BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, hair-splitting. BA warned of the consequences of strike action. Depending on which side of the fence one sits, it could be seen as consequential action or punishment.
The fact that staff travel had routinely been withdrawn prior to any previous IA suggests that the company had established a precedent for such action which the union had accepted as fair and equitable (otherwise they would have complained about it before) The difference this time around is that BA are not proposing to return it with seniority. There is nothing to compel BA to return it with seniority. The very fact that the company has offered to return it in the first place indicates that the removal was not punishment. In his original talks on the matter Willie Walsh was pretty unequivocal that anyone who went on strike would lose staff travel totally. That meant not just whilst they were employed by BA but also on retirement. I'd suggest hat he has moved considerably from that position in negotiations.
Why should cabin crew have felt that they would get staff travel back with full seniority ? Just because your granny has always knitted a pair of socks for you for a Christmas present doesn't mean that you will always get a hand knitted pair of socks every year. At some point the good lady will shuffle off this mortal coil and unless you are able to persuade another member of the family to take up the role, the socks will become a thing of the past.
The fact that staff travel had routinely been withdrawn prior to any previous IA suggests that the company had established a precedent for such action which the union had accepted as fair and equitable (otherwise they would have complained about it before) The difference this time around is that BA are not proposing to return it with seniority. There is nothing to compel BA to return it with seniority. The very fact that the company has offered to return it in the first place indicates that the removal was not punishment. In his original talks on the matter Willie Walsh was pretty unequivocal that anyone who went on strike would lose staff travel totally. That meant not just whilst they were employed by BA but also on retirement. I'd suggest hat he has moved considerably from that position in negotiations.
Why should cabin crew have felt that they would get staff travel back with full seniority ? Just because your granny has always knitted a pair of socks for you for a Christmas present doesn't mean that you will always get a hand knitted pair of socks every year. At some point the good lady will shuffle off this mortal coil and unless you are able to persuade another member of the family to take up the role, the socks will become a thing of the past.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While googling for other IA/punishment/legal position info, I accidentally found this Independent article from 1997. Interesting paralells.
Punishment, fear and humiliation - the bully's way - Opinion - The Independent
In this instance, did CC get travel back immediately on settlement or 3 years later as threatened, can anyone answer? If immediately, and with seniority, it would underline why CC would have expected to get travel back this time whatever the prior warnings. It puts BA in the position of 'the boy who cried wolf'.
Punishment, fear and humiliation - the bully's way - Opinion - The Independent
In this instance, did CC get travel back immediately on settlement or 3 years later as threatened, can anyone answer? If immediately, and with seniority, it would underline why CC would have expected to get travel back this time whatever the prior warnings. It puts BA in the position of 'the boy who cried wolf'.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In previous IA throughout the airline for at least 30 years, maybe 40 or more, staff travel has been routinely withdrawn at the start of IA, and always returned with full seniority on agreement.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As JAO says, ST has been removed plenty of times before, during industrial action, but for all of the group in dispute and that is speaking from experience at BA.
Just because an employer warned an employee group about sanctions, does not make it lawful. It is not splitting hairs, it is simply an opposing point of view. You either accept or ignore it, that is your choice.
Just because an employer warned an employee group about sanctions, does not make it lawful. It is not splitting hairs, it is simply an opposing point of view. You either accept or ignore it, that is your choice.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few points about the 1997 dispute. Bob Ayling was a lawyer, so would have had a reasonable view of the legal ins and outs. The points laid out then were a combination of direct possibilities (dismissal for breach of contract, liability for damages) consequential actions (removal of staff travel) plus punitive measures (no promotion, removed from any options for early retirement or severance available under various re-structuring schemes).
BA has had two changes in CEO since Ayling, neither of whom have opted to resurrect the global tailfins, so it is not guaranteed that when the current incumbent said that staff travel would be withdrawn, it mean that it would be returned with full seniority. The point I'm making is just because one CEO acts in a particular way is no guarantee that others will follow suit. Moreover, my understanding is that previously staff travel was not universally withdrawn, but only applied to those who went on strike.
If the unions had considered BA's actions to be aimed at preventing staff from exercising their right to strike, why did they not pursue this in 1997 ? There has been no change in the TULRCA.
BA has had two changes in CEO since Ayling, neither of whom have opted to resurrect the global tailfins, so it is not guaranteed that when the current incumbent said that staff travel would be withdrawn, it mean that it would be returned with full seniority. The point I'm making is just because one CEO acts in a particular way is no guarantee that others will follow suit. Moreover, my understanding is that previously staff travel was not universally withdrawn, but only applied to those who went on strike.
If the unions had considered BA's actions to be aimed at preventing staff from exercising their right to strike, why did they not pursue this in 1997 ? There has been no change in the TULRCA.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
But the question is whether BA have the right to do what they did.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the courts found BA's actions in removing one crew member to be reasonable, this implies that BASSA's industrial action was unreasonable; in fact I wondered why BA aren't suing BASSA for the damage inflicted on their business.
So before the issue of ST is dealt with, let this one be concluded.
It is my humble opinion that since one was a direct result of the other, they should not be dealt with by the courts as as separate issue, but as connected events.
However, Litebulbs would have us believe that it is legitimate for a union to inflict serious financial damage on a company even when it is not reasonable to do so, and that they cannot face any sanction for doing so. This may be true, but it is wrong in my opinion.
Litebulbs has it that BA's actions in removing ST were also wrong.
Since two wrongs don't make a right, I'd suggest the courts adjust accordingly.
Then you have the possible scenario of (a) BA taking GBP150 million off BASSA to make up the losses unreasonably inflicted upon them, and then (b) BA giving strikers back ST and giving them the tickets they would have used when they were unavailable (which can easily be calculated based on previous use).
(Should each party win their respective cases, I would accept punitive damages to be equal and therefore cancelled out).
I believe this would be fair.
So before the issue of ST is dealt with, let this one be concluded.
It is my humble opinion that since one was a direct result of the other, they should not be dealt with by the courts as as separate issue, but as connected events.
However, Litebulbs would have us believe that it is legitimate for a union to inflict serious financial damage on a company even when it is not reasonable to do so, and that they cannot face any sanction for doing so. This may be true, but it is wrong in my opinion.
Litebulbs has it that BA's actions in removing ST were also wrong.
Since two wrongs don't make a right, I'd suggest the courts adjust accordingly.
Then you have the possible scenario of (a) BA taking GBP150 million off BASSA to make up the losses unreasonably inflicted upon them, and then (b) BA giving strikers back ST and giving them the tickets they would have used when they were unavailable (which can easily be calculated based on previous use).
(Should each party win their respective cases, I would accept punitive damages to be equal and therefore cancelled out).
I believe this would be fair.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the answer is yes they do - until or unless the courts decide otherwise. That's how it operates, you can do whatever you like until the legal system (or Parliament) decides otherwise. In all honesty, continuing to go on about it is pretty pointless, they can and have done it. At some point in the future it may be decided they couldn't, but as of right now, they can.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that's because (from my vague reading of the matter) it isn't a problem under English law, but it might (perhaps, maybe, possibly) be something that European law has a view on.Therefore it's not surprising that there hasn't been a test case, because it's only very recently there's been anything to even remotely suggest a case.
(Not a lawyer caveats etc etc)
(Not a lawyer caveats etc etc)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making offers that are worse than their predecessors is not punishment but financial necessity.If a union has called a strike there will be an immediate hit on bookings.when the strike takes place there is also the potential loss in revenue. If the company is expected to magically conjure up more cash,it has to come from somewhere. Sadly in this case the procrastination by cabin crew means they are the last group to settle.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the latest rumour from BASSA is that BA has appointed Savils to sell Waterside!
Sorry to disappoint the BASSA acolytes, but WW is staying in the UK and IAG will have its own offices in the UK.
Sorry to disappoint the BASSA acolytes, but WW is staying in the UK and IAG will have its own offices in the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think from the below that BA would be perfectly entitled to ask the court to adjourn this hearing until after the October case is finished.
Unite is to launch a legal battle at the High Court this week over the removal of travel perks for up to 7,000 cabin crew who went on strike for 22 days this year at a cost to BA of £150m.
The dispute over travel perks, which include heavily discounted fares, are a bitter point of dispute between BA and Unite.
A date has not been set for the appearance but Unite said it is expected before the end of the week.
A Unite spokesperson said: “We are being forced to defend our members and their rights to just treatment in the court room because BA refuses to play fairly at the negotiating table.”
In a similar move, Unite will come head to head with the British flag-carrier in the Court of Appeal on 11 and 12 October, over claims that BA’s reduction of crew numbers on long-haul flights was a breach of contract.
Unite took BA to the High Court earlier this year over the disagreement, but the court threw out the dispute and ruled in BA’s favour.
The dispute over travel perks, which include heavily discounted fares, are a bitter point of dispute between BA and Unite.
A date has not been set for the appearance but Unite said it is expected before the end of the week.
A Unite spokesperson said: “We are being forced to defend our members and their rights to just treatment in the court room because BA refuses to play fairly at the negotiating table.”
In a similar move, Unite will come head to head with the British flag-carrier in the Court of Appeal on 11 and 12 October, over claims that BA’s reduction of crew numbers on long-haul flights was a breach of contract.
Unite took BA to the High Court earlier this year over the disagreement, but the court threw out the dispute and ruled in BA’s favour.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about 6,700 as a better estimate of the number of cabin crew who have lost their travel concessions?
______Reference:- _______Guardian
BA is also in the high court this week, as Unite seeks legal redress for the removal of travel concessions from an estimated 6,700 flight attendants who joined 22 days of strikes this year. Meanwhile, the union is taking a dispute over the treatment of industrial ballots to the European court of human rights after a cabin crew strike vote was ruled unlawful last year.
The root cause of the dispute, the unilateral reduction of staffing levels on flights, is also being taken to the court of appeal next month by Unite, which says the move constitutes a breach of contract. So far, the high court has backed BA's assertion that crewing levels are not a contractual issue.
The root cause of the dispute, the unilateral reduction of staffing levels on flights, is also being taken to the court of appeal next month by Unite, which says the move constitutes a breach of contract. So far, the high court has backed BA's assertion that crewing levels are not a contractual issue.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Bengerman (the other thread)
Wikipedia says
The quotation in posting 2143 is possibly more reliable since it does not use the word "appeal".
The High Court deals at first instance with all high value and high importance cases, and also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and many (but not all) tribunals.
Last edited by notlangley; 21st Sep 2010 at 10:25.
Loss of ST
Whilst I have sympathy for Litebulbs' position, - crudely put that strikers should not be punished for going on strike - we have to examine the law to decide what protection strikers actually have.
The starting point is the contract between an individual (CC) and the employer (BA).
1. Protected from breach.
If a CC withdraws their labour, they are in breach of their contract. The protection from a "protected" dispute is simple - BA can only dismiss them unfairly. - They can still be dismissed, but it will be automatically unfair if the dispute is protected. If the dispute is not protected, BA can dismiss them with no fear of an ET, if they follow a reasonable (not "fair" ) process.
There is a debate to be had about UK law, and whether or not it meets EU requirements, but we are years away from debating this. The EU can only enforce its law directly opposite a State - the UK Government.
The point that really concerns the TUs is the second point.
2. Protected from inciting a breach.
If the dispute is a protected dispute, the TU is protected from civil litigation by the employer when it incites a person to act in breach of their contract. If the dispute is not protected, ANY action by an Official of a TU which might be seen as inciting an individual to breach their contract leaves the TU open for civil litigation for unlimited damages, (and for injunctions).
You'll remember the speed of Unite in rushing out a denial of the window blinds instruction from the junta. You'll also note the Unite rules - only the Exec can authorise ANY action. This is an attempt to protect the TUs assets, which BA could attack if unofficial action takes place in any way authorised by any Official.
So, it all turns on the contract. Was ST in the contract or not? If it was not, then BA can withdraw it whenever/however they decide. If it was in the contract, they can't.
End of. Simples.
The law might be "wrong", but that's how it is.
Faced with bassa's behaviour, (read the court case), BA probably felt they had no option but to do what they did.
The starting point is the contract between an individual (CC) and the employer (BA).
1. Protected from breach.
If a CC withdraws their labour, they are in breach of their contract. The protection from a "protected" dispute is simple - BA can only dismiss them unfairly. - They can still be dismissed, but it will be automatically unfair if the dispute is protected. If the dispute is not protected, BA can dismiss them with no fear of an ET, if they follow a reasonable (not "fair" ) process.
There is a debate to be had about UK law, and whether or not it meets EU requirements, but we are years away from debating this. The EU can only enforce its law directly opposite a State - the UK Government.
The point that really concerns the TUs is the second point.
2. Protected from inciting a breach.
If the dispute is a protected dispute, the TU is protected from civil litigation by the employer when it incites a person to act in breach of their contract. If the dispute is not protected, ANY action by an Official of a TU which might be seen as inciting an individual to breach their contract leaves the TU open for civil litigation for unlimited damages, (and for injunctions).
You'll remember the speed of Unite in rushing out a denial of the window blinds instruction from the junta. You'll also note the Unite rules - only the Exec can authorise ANY action. This is an attempt to protect the TUs assets, which BA could attack if unofficial action takes place in any way authorised by any Official.
So, it all turns on the contract. Was ST in the contract or not? If it was not, then BA can withdraw it whenever/however they decide. If it was in the contract, they can't.
End of. Simples.
The law might be "wrong", but that's how it is.
Faced with bassa's behaviour, (read the court case), BA probably felt they had no option but to do what they did.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about 6,700 as a better estimate of the number of cabin crew who have lost their travel concessions?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA state that they have removed ST from c4920 cabin crew. BASSA claim they have processed c6700 claims for strike pay. Given BASSA's track record on precise admin I suspect that their numbers will not bear as close a scrutiny as those of BA.
Huh! it looks as though I'll be commenting on here for a while. I've just tried to book in online for my flight.
To cut a long story short, the lady from BA customer services has told me that I can't - apparently I have a "booking", but according to BA I do not have a "ticket"
Partly in reply to JSL and others, I thought I'd come back to BA for L/H, and I made a booking MONTHS ago.
Now, they will not guarantee me a flight, and I have to go to the airport to get a ticket - I can't pay over the phone.
Clearly, BA either do not want or do not deserve customers.
To cut a long story short, the lady from BA customer services has told me that I can't - apparently I have a "booking", but according to BA I do not have a "ticket"
Partly in reply to JSL and others, I thought I'd come back to BA for L/H, and I made a booking MONTHS ago.
Now, they will not guarantee me a flight, and I have to go to the airport to get a ticket - I can't pay over the phone.
Clearly, BA either do not want or do not deserve customers.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody explain to me why an organisation with 10,000 (??) , members paying £15 per month each does not employ professional staff to look after membership records, ballot organising etc. These tasks require no special sector industry knowledge. Surely, sensible convention would be that the reps represent members interest rather than undertaking the time consuming administrative minutiae ? Nor is it reasonable that an employer is compelled to release an individual rep to undertake such duties, whilst being paid by the employer ?
I can understand a union branch of say 50 people needing to do the admin voluntarily, but for a group with membership fees exceeding £1.8m pa it beggars belief. Or is there some ulterior reason for the union branch to organise this way ?
I can understand a union branch of say 50 people needing to do the admin voluntarily, but for a group with membership fees exceeding £1.8m pa it beggars belief. Or is there some ulterior reason for the union branch to organise this way ?
On a lighter note I was in my local supermarket yesterday selecting some tomatoes ( Oh my, how my days just fly by!! ) There were some grown in Hants, Sussex and Kent. Thought I'd better not take a chance on the Hants variety. Just 2 mins later a call was put out for a Mr. Holley to come to the desk!!. I kid you not. I was half expecting Mr Tomorite to be seen carrying his best cherry variety to the veg dept.