Dave 747436.
Where do you get your info from exactly? I can assure you and all the Pprune readers that nobody in BASSA is rejoicing over the situation, industrially, volcanically or otherwise.:sad:

Perhaps the BASSA hierarchy aren't but plenty of their members are doing just that on other forums. Short sighted doesn't even begin to describe it.

Yeah, go Eddy!!!

See it wasn't that hard but I'm pleased nevertheless. I reckon that if everyone who worked stands up and be counted then we can put this ridiculous bullying and harassment stuff to bed once and for all.

Hiflyer

Really, what tone? That was a gentle tease to ptc that I suspect rather more altruistic rationale than simply wanting to 'rescue' BA. Why would he/she? If you really think that is unnecessary lambasting then perhaps forum life is beginning to take its toll. Good you are having a break, enjoy!

There maybe structure to BASSA, but I can assure you there is no hierachy.

Semantics. My observation remains, I feel, valid.

Just read BA's new proposal...seems quite reasonable to me? I would have thought it is going to be difficult for BASSA to throw their toys out of the pram over this.

What new proposal?

SOSR
 

I'm a bit shaky on this myself but I think this is the key to SOSR - in a nutshell if you like:

So SOSR stands for "some other substantial reason". I don't know if it can be applied as a reason to give 90 days notice on contracts.

One of the key things to be aware of is that the employer simply has to establish to the court that the dismissal was due to SOSR. The employer does not have to justify the SOSR itself. In other words, it's enough for BA to say, "we believed the business was under threat" (as WW has said many times). He doesn't have to prove that the business actually was under threat, merely that he believed it.

Very interesting indeed.....

And is there any sort of guidance on how SOSR would be 'allocated', if you will?

For example, legally does BA have to get rid of people using SOSR in any particular order or could the company use the volcanic ash debacle as a way of getting rid, legally, of all those who withdrew their labour a couple of weeks ago, or would it be last in first out etc?

I hope, and suspect, that neither will happen but I'm curious to know.

Eddy,

I have no idea - sorry. I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that nothing is written down so it's up to BA to come up with something and then up to Unite to challenge it if they don't like it - which, naturally, they won't.

I personally wouldn't set too much store by seniority, to take one example, at least not in the way people tend to expect it (most junior will go first). I recall at least one airline (I think it was a Scandinavian carrier) made staff redundant in reverse seniority order - i.e. most senior first - which was challenged in court by the staff but the airline won!

The following is entirely hypothetical: And who knows if SOSR could be used against people who, as BA might put it, try to disrupt the business and passengers by striking? Sure, if BA tried this there is a "competing" law, which says legal strikers shouldn't be penalised. But often the point of court cases is that a judge has to decide between opinions and laws which are in competition with each other.

I guess I wouldn't be super confident of winning if I were striking cabin crew.

Anyway, am I right in thinking BASSA intend to announce something on Tuesday or Wednesday? IMHO, for what it's worth, BA will continue to play hard ball but they do want to maintain the "moral high ground" for as long as they can - so I honestly think my hypothetical scenario is purely that. But redundancies in reverse seniority order has already been done. They could try that?

Anyway, enough speculation from me. We'll find out soon enough. Gulp.

OF

Eddy et al
 

Your employer cannot select people for redundancy based on the following grounds:
gender
marital status
sexual orientation
race
disability
religion or belief
age
trade union membership
health and safety activities
working pattern (eg part-time or fixed-term employees)

If your employer does select you for redundancy based on one of these grounds, then your redundancy becomes an automatic unfair dismissal.

Unfair selection

Your employer must not use personal reasons for selecting you for redundancy. If they use any of the following reasons to base their decision to make you redundant, then the redundancy will be automatically unfair and you may be able to make a claim to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal:

any reason relating to maternity leave, birth or pregnancy or any other family leave, paternity leave, parental or dependants leave
you are disabled
you have transferred employers and are protected under Transfer of Undertakings Regulations (TUPE)
your membership or non-membership of a trade union
you are exercising your statutory rights (for example, asking for a written statement of employment particulars)
whistleblowing (that is, making disclosures about the employer's wrongdoing)
taking part in lawful industrial action lasting 12 weeks or less
taking action on health and safety grounds
doing jury service
you are the trusteeship of a company pension scheme

Overflare - striking Cabin Crew have the law firmly on their side and they cannot be legally made redundant under SOSR for taking part in a strike

A Lurker:
We have had this conversation many times before. I believe what you have stated is correct, and any such redundancy would automatically be deemed unfair.

That doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen, and any subsequent tribunal could take a long time to be convened. Also the amount of compensation is limited, and the employer is not obliged to re-employ. All in my limited understanding.

Of course, if things don't change in the fairly near future, some BASSA members will get their way, and BA will indeed cease to exist. Then they can all be satisfied! Though I'm sure BA would seek to reduce the wage bill before then, and to achieve that, they may very well elect to exit the most expensive employees first?

The company can use all sorts of reasons to select you to go. For instance they may decide to get rid of the rank of CSD and all CSD's could go. Or they may decide that those with the least number of types would go so you would have to be qualified and current on 747,777 and 767 to stay etc etc. I am not suggesting that they will do this but these would all be legitimate and legal ways to make a decision. Last in First Out would be highly unlikely to be used as a sole criterion as it can easily be construed as discriminating on the grounds of age. Length of service allied to some other criteria may be used.

Hunterboy, unless you are in the negotiating group I can't imagine why you have seen a new proposal first...

No new proposal has 'come out'. The last formal proposal from BA (that 'came out') was from prior to the strikes and was tabled around March 10th. Is that what you have just read?

However, I'm happy you like the sound of it. I didn't and nor did the union negotiators.

sacking strikers...
 

A Lurker,

Thanks for the list. I agree with you - this law is clear. But my point (which again I stress is hypothetical) is that there might be another law, equally clear, which contradicts this.

I agree perhaps it's a largely pointless point since I have no idea if BA could find such a law or sensibly construct such an argument around it.

If you'd like an actual example of what I mean: the BA pilots' Open Skies dispute essentially pitted two competing rights against each other: on the one hand, the right to take legally balloted industrial action; on the other hand, the right of employers to set up businesses as they see fit on local terms and conditions. Since BALPA pulled out of the case these two competing rights have not been tested in court.

Who would have won in the end? We'll never know. BA had deeper pockets than BALPA which, at the time, was the deciding factor.

OF

OverFlare and Lurker,

It all becomes very muddled when we talk about redundancy, contract termination for SOSR and the legal protection from dismissal when on a leagal strike.

My understanding of SOSR is that the company can, if it fails to reach an agreement on a change to contract which it believes to be fair and necessary, terminate that contract, offering immediate reemployment on the new terms. This is not a dismissal, because the employee remains in continuous service. If they refuse, they are deemed to have resigned, unless an employment tribunal determines that the action was not fair and reasonable. Things that tend to be considered in reaching a decision by the tribunal are
How profound was the change
Was the change permanent or temporary
Had the majority of employees accepted the same change
Did the employer make real attempts to reach agreement

In redundancy, you cannot be selected for redundancy because of TU membership or activity, but you are not protected by it either. The top selection criteria in the uk are performance based...attendance and disciplinaries etc. Beyond that, they have to be shown as non-discriminatory. In law, it is a role that is made redundant, not a person and this has to be proved. Juan Tugoh...I think that if the position of CSD was removed, it would not necessarily mean they could make all CSDs redundant. They would still be expected to be offered another role within cabin crew.

OverFlare, yes, its a shame that the case was never heard, but at least BALPA was able to get the SCOPE agreements shored-up somewhat and give the pilots a little more protection of their work. I don't know how that looks when BA complete the merger, but I hear BALPA are working with Iberia pilot's union to reach some sort of mutual protection stance.

Correct. However, BA have some creative legal representatives so terms of retention (new contracts) can potentially be designed to weed out the same people. I'm not saying it's right but it's certainly possible.

That said, at the moment BA are maintaining (and are keen to maintain) the moral high ground. Should another strike be announced next week, given the current crisis, if they feel that their backs are to the wall, don't rule out the gloves coming off. If you think they already have, you're mistaken.

It would depend on how the company wished to proceed - if CR was being used then this group could just be paid off. If, they were just getting rid of the rank then those affected would probably be offered VR or to take the new position in CC as you suggest but at the new position pay rates or if lucky with remaining frozen until the new position pay catches up with their current frozen pay. I have seen this done in other companies. Either way this is hypothetical they could just as easily get rid of people with a T in their name.

Further to my last..have queried my mate who forwarded on the proposal.....it seems he misread the date and forwarded on the last proposal. Apologies to all.....(It still seemed fairly reasonable to me tho'...;) )

You would also have to consider "bumping" too.