Chesh01
 

I cannot argue that the defendants will try to fight as hard as they can to be reinstated, as most people would. I would imagine that a percentage of the dismissed, would still be dismissed post arbitration, maybe all. So what is the risk, other than the possibility than at least some were tactical dismissals?

litebulb follow up
 

Personally I blame BASSA for allowing crew to think they can take the controversial soundbites of their literature and think they can use it on BA premises, BA time and against BA employees.

Why should We tolerate BASSA lanyards as some kind of political eye poke or those ridiculous xxxx key rings. Is taking things like that to the next level worthy of any sympathy?

BASSA is the school bully that picked the wrong fight and tried to get their followers to join in without warning them what the rules of engagement are. Everyone in the dock must must face the consequences of their actions and should ask themselves is it the union or BA that got them in this position.

21 dismissals is not excessive, Litebulbs. From my personal experience, at the height of the 'falling out', all the nastiest bully boys were full of voice. It is unfortunate that all we hear is BASSA's bleating about how their thugs have been singled out. I would stake my mortgage on the fact that every one of these sackings is warranted. There were bullies in 'peacetime' who were unacceptable. This situation just provided the empowerment for their victims.

Right Engine
 

If you would stake your mortgage on it, then ACAS arbitration should not worry you at all. Do you believe BA will reinstate the dismissed employees arbitrarily; I don't. BASSA are demanding full reinstatement. How do you negotiate a settlement? Do you think an independent is going to reverse every decision?

But wouldn't it be fair to be in an impartial dock? UK employment law means that you could be tried and sentenced by your accuser, your appeal is with the same entity and if you win the first impartial stage of due process, your accuser can still refuse re-engagement.

dismissals
 

I have stated before, as a union member if anyone of us found ourselves in the disaplinary process then the first point of contact would be my union. I would also expect, unless I was "guilty a charged", to have the union at my side at every stage defending me.

Therefore i can therefore only assume one of the following:

1. Individuals were "guilty as charged".
2. Union misrepresented them in the process.
3. Individuals did not get any union help.

In any of these cases, I see no reason why their situation should form any part of a settlement going forwards. If Members and their union feel wrong doings by the company then there is a legal process to follow to resolve this.

The reason for any individual acting in a manor that places them in the disaplinary process is not relavent, ie industrial action, the consequences of their actions must however be expected.

Litebulbs
ACAS arbitration wouldn't worry me - no. Why should it? Have I missed a big point here?

I know, through a 100% credible source, of one of the recent sackings. It involved intimidation, endangerment of aircraft and threats of violence. Are those acts acceptable and do you feel ACAS would disagree?

What I sense here is whilst BA are hamstrung by the legal obligations of employment law and have to remain silent, BASSA (or should I say DH) seems to think they can publish the skewed testimony of those who have been sacked. Perhaps there are 1, maybe 2 doubtful cases but BASSA's portrayal of this group is that they are all entirely innocent. They aren't - You know that.

There comes a time when one has to say 'It's a fair cop, Guv' - False martyrdom, when it is proved to be that, will show retrospectively how low BASSA stooped over the last 18 months. Bring on that day of grim realisation.

1. That is a possibility

2. You can fight as strong a case as you want, but the decision is the employers, even if a tribunal decides in favour of the employee. This is because the employer still does not have to reemploy.

3. Now I agree with you, in as much as going on strike as the first action in this dispute, removes the threat of industrial action to protect employees who have been dismissed unfairly, because of the dispute.

Right Engine
 

I am sure that if Unite come back to the dismissed and offer them a shot at ACAS arbitration, there will be a fair percentage that will not bother; as you say "fair cop guv". However, there will be some that see this as a lifeline. But would BA take the risk, if one or more dismissals are overturned?

"You can't touch me, I'm part of the union" has been long gone throughout the industry and no doubt many in this dispute are only just realising this now.

If you knowingly break the rules you get sacked.

Its very simple.

I would imaging that it is a little more subjective than that.

Actually, in law, ignorance is no defence. Whether you break the rules knowingly or not is irrelevant, pleading that you did not know that murder is illegal does not excuse the crime. So, you break the rules you get sacked would be more to the point.

The problem with BASSA...
 

Based on personal experience, most of the crew I fly with, are sadly still of the opinion that their Union will save them which is why some 8,000(a random figure) are still members. I agree, it should and that has always been my view as well when I belonged to BASSA many years ago.
They failed me, and they've failed their members now and look at the mess we're in. The problem with BASSA is that some of the reps got too big for their boots and it is BASSA who thought "BA can't touch me." This dispute would have been long over if BASSA hadn't thought they were the UNTOUCHABLES.
When Colombus leaked, BASSA should have been intelligent enough to collaborate with BA and work with the company, but they they didn't. Instead, they panicked and simply lost the plot.

PS:Chesh01, I agree with most of what you've posted, disciplinaries should not be part of the settlement.

Chesh01 posted
"Why should We tolerate BASSA lanyards as some kind of political eye poke or those ridiculous xxxx key rings."

So is the wearing of a BALPA lanyard also an "eye poke" which should be dealt with as a disciplinary matter...lets face it they dont conform to uniform regulations either?

Personally I think that the only suitable lanyards for all staff are the plain navy ones then all the debate is unnecessary. Advertising for union affiliations, airline manufacturers, charities and random other businesses should not be on a corporate uniform where the key word is "uni-form" or of one form i.e. all the same.

If it is such an effective form of advertising then perhaps we (BA) should sell the space and generate revenue. The passengers spend a lot of time looking at our backs so we could also sell the space on our ******!;)

BA pilots have been informed as of Nov 1 BALPA lanyards, or any other no issue, must not be worn.

As a current BALPA lanyard wearer, I cannot disagree with the policy.

It's hypocrisy. Regardless of your department either you should be allowed to wear your union lanyard or not.

I was asked, or should I say ordered, by a lanyard police in the CRC some time ago to remove my BASSA lanyard as it was not uniform standard. A couple of feet away were three pilots standing (I hope you had a good look because it looked like your eyes were about to pop out) with their BALPA lanyards around their necks.

Great news. That'll make it a lot easier for us SCCM's to manage the BASSA lanyards! Hopefully we should be able to get rid of all of them by Xmas!

Anyone From The PCCC Going To Respond?
 

Posted over 24 hours ago and no answer from the PCCC - anybody care to answer genuine questions?

I agree, Ottergirl and those equally ridiculous orange 'Vote Yes To Strike Action' luggage tags are not allowed either. Lots of Pursers/CSDs seem to want to make a deliberately statement with them. A good move on the part of BALPA and it should be plain navy and nothing else.

upperdeckpsr,
You'll find genuine answers to all your genuine questions by logging on to the Professional Cabin Crew Council website at mypccc.co.uk.:)

Tiramisu
 

Why the sarcasm?

upperdeckpsr

If I were you I would not bother with the PCCC. Nobody knows who they are and there's a strong rumour that this council has either been set up by BA or it being funded by management.

If they keep insisting on remanining anonymous, how are they going to offer representation?

MissM
 

What do you think would be reasonable with regard to the sacked staff? Do you want full reinstatement, regardless of the dismissal reason, or an independent review, if requested by the affected individuals?

I have never demanded full reinstatement of dismissed crew. An independent review of every individual case sounds fair.

MissM
 

Ref the PCCC - I was trying to find out some answers I guess.

What is a bit disconcerting is that they seem to be self-elected and they are embarking on a 'recruitment' drive for people to be on their committee. Of those who are interested, they will be contacting and interviewing prospective candidates over the coming weeks apparently - I assume the self-elected committee will then chose who can join them on their self-elected committee!

So no democratic election process? No letting members vote for their preferred candidate? And a self-elected committee who choose who can be on their committee?

Sound more like a dictatorship than a democracy to me.

Litebulbs,

The disciplinary process was agreed jointly between BA and Unite. The fact that 20 staff have been sacked as a result of the process is neither here nor there. You cannot have a mutually agreed procedure that is immediately subject to external arbitration as soon as the results don't go the way you want.

If any of the sacked or otherwise disciplined people has a grievance about their handling then they and their union should take legal action under unfair dismissal legislation. The fact that the union is deciding not to persue this course is in itself interesting. There should be no way that the disciplinary process should be part of any sort of block trade off.

upperdeckpsr,
Unfortunate that you see it that way, that wasn't my intention.
I genuinely believe that all your questions should be answered and they will be, on the PCCC forum and if you direct them to PCCC admin.
The PPrune moderators have been generous to allow the PCCC to form part of the debate here but I think your questions willl be better placed on the PCCC forum.
So why not log on to mypccc.co.uk and give it a go. If you don't like it, you can always remove yourself from the membership. You have nothing to lose by joining and you may be pleasantly surprised.:)

upperdeckpsr

It sounds a bit strange that they are recruiting people to become part of their committee. As to your questions, surely they should be able to speak outside of their forum instead of asking you to become a member with the intention of raising their membership number.

Where please Miss M? Can you give us any ideas? Every time we put up posters, leaflets, they are ripped up by BASSA members.
Miss M,
If only that was true, it would be so much easier on all fronts.
It has been said endlessly, that we are BA MANAGEMENT/PILOTS or god knows who else. We are BA cabin crew of all grades using our own money to fund everything including our own time. Not a penny has come from anywhere else, not even from our members as yet. We all have laptops, printers and paper is cheap enough to buy, that's all that is needed for the time being.
It's a small sacrifice to make so that our voices can heard on a platform where crew with like minded views can discuss and debate so we can protect our terms and conditions and save our jobs. We all have a common goal, Miss M. The only difference is we are doing it by listening and talking, not by striking.

Why would it be unreasonable to have an independent review? BASSA appear to be claiming that the dismissals have been part of the process, rather than individuals misconduct. I doubt very much if that is the case for all, but it might be a possibility for some. What if that was the case?

One thing I have learnt from this dispute and recent training, is that do not agree to any policy that could lead to a dismissal!

So you would say that no union should ever agree to a disciplinary process as these must have the ultimate sanction of dismissal. The unions and any company will therefore be in perpetual conflict and that is not healthy. What is healthy is for a company to agree with a union a mutually acceptable process for grievances. That is what happened between BA and Unite. It is no good whining when this process goes against you.
If there are individual cases where it is felt the process has gone wrong, fine, take legal recourse and go to tribunal. It is simply farcical to say that all cases are suspect and need looked at again. This is simply a smoke and mirrors ploy and I personally find it disgusting that supporters of rights in the workplace back moves whereby someone who had been sacked for bullying and harassment had another bite at the cherry.

Perhaps on here? Questions have been asked yet you keep refering to your discussion forum for answers. Why the mystery?

Protect our terms and conditions? What do you think BASSA are trying to do? Best of luck trying to talk to our management who gives the impression that they don't want to reach an agreement. TW had to approach BA to resume talks and BA have refused to de-roster our chairman so that she was not able to attend a briefing held by TW to view the proposal.

So you take it to tribunal and you win, you could still be out of a job.

That is the legal system that ALL employees exist under - why should any sacked CC be a special case. Independant arbitration of the procedure would also not ensure that anyone got their job back.

Just so I can give this up and go to the pub could you please explain why CC are a special case and should not be subject to the standard disciplinary process as agreed by BA and Unite?

MissM,

This

Gets to the root of the problem. The world has changed. Protecting your terms and conditions does not mean accepting permanent and significant changes. Every other work group at BA have accepted this except BASSA. The company is moving on and it is now doing so without you.

Because they are suggesting that there is a possibility that the dismissals were not fair and an independent review prior to legal action could help. But as you say, unless it is binding arbitration, agreed by both parties, it will not matter.

We shall see what comes from the talks.

Miss M said

Protect our T/C's. Are you serious and I'm not being sarcastic. The problem is that ALL Bassa have tried to do in the past is PROTECT, PROTECT, PROTECT. We have moved on from that 'way' of negotiating many many years ago. Its all about evolvement amd involvement now, and being proactive in trying to move things forward for both ANY company AND the employees. Unfortunetely Bassa have always been a one trick pony and have now lost out. The problem is that ALL crew have lost out, thanks to Bassa. As for TW, I said last week that he is stringing this along to avoid an xmas strike just like he did over the general election. There will be NO 'significant progress' IMO

Plodding along said

The jury is still out on that one I'm afraid!!

Litebulbs said

Actually its not. All that has simply happened is BA have had enough and are now thank goodness taking control. A lot of the sacked crew have deserved it for years but have got away with murder because Bassa have protected them. Its like the Mafia literally. If things have been unfair, I know of a female CC manager who was verbally abused in a disgraceful and personal way. The guy got a 3 year written warning despite being a known troublemaker for years. So I would suggest BA could have sacked even more perhaps. Also remember not all have been sacked for 'strike' events - just most.

De-Rostering
 

Do you think it was reasonable not to de-roster the BASSA chair, to meet with the JGS of Unite, to discuss the previous weeks talks?

As expected, an offer has been made....

BASSA - Latest News TALKS UPDATE Oct 16th, 2010

We were hoping to update you today with details of the completion of talks between British Airways and UNITE.

These had been expected to conclude on Thursday night, however these discussions, including involvement of ACAS and the TUC, continued into Friday, and finally concluded late on Friday night. Unite General Secretary, Tony Woodley held a late night briefing session that finished during the early hours of this morning, for the small number of reps that were released by BA to attend.

We do now have details of the offer and also a reasonable understanding of its detail; as you would expect, it contains both good and bad. Some points have legal implications and so require additional legal opinion; we need to secure that as quickly as possible.

We must all carefully decide our next step.

To reassure you all, Tony has committed that the decision will not be taken by him but will, quite rightly, rest with your elected reps. We in turn, as is our duty, commit to you that decisions will also ultimately not be taken by us, but directly by you, our members.

We understand your frustrations but please be aware that there is no hidden agenda or anything more sinister going on than careful thought.

We have most of the information that we need but it still needs to be shared and considered with a lot of the people that represent you. BASSA chair, Lizanne Malone has also not as yet seen it as Bill Francis declined her de-rostering to attend the briefing held by Tony Woodley.

We ask for your patience just a little while longer, while your union’s formal response is formulated.

We stress again that there is no need for any anxiety, as any - and all - decisions taken, will be yours.

Fax? Conference call? Or should the BASSA Chair receive a rolling de-rostering so she can be ready the very moment BA and the JGS thrash out a deal?