Colonel White

Why would BA bother seeking injunctions or visiting courts? The big problem Unite have is that if (whatever appears on the ballot) BA says it is linked to the previous one - therefore any action is unprotected, strikers would face dismissal. BA would not need to seek injunctions beforehand - they would let the strike go ahead and sack anyone who walked out - and if that is what they stated I don't suppose many people wouldn't believe that BA would follow through. I don't suppose that our legal system works in such a way that Unite could announce a strike and subsequently unilaterally ask a court to rule whether it is legal before the action is taken. I imagine BA would need to take the initiative.

With the threat of dismissal from BA balanced against the promise from BASSA that BA couldn't sack you, I doubt even MissM would withdraw her labour. I suspect Unite have already figured this out so are securing a deal.

plodding along
 

Yes! I have to agree with plodding along and with 747girl also, everyone was being so patronising and saying how auful the new contract is for MF CC but it seems its a case of 'I'm alright Jack and its up to them if they want to take the job'. Well no, actually, some people are badly in need of a job and they dont have that choice.

I think LHR WW CC would achieve a great deal more understanding and sympathy if it took a genuine concern for CC MF.

It seems to me that if someone has a different way of thinking then it must be provocative - you should here yourselves sometime.

The court hearing is not over as yet Wirbelstrum.(see below)
So , I am hoping for the appeal to be officially denied to end this constant visit to the courts.. (Also having been at the original court hearings conmpletly agreed with Sir Christopher Hollands original ruling...re crewing levels)..however you have implied that this may not be the case!
I am sure the Judges QCs and co, must be getting fed up!
COURT 74
Before LORD JUSTICE WARD
LADY JUSTICE SMITH and
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
Not Before half-past 10
APPLICATION
A2/2010/0578(Y) Malone & ors -v- British Airways Plc. Application of Claimants for renewal of lower court part refusal of permission to appeal. Part Heard.
APPEAL
From The Queen's Bench Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A2/2010/0578 Malone & ors -v- British Airways Plc. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Sir Christopher Holland, dated 19th February 2010, filed 10th March 2010. Part Heard.

So, would you say if Unite balloted for industrial action in response to the dismissal of some of it's members, BA should not be able to seek an injunction, to prevent the said action, if they wanted to? Or are you suggesting that the Union cannot appeal?

I doubt this very much. It's what Judges and QCs do for a living. QCs in particular Mr Hendy are probably quite gleeful at the current situation - the more litigation there is, the more money they earn.

Juan Tugoh
 

Why pick on the Union Barrister? If anything BA has been in court on many more times than the few occasions with BASSA - it's BA's legal team who are full of glee :rolleyes:

Wirbelstrum
 

Totally and utterly untrue - then again I suppose if people want to spread 'rumours' this is a 'rumour' forum :rolleyes:

If you read the further post from the OP upperdecker you will see he stated it was a quick story on BBC London news last night...prehaps complain to the BBC for spreading rumours

90 day notice
 

Although this has not been mentioned recently, just a thought (and relevant please note Mods)

I saw a BBC Question Time programme recently and one of the hot subjects was Public Spending cuts. Near the end of the programme a London Firefighter (cannot remember the borough) stated that they had been given 90 days notice. Their job would no longer exist in its' present form after the 90 days. Obviously the new contract offered was less desirable than the current contract and saves the borough money.

So fast forward to this current Cabin Crew dispute. Many prophesies of CC being given the 90 day notice have not arisen in fact. I put it to you though, that if it is accepted the company will not give the 90 day notice, on CC that struck, for accepting the MF contract (which I personally would find unfair to said crew) there is no reason why the company cannot invoke the 90 day notice for the striking BASSA crew to accept the contract that has been accepted by non striking, non union crew. This I would find as a fair solution to the dispute.

And before you shoot me down in flames, this dispute is at an impasse. I am certain the company do not really want it to drag on much longer. As much as the striking crew have made their point it is time to put up or shut up and move out.

If you are so venomous in your comments against the company then why are you still working for them? The answer I come up with is money for old rope! The easy life etc. etc.

upperdeckpsr
But BA generally win. It's the BASSA QC who keeps picking up fees for failed challenges, each time pushing on to the next court layer.

If thats what you think - he's getting another days pay then isn't he :rolleyes:

The rules under which they operate say that a barrister must take on a case they're offered if it's within their area of expertise and they're not otherwise engaged.

Coincedence?
 

Funny how things happen at the same time. A new deal and a court case.

See BASSA.co.uk

Litebulbs

Think it's pure coincidence, although Unite lodged the appeal some time back and it also sounds as though Unite instigated the latest talks. Last time we were in this situation, it was the court case that is now the subject of the appeal and Unite were balloting for industrial action.

I note that BASSA seem to have kept the blinkers on, judging from their latest missive. They say, and I paraphrase, that members have the choice of voting to accept the deal if they think it addresses all their concerns, but intimate that should the deal put forward not have a majority, that they will ballot for strike action.

Am I alone in having a degree of unease about the way in which this consultative ballot will be conducted ? I just get the impression that the previous one was possibly poorly managed with insufficient time allowed to ensure that all ballot papers were received and members given a reasonable opportunity to cast a vote. The strike ballots gave four weeks from papers being sent out to close of voting. The consultative ballot allowed about half that time. Maybe that was why under half the membership voted. Given the timescales, I can see that BASSA would want to hurry through any consultative ballot so that they could have the four week period for a strike ballot in time to walk out at Christmas. I reckon that BASSA will only allow three weeks maximum for the consultative ballot as this will then give them the opportunity to call a strike by December 13th for the Christmas week.

I get the feeling that the BASSA leadership want another strike. The tone of the comments coming from them in recent days suggests that to be the case. Which makes me wonder if they have the best interests of their members at heart, or whether this dispute is now becoming a personal crusade for some to try and cause maximum damage to British Airways. I would have thought that if the membership reject the deal on the table (when it finally materialises) the next steps should be to go back to the negotiating table and try to secue a better offer. Striking is the last resort, not the first option.

Colonel
 

If it was you, what would you be looking for? If it was me (moderate), I would be looking at an ACAS binding arbitration solution for the dismissed employees and a full reinstatement of staff travel (over time maybe?) and concede that if any further action was to take place over this issue, then a signed agreement that staff travel will be removed permanently. I doubt if Mr. Walsh will go that far however, but we shall see.

Most on here will not agree with that, because the common thread bias is about punishment and destruction of the BASSA branch.

Litebulbs

A little unfair. The vast majority of posters on here over the last few days have said they wouldn't mind staff travel being returned.

What I think most would hate to see is a group of flag waving, Willie Walsh mask with red eyes wearing lunatics cheering on tv claiming a huge victory.

Now if staff travel seniority were to be phased back in over time with a clause that any further strike action on this issue would lead to total loss of staff travel permanently, then that would probably bevagreeable to most

Ps, can you really blame a lot of people for wanting to see the end of BASSA in its current form?

I want people to think twice before going on strike next time - be they pilots. cabin crew, loaders, check in staff or whatever. Standing firm on staff travel is a good way to ensure this, and so I do not want to see it returned. They were warned.

GS-ALFA

There is a time to settle this dispute and this is it.

Being vindictive never gets anyone far in this life -its time for everybody to move on.

GS-Alpha
 

Am I correct in thinking that you want to blackmail people into not striking by threatening them with loss of Staff Travel, even though it is enshrined in employment law that one has a legal right to take part in Industrial Action?