Thanks JT,
That was very interesting and informative. I recommend everyone interested in the BA dispute listens to the above radio programme.

Thanks.

essessdeedee:

I have no doubt at all that the ballot will be a massive majority 'YES' vote seeing as most of us that would have voted 'NO' have already left the union. I think the reason that management don't seem bothered is that this strike will have even less impact than the last. According to BA's figures 660 crew that took IA in March were back to work by the end of the 22 strike days. From my friends alone that went on strike I know that this figure is bound to increase as they are now coming in to work if further IA is taken. Combine this with a larger army of VCC's and 400+ MF cabin crew of all grades that the company can utilise and I think that answers the companies stance on the matter. No doubt any action taken will cause the company some disruption and damage, but the estimated 100% LH and 80% SH should be easily achievable. The only real damage will be to the strikers themselves who will most certainly lose pay, possibly staff travel again and even more if this strike is deemed illegal!

Betty Girl:

The radio interview that JT kindly linked to a previous thread is indeed very interesting. Maybe he should send it to DH before he makes any more sweeping statements misinforming his membership regarding being sacked for taking LEGAL IA. Especially as a few of us union leavers are getting ballot papers through the letterbox - surely that already makes the ballot ILLEGAL? :)

The number of non-members getting ballot papers would determine if it was legal or not. It would need to be a significant number that could have an effect on the outcome.

So if it was proved that 50 or so non-members received a ballot paper and the result was very close it could be deemed illegal but if the result was a very clear YES and 50 would not alter the result that would not be significant.

The Christmas fiasco was slightly different as it was clear that a very large number of crew had left BA but still were on BASSA membership lists.

Also Miss LaLa and her daft Christmas message left them wide open to legal action.

Vct
 

That is not correct. The Appeal Judges last time stated that in effect, if the correct legal hoops are not followed in calling IA, then the action is illegal.
.

Share price has just gone through £3... :ok:

CP, My memories are more like VcT's.

On the initial judgement, the injunction was granted as hoops had not been jumped through and more tellingly LM encouraged people who weren't eligible, to vote anyway. On appeal, the injunction was lifted as it was found, reasonable efforts had been made and the number of invalid votes was deemed insignificant.

Does R5 archive radio shows? Very early in this dispute Victoria Derbyshire hosted two 'anonymous' CSD's and a partner in an employment law firm. Very entertaining as the CSD's explained the law to the partner and why BA couldn't remove staff travel. "Yes they can" he said and you're lucky you haven't been sacked as they could do that as well.

(Found it, 24/3/10, posted by RT in an older thread, no longer available)

DL,

I remember it well. It rather encapsulates one of the biggest failures of logical thinking displayed by many in this dispute, namely the tendency of many pro-strike supporters to define what they want as "FACT" or that which they don't want as "illegal". The staff travel case is a particular example of such - despite no extant (that I'm currently aware of) UK case law pertaining to this, they've screamed and screamed about the legality of it with no professional knowledge.

It's hard to actually engage with a core group that effectively attempts to define their own reality rather than dealing with the one they actually inhabit.

As for the faux trades-unionism and channelling the spirit of Keir Hardie, well it beggars belief. Still, nice to see them eating themselves alive elsewhere over the latest set of perceived outrages.

MrB

Legal niceties
 

The ballot held in November 2009 was judged to have not conformed with the legal requirements.Key ponts were that BASSA had balloted people who would not be employed by BA when strikes would be called.Moreover, the chairperson of BASSA had given advice to members that those leaving the company could vote in the ballot.Thus Unite could not be said to have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that only those elegible to vote did so. The court judgement was not subject to appeal and hence Unite had to go through the whole ballot process again.

Following the second ballot and initial walkout, BA sought an injunction on further industrial action on the basis that Unite had failed to notify members of the number of spoilt papers in the ballot. The high court upheld this view and granted an injunction.Unite appealed and won.

Fast forward to the current ballot. If BA could demonstrate that Unite has balloted people who are no longer in the union and that these folk have voted (derivable from the total votes cast), then we may be back to November 2009 again. Even if Unite have enclosed a note stating that only current members can vote, if their membership lists are out of synch by more than a small percentage, the courts may determine that they have done insufficient,particularly if BA have provided details of who is paying via pay deduction.

So if you want to scupper the strike,are no longer in the union, but have received a ballot paper, vote No and return it. Very embarrassing for Unite if the No vote is fractionally larger than the Yes vote, but they know that the number of votes is greater than the actual membership.

Colonal White, is that legal? (voting, when you are no longer a member).

It may be tempting to use the ballot paper you have been sent in error, but could you be committing an offense by doing so?

Does anyone know for certain?

I think CW's idea is a fabulous idea - I just wish they would send me a form.

Actually I have just had a thought about BASSA's recent rumour. If pilots can indeed leave BALPA and join BASSA, I might start a petition to get everyone to Transfer! We could then all vote No. ;o)

Interesting Alpha. Weren't you just on another thread stating that £1000 take home pay for Mixed fleet cabin crew was fair. Maybe you've lost your moral compass in the bunks.

Talking of pay I was informed of a cc member who was saying his/her possible "strike roster" was a very good one and likely to cost them £4500.

No wonder BA wishes to reduce the cost base. £4500 take home?

I am a Captain of around 17 years service in BA and don't beat that take home by much myself.

Ivorbiggun,
It is very easy to come on here and quote ridiculous figures and try and make everyone else on here think that cabin crew all earn these huge sums of money.

Maybe they were just winding you up. I can assure you that that figure is pure fantasy.

It borders on being outrageous that you can bandy things like this around because within seconds people will be believing you.

Ivorbiggun`s figures are pretty accurate.My wife was a longhaul Purser and her best month she cleared 4800.She did have 3 long range trips but it is possible.

and I'm told that the person has changed their story to losing "a lot of money" from "£4500" after it being pointed out that it was "detrimental to the cause" to publish such figures.

Do you believe everything you read on that forum or just selective things!

Not quite accurate I am afraid. Every ballot will have errors it is impossible not to. So when the results are known and the numbers are published BA could claim 'illegal' ballot if the numbers are significant.

Otherwise it would be possible to produce just one non member who voted and then claim ballot is not valid.

I have been present and have witnessed many ballots and know this is the case.

These problems are more common when voting is for a TU position i.e. General Secretary. The loser will challenge if the numbers are close but if the number is not 'signifcant to have changed the result' the challenge will be ignored.

The point I was endeavouring to make was that under the Trade Union legislation, the union has a duty to ensure that only the correct people are balloted. They are allowed a little leeway to cover people leaving the company in small numbers. Where it would fall down is, as was the case in November 2009 when close on 10% of those balloted had actually left the company or5 were no longer union members. Moreover, the union had not taken sufficient steps to ensure that they had excluded leavers, even when BA informed them that they disagreed with the balloted figure. The icing on the cake was the statement by the chairperson that it was OK to vote if you were employed by the company when you recieved the ballot form. That essentially made the ballot void.

If Unite still have made a complete nonsense of their membership records and have sent ballot papers to around 1000 people who are no longer members, with no instruction not to vote if they are no longer members, then they are laying themsleves wide open if the 1000 actually cast a vote. From Unite's records, they would not be able to determine whether the votes cast were good or bad. BA, on the other hand would have a pretty good indication from knowing the number of staff in the area who have union dues deducted from pay. The only area of uncertainty would be the number who pay by direct debit, although they would have the figure from the previous ballot to work from. So if Unite claim 10,000 members balloted, but BA know that around 1700 were paying direct last time around and can account for 7000 paying by check off then BA would know that Unite were probably out by 1,300 members. If the votes cast wound up at 9,700, BA could justifiably challenge the outcome, especially as they would have previously supplied the numbers they have at their end to Unite. Unite would be in total disarray as they would not be able to determine who had cast a vote and was inelegible, as the vote count is administered by an independant body.

I have no idea what the legal standpoint would be for non members casting votes. It is not like a parlliamentary election where it coud be considered fraud. Non members have nothing to gain from voting not to strike as they would not be getting any pecuniary advantage. It would, however, be highly embarassing for the largest union in the UK to then have to admit that its largest branch is incapable of keeping accurate membership records. ;)

Monday
 

If there were only 45 Amicus strikers I hope they booked a single room, should be a quiet affair! Is the BASSA meeting at the same time? All this waiting is starting to feel really annoying!

7Heroes,

I have absolutely NO idea how your wife, as a PSR on worldwide cleared £4800.

I'm a CSD near the top of the increment scale and I have NEVER been anywhere near that net. Not even close. I MAY, from memory, have ONCE seen a 4 at the beginning, but only with profit share AND a load of back pay owed. Now I know I'm Eurofleet, but my wife is WW and her total vaiable pay doesn't differ THAT greatly to mine even with long range.

Are you sure she wasn't paid twice in error?!