Airways (BA) cabin crew strike. I believe a public service organisation, such as an airline, taking action at one of the major holiday periods of the year is nothing short of disgusting. And, anyone who takes part in such an action should lose their job - not that I have strong feelings. Designed to pile pressure on management of the airline, the only losers would have been the one million stranded customers - but it could also bring the airline down. Gordon Brown’s government would not allow BA to buckle under the pressure as it would trumpet an avalanche of similar actions. The main arguments behind this strike action for the union members is a pay freeze and the reduction of one crew member on long haul flights - from fifteen to fourteen. My only question - is the union complaining because the crew reduction would put passengers in danger, or does it mean that cabin crew would have to work harder? If it’s the latter, well boo hoo! Now suck it up and get on with your job, at least you have one. If it is the former and it can be proved the airline management will have no other option than to acquiesce - which they haven’t. You should also know that BA cabin crew, according to British Civil Aviation Authority figures earn, based on average total pay, twice as much as Virgin crew and more than £9,000 per year more than the next closest airline crew. Seems they could have afforded a 12 day unpaid holiday/strike. And, maybe that financial comfort is part of the problem. Conversely, BA is already facing some poor financials and the loss of £300 million revenue would certainly not have helped. No employee is indispensable and every company is vulnerable. A 12 day strike is the sort of action that can cause irreparable damage to a company and anyone that cannot see that probably has the ego of a person who heads a large union. Unite union leaders, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, would have you believe that strike action is the last option in their arsenal and nothing to do with the media attention they get. Even after admitting that the proposed strike action is, “probably over the top”, they expect you to believe they have exhausted all avenues for discussion and that it was pure bad luck that a strike was scheduled for the most inconvenient time of the year. Well, they have already been proved cheats by the High Court. The strike ballot was illegal and therefore so is the strike. Maybe they are scumbag liars too. Well, I won’t be in Florida longer than expected, but my view would still be let the strike go ahead and even let the airline collapse. Let the 92 per cent of union members who voted for strike action join the ranks of the unemployed. I can always fly with another airline; let’s see how unemployment pay compares to having to do with one less crew member on a long haul flight. With the existing £3.7 billion deficit in the BA pension fund they may also find themselves stacking tins of chicken or fish on supermarket shelves in their retirement. Be careful what you wish (or vote) for. |
BASSA's latest missive, posted at #6595 on the other preceding thread (now closed), is a tour de force in untruths - plain and simple.
Firstly, we need to clearly state that the legal injunction received by British Airways was absolutely and categorically nothing to do with the legality of the issues over which the ballot was held .... BASSA had a copy of a spreadsheet (info regarding union members and salary deductions) and that included the names and leaving date (30 November 2009) of all BASSA members who were taking that voluntary redundancy, and Liz Malone had personally seen it. BA warned Unite that it was risking invalidating the ballot. Someone asked on the BASSA forums if a person taking VR could vote - Liz Malone personally replied on the forum, that such people could vote. Malone screwed up! Despite being warned at least once in person, and twice in writing, by BA, Unite chose not to ensure that BASSA members taking VR were given a clear warning not to vote. Unite screwed up! Between them, Malone and Unite transgressed the law, as clearly stated in the judgement. This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge. However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave. British Airways declined to provide that information. Legal advice indicated that as they were employed at the time of the ballot and as their leaving date/offer was not guaranteed, they were entitled to vote; therefore excluding them could, in itself, be grounds for a legal challenge. Our QC - one of the most respected experts in industrial law - was confident that the inclusion or indeed exclusion, had not affected the ballot in any significant way; after all, the disputed number was only some 800 people and over 9514 people had supported the yes vote, with just 772 voting no - a 92.49% unequivocal vote. On top of that, the union had worked very hard to ensure that our lists were as accurate as possible, given that is was an almost impossible task to individually identify these people. Virtually all of the media’s own legal correspondents universally agreed that BA had no case, yet somehow they won; most experts were astonished. The vilification that crew suffered was simply outrageous; most of it deliberately induced and inspired by our own management who were more than willing to publish misleading and inflated salaries and comparisons, to assist and actively encourage this false reporting with an unprecedented “dirty tricks” style campaign. They even went so far as to leak personal details to The Daily Mail, in an attempt to smear your Chairperson and other reps. They say the first casualty of war is truth, and this has proven to be the case. Public support would have been nice and we didn’t get it, .... If we had received more public support, .... Unite has already notified British Airways of our intention to re-ballot at the beginning of January; the process will be arranged during the Christmas break and database checking will take place, through the night if required. Plenty of confirmatory evidence in this latest BASSA scribbling of the root of the problem - that it is never BASSA's fault. It is always everbody else's fault - the law's fault, the court/judge's fault, or a dirty tricks campaign by the company, or some such other hallucination. BASSA and Unite are never going to get anywhere until they take some clear responsibility for their own serious, and very public, shortcomings. (And as for reporting pilots to BASSA for telling the public that the strike is off - good grief! Just goes to show the level of the idiots the company is dealing with.) |
A Lurkers post didn't last long at all! Goodness gracious me!
I think the point that was being made by Desertia was that, as tragic as it is to have someone close to you lost to cancer, it really is not a reason to stop using the word 'cancer', here on this forum or anywhere else. If one is easily offended by the word, then bow out and stay away. No problem. |
Weathermap/Tiramisu - couldn't agree more about the importance of the briefings, BA want managers to observe briefings of CSDs/PSRs from time to time, to ensure they coach underperfoming onboard managers, but guess what ? The unions strongly objected to it and obstructed it.....who runs the company ?
|
For information sake, how often, and by whom, do BA cabin crew get checked on revenue flights? And how on earth did they allow BASSA to get away with not allowing managers to listen in on pre-flight briefs? Incredible! Seems like a lot of the old-school types have some deficiencies to hide? And if that is the case, it says that annual SEP training days are even more 'cosy' than they seem!
|
Bye 4 now
I'm off to sunnier destinations today. All of it on BA.
One last word about the way (some of) you conduct yourselves here. Don't focus so much on who is right or wrong. As we by now have established the truth is a very subjective matter. Establishing who is right or wrong will only make things worse. Ask yourself if you would rather be right or rather be happy? Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!) I wish you all the best and remember: an important difference between us and animals is that we can choose how we react. |
#6521 on the previous, now closed, forum.
Tercarley .......... Spot on ! If it weren't for a continued desire to see my pension cheque arrive each month, after the way we have been treated by B.A. and W.W. with S.T. 2009, part of me would actually like them to go to the wall - at least W.W. would also lose his - lifetime you note, unlike us - staff travel concessions, too. As well as his 750k salary. He can also forget getting my support for the 3rd runway, unless of course there is a quid pro quo - and we get the concessions we worked for re-instated - everything is negotiable ! Wot chance ? |
couldn't agree more about the importance of the briefings, BA want managers to observe briefings of CSDs/PSRs from time to time, to ensure they coach underperfoming onboard managers, but guess what ? The unions strongly objected to it and obstructed it.....who runs the company ? Now there's a surprise! When the CAA audited our pr-flight briefings at BA we failed. Hence the new 'Inflight Service Preflight Briefing Checklist' was brought in to ensure consistency. I'm surprised as Slidebustle mentioned in an earlier post, that this mandatory part of the briefing is not carried out. Managers are supposed to audit our briefings twice a year, I had mine two months ago. Unfortunately, some SCCMs perform on the day just to pass. No one is taking responsibility. I'm BA Cabin Crew and the above represent my personal views and not those of my employer's. |
henkybaby!
I love your posts and will miss reading them! Please come and work for BA! We could do with someone like you! Very best wishes for a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year!:) |
Romans44
Romans44...
On the previous incarnation of this thread you replied to a comment about the pilots 'SCOPE' clause, pointing out that CC had a similar agreement of their own. We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight. This number is determined by the delivery of the product and the workload required by each crew member...... Just to recap the pilots SCOPE clause... "Any aircraft with 100 seats or more operating from a UK airfield will be flown by BA pilots from the master seniority list" (Paraphrased) Contrast with the CC agreement.... "We have agreements with BA which governs the number of Cabin Crew required on each flight, with regard to passenger load, destination and other factors" (Paraphrased) The difference between these two arrangements is perhaps best illustrated by an example: BA schedule a B777 flight from LHR to JFK. It is operated by 2 non-BA pilots and 10 non-BA cabin crew. Has BA broken the pilots agreement? YES (this is why Openskies could not be based at LHR) Has BA broken the CC agreement? NO (this is why New Fleet is potentially such an issue for current crew) To the best of my knowledge the current CC agreements dictate how many BA CC are required on each aircraft - but doesn't stipulate that it must be BA CC in order to comply with the agreement. I believe the original poster who raised this issue was just trying to point out that a SCOPE clause for CC would be a desirable thing for BASSA to achieve as it would mitigate the effect of New Fleet on existing crew. Hope that makes some sense! |
I never thought I would post this .I don't blame BASSA anymore.I blame BA they are far to soft in their approach in dealing with BASSA.WW needs to get tougher far tougher with BASSA and IFS.Cut out all the pandering to them. Firstly I would sort out the crew who take the p....sickness , restricted rostas,compassionates over Xmas,dependent days,.This is what is wrong with this workforce theyhave been pandered to for far to long.Weed out the p...takers there are genuine cases however they are outnumbered by p... takers.It's a holiday camp retirement home rolled into one .
|
It stemmed from a new and far reaching interpretation around the balloting procedure; the union is required to provide British Airways a list of every single person it intends to ballot for action and then later, a further list of those who would take part in any subsequent action. This task is always difficult, as many people don’t keep their details, address etcetera up to date on our records, and any discrepancy, believe it or not, is potential grounds for a challenge. However, this particular ballot was made even more difficult due to the fact that approximately 800 people were taking severance during the actual ballot. The union had no way of knowing who these people were and when/if they had decided to accept their offers and leave. Apparently there was no defence whatsoever when the BASSA QC was questioned as to whether reasonable measures had been taken to ensure that those accepting VR packages or those who had left or leaving the Union were informed they were not eligible to vote. Injunction granted. :ok: Oddly enough many of us 'ranting' pilots warned of this discrepancy almost a day after the initial ballot issue. But then what do we know in the face of the BASSA mantra machine. |
Firstly I would sort out the crew who take the p....sickness , restricted rostas,compassionates over Xmas,dependent days,. Now, can anyone explain how Lalalady has managed to be off sick for 12 months without any apparent sanction, and now miraculessly is fit for work again, just when it appears BA are after her and 5/6 other BASSA reps on a disciplinary? |
Start discussing solutions instead of blame. Stop attacking individuals (separate the people from the problem) and really try and understand what the interest of the other stakeholders are. (Not the positions but the interests!) How about BASSA accept the need for the changes during this disastrous financial period for the company, and withdraw the strike motion to avoid any further damage. But then ask BA for some kind of profit sharing, or shares agreement, so that their hard work during this period of great difficulty is rewarded when their efforts lead the company back into financial success? Let's not forget that during a three year period when BA reported a profit of one billion pounds, they paid 1.8 billion pounds into the pension fund which is still teetering on the brink. Does that not seem like a reasonable idea? How about it BASSA supporters? |
Another gem from another place. This is the surreal nature of what BA are dealing with.
too hope the snow brings misery to all the horrid people who are travelling with us this christmas period, people have no idea whats happening and have only there own interests at heart.. I would love to see the tables turned onto them.. but the snow will do for now BRING IT ON |
all the horrid people who are travelling with us this christmas period. |
I am rolling on the floor with laughter at that - after some of the postings on here from supposed colleagues - that has made my day |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.