BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jayPee28bpr
That is an absolutely fantastic post on how you see it playing out. The added benefit to BA is that if Unite do settle, then the reps will have to explain why they did, to a workforce who were expecting staff travel back in 5 minutes.
If you don't mind am going to ask my regional officer how he sees the staff travel issue playing out and I would like to use that post as an example.
If you don't mind am going to ask my regional officer how he sees the staff travel issue playing out and I would like to use that post as an example.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the strife and hardship you are all currently facing without your staff travel etc."
...I see that with this admission we have officially come half circle from the 'staff travel isn't even as good as paying to book EasyJet' message.
You'd think the union were fighting to get ST back for the foot soldiers. But BA have offered to reinstate ST anyway. The hardship is actually being endured so the architects of this debacle can retain their place in the pecking order for seats, 'J' entitlements and 'firms'.
You'd think the union were fighting to get ST back for the foot soldiers. But BA have offered to reinstate ST anyway. The hardship is actually being endured so the architects of this debacle can retain their place in the pecking order for seats, 'J' entitlements and 'firms'.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you really do need to detach the staff travel issue from the dispute itself.
If this was about hardship of individuals getting to work, I would have expected action immediately. I suspect that Unite
a) didn't consider that BA would follow through on the threat
b) expected this to be over by now and staff travel fully re-instated
You don't start legal action on the basis of the threat of removal and you don't start legal action if you are expecting the issue to be resolved within a reasonably short period. We now clearly have neither. Therefore legal action has been instigated because the premise of using perks as a weapon against individuals who have done nothing wrong, is in itself fundamentally wrong.
Removing all the political aspects to this issue of BA wouldn't want and Unite wouldn't want, looking at Unite's financial figures for 2009, I don't think you need to worry about whether they can afford this.
If this was about hardship of individuals getting to work, I would have expected action immediately. I suspect that Unite
a) didn't consider that BA would follow through on the threat
b) expected this to be over by now and staff travel fully re-instated
You don't start legal action on the basis of the threat of removal and you don't start legal action if you are expecting the issue to be resolved within a reasonably short period. We now clearly have neither. Therefore legal action has been instigated because the premise of using perks as a weapon against individuals who have done nothing wrong, is in itself fundamentally wrong.
Removing all the political aspects to this issue of BA wouldn't want and Unite wouldn't want, looking at Unite's financial figures for 2009, I don't think you need to worry about whether they can afford this.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns....
You write:
Followed immediately by a rather big opinion of your own:
Having done, as you say, "THINK" I would argue that the bigger danger here is allowing a union to pursue reckless and unjustified IA without regard to the consequences for the wider workforce, public and all the ordinary people who have invested. But it's still just an opinion.
The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more. Bassa believe one thing, it seems the majority here at least believe something else. Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.
You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.
Having done, as you say, "THINK" I would argue that the bigger danger here is allowing a union to pursue reckless and unjustified IA without regard to the consequences for the wider workforce, public and all the ordinary people who have invested. But it's still just an opinion.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
Do you agree with the points that JayPee is making? Unions are very good at the "greater good" actions. The successful outcome of the legal route, would be for the courts to agree or for BA to settle prior to that. But as JayPee states, BA are under no obligation to reinstate full ST, but may have to compensate. Unite win, but still no ST at the level it was and some very annoyed members.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@oggers you are missing the point completely. I may even agree with your final statement but at the end of the day it has nothing to do with the staff travel issue. Detach the two, separate them and then look at the issue of punishing innocent people. Do you agree with punishing innocent people?
Again this is your take on the situation and in fact mine as an outsider. However it is still only an opinion as there is obviously disagreement between two sides. Even if you take the opposing view, it does not give you the right to punish those on the other side.
@litebulbs. My heart tells me that any right minded judge will force the FULL reinstatement of staff travel as it was prior to the dispute. My head tells me that the outcome will set a precedent (if it goes that far) that could go either way.
Having done, as you say, "THINK" I would argue that the bigger danger here is allowing a union to pursue reckless and unjustified IA without regard to the consequences for the wider workforce, public and all the ordinary people who have invested.
@litebulbs. My heart tells me that any right minded judge will force the FULL reinstatement of staff travel as it was prior to the dispute. My head tells me that the outcome will set a precedent (if it goes that far) that could go either way.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
The only way that the legal system could force full reinstatement, is if they made the compensatory award at a level that BA would baulk at. They have been quite happy with the £150m cost so far.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure I agree. I think a lot would depend on what the court decided. If a human rights breach is accepted it would reflect very badly on BA and could potentially cost them dear in a number of ways.
Human rights breach isn't good publicity. But that is what makes this so fascinating. A real time, live lesson in how not to conduct industrial relations.
That said, whatever side of the fence you sit, you overlook basic fundamental principles at your own peril.
Human rights breach isn't good publicity. But that is what makes this so fascinating. A real time, live lesson in how not to conduct industrial relations.
That said, whatever side of the fence you sit, you overlook basic fundamental principles at your own peril.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My heart tells me that any right minded judge will force the FULL reinstatement of staff travel as it was prior to the dispute
As ST has already been offered back but with ammended DOJ etc, BA can easily argue that financial loss incurred is zero or very low. BA have offered that ST is returned so it can be argued that all that is preventing it's return is the stance of the union. If the judge were to agree that the financial losses incurred have been caused largely by the refusal of the union to accept its return then the compensation awarded would amount to nothing. BASSA would win but gain nothing.
This is not a clear cut case either way, and BASSA may rue the day they took it to court. BA have a long history of appealing everything, to the highest court possible and dragging every court case out as long as possible. This could easily take years of going back and forth with no actual change for those involved. If you can afford years of buying commuting tickets as your extra earnings dwindle as NF grows, then good luck. In the meantime BASSA are sidelined and made to look irrelevant.
This may well be an important point of principle for the union movement, but that will not help current BASSA members who have lost their ST through their own stupidity.
BASSA here are fiddling while Rome burns, this whole issue is a smoke screen - it grabs the heartstrings and diverts attention away from the real issue. BASSA have significantly mismanaged this whole affair and the deals offered by BA are getting worse with each iteration. The imposition has happened, NF has happened,and BA are now managing their business with no reference to BASSA.
BASSA have failed to stop anything BA wanted and in fact gifted them some things that were at one stage off the table - NF. Indeed membership levels have reduced, LGW is almost wholly ignoring BASSA.
I'm sure BA is more than happy with things as they are going.
So keep on with the pointless sideshow that is the ST court case, BA and WW will continue to run the business without BASSA.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety...
@oggers you are missing the point completely.
The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more....Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.
You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Safety Concerns
No, but I do agree with punishing stupidity , even if it is legally protected.
I think this strike sets records in all kinds of negative waysr and therefore feel that it is right to punish the strikers, even if I believe that many are simply gullible fools who follow their reps without demur.
If you believe that the strike has been driven by the personal motives of CSD's likely to suffer a small disadvantage, who have then misled or lied to the bulk of their members to get their support, then although legal because they went through the motions, the thing is a fraud.
Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?
If it could be shown that the reps were pursuing their own goals and using the members to achieve them whilst deceiving them, could they be sued for loss of earnings and other things or is there anything in TU legislation that gives them protection?
Do you agree with punishing innocent people?
I think this strike sets records in all kinds of negative waysr and therefore feel that it is right to punish the strikers, even if I believe that many are simply gullible fools who follow their reps without demur.
If you believe that the strike has been driven by the personal motives of CSD's likely to suffer a small disadvantage, who have then misled or lied to the bulk of their members to get their support, then although legal because they went through the motions, the thing is a fraud.
Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?
If it could be shown that the reps were pursuing their own goals and using the members to achieve them whilst deceiving them, could they be sued for loss of earnings and other things or is there anything in TU legislation that gives them protection?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC - but the issue at stake is not a fundamental human right in the UK. The previous Government decided that with the opt out of the Treaty of Lisbon and I bet the new Government will not be rushing to change that position. However, I have also read that the opt out may fail if tested the correct way, so it is precedent time, unless BA settle as JP suggests.
My point now is how Unite are briefing this to its members at BA. Unite may win, but the affected people may still not get ST back.
My point now is how Unite are briefing this to its members at BA. Unite may win, but the affected people may still not get ST back.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I have also read that the opt out may fail if tested the correct way, so it is precedent time,
Now, I'm no lawyer, so would welcome correction, but as far as I can recall, in these instances the requirement is on the state to change the law to comply, rather than the company to offer redress specifically.
That being the case, even if it did go to the ultimate end, I can't see how it would benefit those who have lost their staff travel right now. To use an example, the ECHR found against the last government over the question of DNA retention - when they gave their judgement it then took that government several months to come up with a response, during which time there was no right for people to have their profiles removed from the database, and even then the government came up with a response that caused campaigners to state that it wasn't good enough and was probably still in breach. That particular campaign has been made moot by the arrival of the new government determined to change the rules on it completely, but it's a good example of even a ECHR ruling not meaning that all is suddenly fine and dandy.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@oggers, I am genuinely not trying to elevate any point above another. All I am saying is that the tactic of using staff travel as a weapon is fundamentally wrong and should be considered in isolation.
I actually agree with many posters on the strike issue itself but you cannot allow stupidity, opinions or the right to strike be punished unless somebody somewhere has done something wrong. It is a fundamental principle we all share and enjoy and is a basic of peaceful, civilized life. Lynch mobs, arbitrary punishments, mobbing you name it, belongs elsewhere and not in the 21st century.
And if you wish to counter with but Bassa members have done this and that forget it. If they have behaved inappropriately there are procedures to deal with it and if proven may even result in the removal of staff travel.
As much as we may detest such behaviour, we cannot punish until proven guilty.
@litebulbs this is what makes this interesting. It has serious consequences at many levels depending on what happens next. I suspect Unite will be briefing as they genuinely perceive the situation. We need to accept that may not be as we perceive it.
Their lawyers obviously have a contradictory opinion to those of BA's lawyers. Unfortunately we will have to wait and see!
I actually agree with many posters on the strike issue itself but you cannot allow stupidity, opinions or the right to strike be punished unless somebody somewhere has done something wrong. It is a fundamental principle we all share and enjoy and is a basic of peaceful, civilized life. Lynch mobs, arbitrary punishments, mobbing you name it, belongs elsewhere and not in the 21st century.
And if you wish to counter with but Bassa members have done this and that forget it. If they have behaved inappropriately there are procedures to deal with it and if proven may even result in the removal of staff travel.
As much as we may detest such behaviour, we cannot punish until proven guilty.
@litebulbs this is what makes this interesting. It has serious consequences at many levels depending on what happens next. I suspect Unite will be briefing as they genuinely perceive the situation. We need to accept that may not be as we perceive it.
Their lawyers obviously have a contradictory opinion to those of BA's lawyers. Unfortunately we will have to wait and see!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?
Surely the first stage for any BA employee is to raise the thing as a grievance through the internal system.
My understanding is that courts tend to only want to look at something like this after any established process has already been exhausted.
Courts seem to be unhappy of anyone going straight to litigation.
Has Bassa/Unite started/prompted/supported this route yet.
If not then are BA's legal team not likely to simply point this out and suggest the court refuse to consider until other options are exhausted?
To me the key is going to be how a court (if it gets there) will consider the "perk".
Is it the company making a legitimate removal of it's goodwill towards employees who have clearly demonstrated their withdrawal of goodwill towards the company.
Or is it an effort to punish for taking industrial action.
Any court delivers "the law" as it's written .... not "justice" .....
My understanding is that courts tend to only want to look at something like this after any established process has already been exhausted.
Courts seem to be unhappy of anyone going straight to litigation.
Has Bassa/Unite started/prompted/supported this route yet.
If not then are BA's legal team not likely to simply point this out and suggest the court refuse to consider until other options are exhausted?
To me the key is going to be how a court (if it gets there) will consider the "perk".
Is it the company making a legitimate removal of it's goodwill towards employees who have clearly demonstrated their withdrawal of goodwill towards the company.
Or is it an effort to punish for taking industrial action.
Any court delivers "the law" as it's written .... not "justice" .....
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Feel free to use my points internally in Unite.
I've got another angle on this for you to think about too. There are plenty of comments around in the public domain from striking cabin crew saying that they aren't bothered about losing staff travel, not that valuable etc etc. They can hardly now claim "punishment" by virtue of losing it, at least not to the level of a human rights breach. Equally, however, we have evidence that at least one commuter, Ava Hannah, may have to quit her job because of loss of staff travel. Cases like that clearly can be construed as disproportionate or "punishment", possibly to the level of a breach of rights, and may be worth contined pursuit.
Let's just consider what this actually means. It is really saying that BA effectively have removed Ava's ability to get to work. This is what differentiates Ava & Co from the bulk of strikers. The loss to Ava is fundamantal, to the non-commuters it's inconsequential. Let's assume Unite take this as high as they can, and ultimately win. At first glance this looks like a "win for the workers".
The UK government duly changes UK legislation, but the Conservative interpretation of the judgement is most likely to be to create a broader "right to get to work", rather than a narrow "strikers cannot be punished". What this would mean, perhaps, is that everyone has a right to expect, for instance, public transport companies to provide them with a reasonable service to allow them to reach their place of work on each and every business day. What implication does this have for workers in the public transport sector? Well I would certainly think it would make it possible for affected companies to impose no-strike clauses on some of their workers at least, or even for the government to make it illegal for public transport workers to go on strike, simply on the back of complying with the Court's judgement. What do you think the rail Unions would think of that one?
I'm really being a bit mischevious here, but there is a serious point to illustrate. And that is there are many rights enshrined and protected by the Human Rights Act and ECoHR. My mischevious scenario highlights how these rights can conflict, and therefore need the Court to decide which is more fundamental than the other. There is already the power to enforce no strike obligations on certain workers (police, military) within the terms of HRA/ECoHR. So the right to strike isn't universal, and I'm not suggesting a government could invent something totally new on the back of a seemingly favourable decision for workers' rights. They could screw you with your own victory though.
On the subject of the staff travel dispute generally, what we have is a classic "Men are from Mars" etc scenario. I'm sure you are very genuine in your view of this as a matter of principle. But to BA it's just all about the money. Basically, you just don't talk the same language as each other. Now I'm surprised if this is the case at the Woodley-Walsh level, as TW is generally pragmatic. It begs the question why he's part of the BASSA panto act. More on that in a moment. For now, you just need to accept that WW & Co don't get bonuses for "winning the argument" or upholding principles. They get bonuses and other incentives for share price performance. This isn't dependent on much else other than their ability to deliver profits, ie all about the money. They'll happily concede the principle of cheap tickets for staff when it pays to do so. Indeed they did concede it as part of the last offer. They just won't reinstate the old queuing system, and nor will any Court of sufficient seniority to matter do so either. As I've implied before, Unite is just wasting its (actually yours and the members you represent) money if it is really serious about pursuing the legal route.
The questions you should be asking internally are actually very simple. How has Unite allowed itself to get into the position where the BASSA tail so very clearly wags the Unite dog? On what basis can BASSA apparently require endless amounts of other branches'/divisions subs to be spent on actions and disputes with very limited bearing on the rest of the Union's activites? Is there, in fact, any limit on what can be spent? What are the strategic implications on the Union's ability to fight other issues affecting much larger groups of members, eg changes to public sector redundancy terms? If it's clear BA has no intention of giving back seniority, is Unite really going to stand on a matter of principle and allow hundreds of members to be starved out? What matters to Unite: winning the principle or protecting people not previously threatened with losing their job with precisely that fate? Now that 2 senior BASSA reps have been dismissed, with 4 more on the same track, isn't there a major conflict of interest between their interests (actually their complete lack of any future interest) and those of members most affected by the staff travel ban? How does Unite propose to resolve that conflict of interest in order to represent the bulk of members and not the chosen few?
Hope that helps.
I've got another angle on this for you to think about too. There are plenty of comments around in the public domain from striking cabin crew saying that they aren't bothered about losing staff travel, not that valuable etc etc. They can hardly now claim "punishment" by virtue of losing it, at least not to the level of a human rights breach. Equally, however, we have evidence that at least one commuter, Ava Hannah, may have to quit her job because of loss of staff travel. Cases like that clearly can be construed as disproportionate or "punishment", possibly to the level of a breach of rights, and may be worth contined pursuit.
Let's just consider what this actually means. It is really saying that BA effectively have removed Ava's ability to get to work. This is what differentiates Ava & Co from the bulk of strikers. The loss to Ava is fundamantal, to the non-commuters it's inconsequential. Let's assume Unite take this as high as they can, and ultimately win. At first glance this looks like a "win for the workers".
The UK government duly changes UK legislation, but the Conservative interpretation of the judgement is most likely to be to create a broader "right to get to work", rather than a narrow "strikers cannot be punished". What this would mean, perhaps, is that everyone has a right to expect, for instance, public transport companies to provide them with a reasonable service to allow them to reach their place of work on each and every business day. What implication does this have for workers in the public transport sector? Well I would certainly think it would make it possible for affected companies to impose no-strike clauses on some of their workers at least, or even for the government to make it illegal for public transport workers to go on strike, simply on the back of complying with the Court's judgement. What do you think the rail Unions would think of that one?
I'm really being a bit mischevious here, but there is a serious point to illustrate. And that is there are many rights enshrined and protected by the Human Rights Act and ECoHR. My mischevious scenario highlights how these rights can conflict, and therefore need the Court to decide which is more fundamental than the other. There is already the power to enforce no strike obligations on certain workers (police, military) within the terms of HRA/ECoHR. So the right to strike isn't universal, and I'm not suggesting a government could invent something totally new on the back of a seemingly favourable decision for workers' rights. They could screw you with your own victory though.
On the subject of the staff travel dispute generally, what we have is a classic "Men are from Mars" etc scenario. I'm sure you are very genuine in your view of this as a matter of principle. But to BA it's just all about the money. Basically, you just don't talk the same language as each other. Now I'm surprised if this is the case at the Woodley-Walsh level, as TW is generally pragmatic. It begs the question why he's part of the BASSA panto act. More on that in a moment. For now, you just need to accept that WW & Co don't get bonuses for "winning the argument" or upholding principles. They get bonuses and other incentives for share price performance. This isn't dependent on much else other than their ability to deliver profits, ie all about the money. They'll happily concede the principle of cheap tickets for staff when it pays to do so. Indeed they did concede it as part of the last offer. They just won't reinstate the old queuing system, and nor will any Court of sufficient seniority to matter do so either. As I've implied before, Unite is just wasting its (actually yours and the members you represent) money if it is really serious about pursuing the legal route.
The questions you should be asking internally are actually very simple. How has Unite allowed itself to get into the position where the BASSA tail so very clearly wags the Unite dog? On what basis can BASSA apparently require endless amounts of other branches'/divisions subs to be spent on actions and disputes with very limited bearing on the rest of the Union's activites? Is there, in fact, any limit on what can be spent? What are the strategic implications on the Union's ability to fight other issues affecting much larger groups of members, eg changes to public sector redundancy terms? If it's clear BA has no intention of giving back seniority, is Unite really going to stand on a matter of principle and allow hundreds of members to be starved out? What matters to Unite: winning the principle or protecting people not previously threatened with losing their job with precisely that fate? Now that 2 senior BASSA reps have been dismissed, with 4 more on the same track, isn't there a major conflict of interest between their interests (actually their complete lack of any future interest) and those of members most affected by the staff travel ban? How does Unite propose to resolve that conflict of interest in order to represent the bulk of members and not the chosen few?
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To an extent - and that's why it's an example of the lawyers licking their lips at a nice big fat fee. However, as I understand it, that would be a matter of finding against the UK, not against BA, because it would be the UK in breach whilst BA were merely following English law as it currently stands.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of the BASSA reps, I think there's a strong case that they have been grossly negligent in fulfilling their duties, as per my post below:
On the subject of liability, I wonder whether there is a case for current/former members of BASSA to make a claim against the union for gross negligence, for the following:
- Repeatedly failing to attend meetings with the company and properly participate in those meetings it did attend (see High Court judgment and BASSA's dismissive reference to "a presentation by a junior financial clerk from Waterside" which it refused to sit through)
- Not putting the company's original and reasonable offer to its members
- Misrepresenting the company's position to its members
- Making false representations to the membership (see Duncan Holley's "100% true" claim that the pilots were blocking the return of staff travel)
- Allowing its own internet forum to be used to encourage CC to threaten and intimidate non-strikers
- Failing to allow the company's offer before the first strikes to be put to a ballot of the membership even though Willie Walsh allowed an extension to the deadline to call a strike to allow the ballot to happen
- Making false statements regarding staff travel ("it will be back in 5 minutes!")
- Making false statements regarding the impact of the strikes
If anyone should be stepping aside to secure agreement its the BASSA reps, not least those who have been sacked and have no interest in the long term health of the company.
- Repeatedly failing to attend meetings with the company and properly participate in those meetings it did attend (see High Court judgment and BASSA's dismissive reference to "a presentation by a junior financial clerk from Waterside" which it refused to sit through)
- Not putting the company's original and reasonable offer to its members
- Misrepresenting the company's position to its members
- Making false representations to the membership (see Duncan Holley's "100% true" claim that the pilots were blocking the return of staff travel)
- Allowing its own internet forum to be used to encourage CC to threaten and intimidate non-strikers
- Failing to allow the company's offer before the first strikes to be put to a ballot of the membership even though Willie Walsh allowed an extension to the deadline to call a strike to allow the ballot to happen
- Making false statements regarding staff travel ("it will be back in 5 minutes!")
- Making false statements regarding the impact of the strikes
If anyone should be stepping aside to secure agreement its the BASSA reps, not least those who have been sacked and have no interest in the long term health of the company.