BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully understand why individuals would be, a best, frustrated by the actions of Unite/BASSA. I was asking a question of what could be done, rather than what people thing should happen.
As I understand it, industrial action is not a disciplinary offence, in it's self. The way you conduct yourself may be, however.
The pilots are currently taking legal action againt BA, with regard to holiday pay. Should BA act against the pilots?
As I understand it, industrial action is not a disciplinary offence, in it's self. The way you conduct yourself may be, however.
The pilots are currently taking legal action againt BA, with regard to holiday pay. Should BA act against the pilots?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pay
Litebulbs that case has been going on for some time now and is relevant to many airline personnel.
And if the pilots are successful the BA cabin crew will benefit on the same basis which is why (once again) the BA cabin crew have not started their own legal case or negotiations and are piggy backing on the pilots.
As and when they (BASSA/UNITE) are required to negotiate on their own as in v HMCR on taxation of allowances they fail to deliver.
As could be said for their negotiations with BA on the current issue.
It seems to me you have always argued against the employer with your one liners. Turning it the other way round and using your expertise in union matters if you were BA (or running your own business) how would you legally get rid of the strikers which seems to be the preferable option for many groups?
And if the pilots are successful the BA cabin crew will benefit on the same basis which is why (once again) the BA cabin crew have not started their own legal case or negotiations and are piggy backing on the pilots.
As and when they (BASSA/UNITE) are required to negotiate on their own as in v HMCR on taxation of allowances they fail to deliver.
As could be said for their negotiations with BA on the current issue.
It seems to me you have always argued against the employer with your one liners. Turning it the other way round and using your expertise in union matters if you were BA (or running your own business) how would you legally get rid of the strikers which seems to be the preferable option for many groups?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that a bit of a passive/agressive inquiry? lol
When I see a member of flight crew walking around Heathrow with a photo of Mr. Walsh on his bottom, when I hear of flight crew emptying service containers, leaving used feminine products on the aircraft, speaking of using "guerilla tactics" against the airline I might be concerned.
....but hades hasn't frozen over so I'm not too concerned.
The true shame in this is that this small pile of ill behaved, coarse, rude individuals have attempted to smear professional, capable Cabin Crew and their airline with their actions.
They failed in their strike...and it might get a tad painful if they don't start behaving like adults.
When I see a member of flight crew walking around Heathrow with a photo of Mr. Walsh on his bottom, when I hear of flight crew emptying service containers, leaving used feminine products on the aircraft, speaking of using "guerilla tactics" against the airline I might be concerned.
....but hades hasn't frozen over so I'm not too concerned.
The true shame in this is that this small pile of ill behaved, coarse, rude individuals have attempted to smear professional, capable Cabin Crew and their airline with their actions.
They failed in their strike...and it might get a tad painful if they don't start behaving like adults.
As you said Litebulbs, conduct during the dispute is the issue here.
If the pilots are indeed taking court action against BA, I, as a fairly well infomed customer, was unaware of it. Ergo, BA would be hard pressed to claim that such action would bring the company into disrepute.
If the pilots are indeed taking court action against BA, I, as a fairly well infomed customer, was unaware of it. Ergo, BA would be hard pressed to claim that such action would bring the company into disrepute.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wascrew
I don't think that you can legally get rid of strikers. That doesn't mean that BA cannot just do it and test it in court. If they win, it's job done, but if the dismissals are unfair and a lawful strike is the reason and that strike is seen as union activities, then it could be very expensive.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Court Case
The case makes interesting reading and both sides have put interesting positions. My point is that if successful, that will be an increased cost to BA. Is that acceptable at this time?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
I don't think that you can legally get rid of strikers.
Is this a possibility??
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view, sacking all the strikers is indeed what many (or pehaps most) customers expect BA to do if they are to regain confidence in the airline.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
77
They would not be redundant, if they were to be re-engaged. They would be dismissed and re-engaged. There would then be a potential unfair dismissal claim, but BA would probably argue some other substantial reason SOSR. But this would have to be for all crew, as I see it, not just those that went on strike.
They could all be made redundant and offered the chance to apply for the new fleet contract as a suitable alternative, but I imagine that many would not see it as suitable, if it was this market rate + 10% deal. I do not know enough about employment law to see if there was enough change in the role, to allow that to happen. I am sure BA's legal people will have done the work on this, and they have been very good up till now.
They could all be made redundant and offered the chance to apply for the new fleet contract as a suitable alternative, but I imagine that many would not see it as suitable, if it was this market rate + 10% deal. I do not know enough about employment law to see if there was enough change in the role, to allow that to happen. I am sure BA's legal people will have done the work on this, and they have been very good up till now.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cork
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they can do it Litebulbs i.e. make everyone redundant and re-hire on different contracts. It's what Aer Lingus threatened in Ireland, the basis and logic is that the original contract, therefore the original position no longer exists. This then meets the UK redundancy condition that the position you were hired for no longer exists, as the position is defined by law in the contract. BA could also argue collective redundancy due to reorganisation and reallocation or work. It can't be deemed unfair if everyone was made redundant.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
77:
From what I understand, no, that isn't a possibility.
However Litebulbs rather insular view is not a possibility either.
There is no "get out of jail free" card with this engagement for those who engaged in outrageous behavior and now wish to say "Oh, never mind".
Mr. Walsh reiterated again today, in the most strong terms, that original term Staff Travel would not be reinstated to strikers. Period.
These radical individuals who wished to smear good Cabin Crew and co-workers are going to be watched. If they cross a line they can squeal like crazy that its only because they were on strike, but the judgement will be based on their conduct according to contract, both during and after the strike.
I expect, based upon the intellect I'm viewing, more disciplinary proceedings. Some of these individuals just can't help themselves.
No surprise in a call for new contracts and a 90 day "take it or leave" option.
From what I understand, no, that isn't a possibility.
However Litebulbs rather insular view is not a possibility either.
There is no "get out of jail free" card with this engagement for those who engaged in outrageous behavior and now wish to say "Oh, never mind".
Mr. Walsh reiterated again today, in the most strong terms, that original term Staff Travel would not be reinstated to strikers. Period.
These radical individuals who wished to smear good Cabin Crew and co-workers are going to be watched. If they cross a line they can squeal like crazy that its only because they were on strike, but the judgement will be based on their conduct according to contract, both during and after the strike.
I expect, based upon the intellect I'm viewing, more disciplinary proceedings. Some of these individuals just can't help themselves.
No surprise in a call for new contracts and a 90 day "take it or leave" option.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, an employee has a contract.
That contract can be varied by agreement.
If there is no agreement, what happens?
If there is a workforce reduction, then you would be in a redundancy situation. If a role was removed, say the CSD, this would also be a redundancy situation.
A variation of a contract is not a redundancy. If you terminate and re-engage, you are being dismissed and may be able to seek unfair dismissal.
That contract can be varied by agreement.
If there is no agreement, what happens?
If there is a workforce reduction, then you would be in a redundancy situation. If a role was removed, say the CSD, this would also be a redundancy situation.
A variation of a contract is not a redundancy. If you terminate and re-engage, you are being dismissed and may be able to seek unfair dismissal.
Staines Trident accident
wasn't union graffitti found chalked in the (BOAC ?) Trident which crashed at Staines in the 60's: and wasn't staff animosities related to union action suspected as a part cause of the Captains heart attack ? If stickers etc are now being found on transports, wouldn't BA be entitled to escalate this above nuisance ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been stated on here before - any employer, at any time, may sack any worker(s) for any reason, valid or not.
If its a non valid reason, as defined by UK employment law, the said workers may then have a claim for unfair dismissal. Such claim may well take months if not years to come to court, and the court, if upheld, will issue compensation. Such compensation will be comsensurat with the salary of the person and unlikeley to be more than 1 years salary. The court could instruct the employer to re-instate the employee but the employer can get around this by paying a fine and is not legally binding.
So, if it was identified there were 200 hardline militants, BA could remove them for good for around the cost of a days strike action (assuming £7m).
Of course, this would be a PR disaster for BA, but it is a valid option.
There is no unlawful dismissal, there is no criminal or civil offence and no one goes to jail, its just a compensation issue, so a numbers game....
If its a non valid reason, as defined by UK employment law, the said workers may then have a claim for unfair dismissal. Such claim may well take months if not years to come to court, and the court, if upheld, will issue compensation. Such compensation will be comsensurat with the salary of the person and unlikeley to be more than 1 years salary. The court could instruct the employer to re-instate the employee but the employer can get around this by paying a fine and is not legally binding.
So, if it was identified there were 200 hardline militants, BA could remove them for good for around the cost of a days strike action (assuming £7m).
Of course, this would be a PR disaster for BA, but it is a valid option.
There is no unlawful dismissal, there is no criminal or civil offence and no one goes to jail, its just a compensation issue, so a numbers game....
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, an employee has a contract.
That contract can be varied by agreement.
If there is no agreement, what happens?
If there is a workforce reduction, then you would be in a redundancy situation. If a role was removed, say the CSD, this would also be a redundancy situation.
A variation of a contract is not a redundancy. If you terminate and re-engage, you are being dismissed and may be able to seek unfair dismissal.
That contract can be varied by agreement.
If there is no agreement, what happens?
If there is a workforce reduction, then you would be in a redundancy situation. If a role was removed, say the CSD, this would also be a redundancy situation.
A variation of a contract is not a redundancy. If you terminate and re-engage, you are being dismissed and may be able to seek unfair dismissal.
This post reflects a rather naive approach to both employment and contract law.
First, I understand that most of this defensive posture is as a result of the loss by BASSA of its IA. Tis fine, a defensive posture as the result of a loss is a reasonable stance.
What is unfortunate is that BASSA, whether due to lack of vision or lack of talent in its leadership, did not specifically forewarn its members regarding the risks involved in not just the IA movement, but also its members individual actions and conduct.
BA fired a shot across BASSA's bow with the notice of withdrawal of Staff Travel in the event of strike action. BASSA, still playing its role as the bully on the block chose to ignore this signal.
Soooo....Yes, due to the failed strike action (it would have been different if the strike was successful...but it wasn't) BA, in the right window, has the opportunity to call for new contracts. Period.
Those militants that no reasonable Cabin Crew wish to work with, that no reasonable customer wishes to fly with, can scream "unfair dismissal".
...and the result. BA delivers to its customers a message that they are listening and that they deserve our support.
A few, and it will be a very few, angry, negative, unproductive Cabin Crew may challenge...but the exchange means that BA is game to take them on.
When BASSA decided to dismiss the customers, to treat passengers like so much dross, they lost the battle. BA will pick and choose its battles, and they will win. BASSA's conduct, public statements, and overt behavior make it too much of a target rich environment. And BA employees will say thank you, Cabin Crew will say thank you...and most of all the flying public will say thank you....and communicating to the public that BA will protect them from this perceived negativity is a revenue producing action.
Every striking BA worker who decides to carry on the negativity, carry on the lies, carry on the intent to bring negative onto the airline is a walking target.
Amateurs.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again, courtesy of ian100 at Flyertalk:
Thank goodness that the response used the word "macho". Otherwise I may have doubted its authenticity.
Originally Posted by FT
Walsh throws down gauntlet to strikers
British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh threw down the gauntlet to striking cabin crew staff on Monday, saying he would hold out against industrial action “for as long as it takes”.
In a sign of BA’s determination to break the Unite union’s stranglehold on the loss-making airline, Mr Walsh told a group of airline industry leaders: “I don’t think we’ve been brave enough in the past to stand up and say ‘No’.”
His comments came as flight attendants staged a third round of five-day strikes. Their action is due to end on Wednesday but the union may ballot cabin crew on further action if no agreement is reached in the dispute.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Berlin, Mr Walsh said he would not give in. “We’re absolutely determined at BA we are not going to do that this time. We’re going to hold out for as long as it takes and we will continue to build up the amount of flying we’re doing.”
Mr Walsh has deployed an arsenal of weapons since the strikes began in February, including hiring extra aircraft and crew, training volunteer attendants and taking legal action to block the strikes.
But the chief executive implied he might go further. Asked if he could imagine a situation where BA would start sacking striking workers, he said: “Let’s see what happens.”
He continued: “I think the contingency plans we’ve developed have worked very, very well and we continue to build on those. We’re building on the existing plans that we have.”
The union claims an agreement in principle has been reached over the cost-cutting proposals that sparked the dispute, but says the removal of employees’ travel concessions and BA’s refusal to reinstate sacked and suspended workers is blocking a deal.
Mr Walsh disputed this claim. “Travel is not the issue at the heart of this. I made it absolutely clear before the cabin crew even balloted for industrial action that travel concessions, which are non-contractual benefits, are clearly something of value to people in the business and something that is given to reward loyalty and service and dedication of the people in BA.”
Responding to the Mr Walsh’s determination to hold out for as long as it takes, Unite said: “Threats like this suggest BA’s management is getting even more macho. How on earth is this going to deliver a solution to this dispute?”
It said the City would “soon begin to worry about a CEO waging an uncontrolled war without end against his own workforce.”
Walsh throws down gauntlet to strikers
British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh threw down the gauntlet to striking cabin crew staff on Monday, saying he would hold out against industrial action “for as long as it takes”.
In a sign of BA’s determination to break the Unite union’s stranglehold on the loss-making airline, Mr Walsh told a group of airline industry leaders: “I don’t think we’ve been brave enough in the past to stand up and say ‘No’.”
His comments came as flight attendants staged a third round of five-day strikes. Their action is due to end on Wednesday but the union may ballot cabin crew on further action if no agreement is reached in the dispute.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Berlin, Mr Walsh said he would not give in. “We’re absolutely determined at BA we are not going to do that this time. We’re going to hold out for as long as it takes and we will continue to build up the amount of flying we’re doing.”
Mr Walsh has deployed an arsenal of weapons since the strikes began in February, including hiring extra aircraft and crew, training volunteer attendants and taking legal action to block the strikes.
But the chief executive implied he might go further. Asked if he could imagine a situation where BA would start sacking striking workers, he said: “Let’s see what happens.”
He continued: “I think the contingency plans we’ve developed have worked very, very well and we continue to build on those. We’re building on the existing plans that we have.”
The union claims an agreement in principle has been reached over the cost-cutting proposals that sparked the dispute, but says the removal of employees’ travel concessions and BA’s refusal to reinstate sacked and suspended workers is blocking a deal.
Mr Walsh disputed this claim. “Travel is not the issue at the heart of this. I made it absolutely clear before the cabin crew even balloted for industrial action that travel concessions, which are non-contractual benefits, are clearly something of value to people in the business and something that is given to reward loyalty and service and dedication of the people in BA.”
Responding to the Mr Walsh’s determination to hold out for as long as it takes, Unite said: “Threats like this suggest BA’s management is getting even more macho. How on earth is this going to deliver a solution to this dispute?”
It said the City would “soon begin to worry about a CEO waging an uncontrolled war without end against his own workforce.”
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 80
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't believe all you read
baggersup (post 2162), ancient obsever, ruthanne & others
These are the words at the bottom of the Pprune page
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions
Perhaps it is the case that these stories of aircraft equipment sabotage have been put forward by BASSA supporters/contributors wanting to frighten potential or regular passengers in pursuit of their own goal. Or of course, perhaps not. Think about it!
These are the words at the bottom of the Pprune page
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions
Perhaps it is the case that these stories of aircraft equipment sabotage have been put forward by BASSA supporters/contributors wanting to frighten potential or regular passengers in pursuit of their own goal. Or of course, perhaps not. Think about it!