BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[Sonorguy]

Baggers

A knowledgeable cabin crew member who hasn't posted in awhile wrote sometime ago that as an ex-employee Mr. H can serve in his current capacity until the next BASSA elections. At that time, he will not be able to stand for election, as he is no longer a BA employee. That is, if he IS an ex-employee now. (Not sure what the appeals process entails.)


My bold. He's an ex BA employee as he's been sacked. An ET cannot force reinstatement, all it can do is order BA to pay compensation if it deems the dismissal to be unfair. DH will remain sacked whatever the outcome of his appeal.

[RTR]

DH is an ex BA employee. He has also had two appeals on the subject of his dismissal turned down - one of them stating that he does not have the right to: "having been rostered for duty, de-roster himself because he needed to attend to union business." So, he no longer employed by BA and cannot represent BASSA at meetings with BA. As for future appeals - has he any?

If correct, I note that BASSA's re-selection of officers has been postponed by Malone so that Holley can continue his VERY doubtful position. In view of his ridiculous rantings I imagine that members of BASSA would have expected him to do the honorable thing and resign.

He is persona non grata in my view.

[Mocamps]

I recently flew with BA and had a chat with a short-haul stewardess - young, very pleasant, had been with BA for a couple of years but did not see this as a 'job for life'. She seemed to have a very realistic view of how things will go in future and totally accepted that the older crew members have had a very good deal in the past but it can no longer continue in the present economic climate. There was no resentment there, just an awareness of how the world is at the moment.

It all left me wondering what rational and realistic cabin crew make of what can only be described as paranoid rantings that are evident from some of the pro-BASSA postings on the other thread. The most recent from 'Hector Vector' are possibly the worst to date and, from what I can see, serve only to amuse most people and irritate those who can't resist taking the bait. In fact, he doesn't even seem to be able to get his story straight about whether it is he or his wife who work for BA!!

Some time ago I met someone who had flown with Liz Malone and says that she too comes across as very pleasant, rational and sensible. If that is the case (and we don't seem to hear much from her so I have no real evidence that it is not) then surely she can see that some effort is needed to try to control the likes of DH as he really does not seem to understand that his rants (as most seem to be attributed to him and they do bear a remarkable resemblance to those that he openly admits to ) are serving no useful purpose and indeed, are probably only convincing the more intelligent crew members who have been loyal to date that he has indeed lost the plot!! Why does she not say or do something to stop him?? Surely, if anything is to be salvaged of BASSA it now needs some of them to get together and try to distance themselves from these ravings?

[Mocamps]

The other thing I can't understand is why Duncan doesn't just post with his own name or at least admit who he is (or should he really be posting on this forum now as he isn't employed by BA anymore? - does anyone check this out? Mods?)

Either he does or doesn't believe in what he says. If he DOES believe it, why bother to use all these aliases and spin a yarn about his wife?

[PleasureFlyer]

Could it be that Hector Vector really is Duncan Holly and that he single handedly saved BA £60,000 by getting himself sacked??????

[R Knee]

The other thing I can't understand is why Duncan doesn't just post with his own name or at least admit who he is (or should he really be posting on this forum now as he isn't employed by BA anymore? - does anyone check this out? Mods?)

OK on this forum surely; but agree your comments for 'the other place'.

However let him rant as it does BASSA more harm than good, and enlivens the debate from those who bite. It might spoil our fun if I asked the biters to look at the joining date/number of posts before nibbling.

Sorry I still can't get the quote in a blue box

Edit: A [ was missing in the end quote. Best use the quote icon and centre your cursor and then paste.

[42psi]

If however, in future you are asked the question about when the next likely dates for industrial action are going to be, it would be wise to advise whoever is doing the asking that no dates, no matter how sacrosanct, have been ruled out.

Is this not sailing rather close to the wind and annother potential route for the BA legal team?

If I understand it correctly the current industrial action has now ended .. without resolution.

Further industrial action can only take place after annother vote/ballot (on a seperate issue if, as I understand the various posts, dispute protection is to exist) when authorised by Unite - as made very clear by the recent missive from Unite on the blinds.

Can an official of Unite tell it's members to make statements about industrial action dates on a "when not if - nothing ruled out" basis??

I guess so if Unite is prepared to accept any possible consequences, but the last message from them seemed to suggest they want to keep a tight grip on any statements/instructions.....

[harrypic]

Originally Posted by baggersup

That's it!

p.s. Did his wife (a BA cc?) go on strike?

If she didnt and still has staff travel just imagine the fun some cc could have if they ever decided to take staff travel......

[Neptunus Rex]

Obnoxious 'Celebs' have been banned for life by some airlines, so why not obnoxious sacked staff?

[ChicoG]

Edit: A [ was missing in the end quote. Best use the quote icon and centre your cursor and then paste.

Rather than keep trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle, why don't you highlight the text you want to quote with your mouse, then click the "Quote" button?



By the way, I didn't see this pasted (my bolds):

REBEL cabin crew at British Airways again want to cripple the airline with a "12 days of Christmas" strike.

They want a repeat of the action threatened last year, which was thwarted at the last minute by a High Court judge.

Unite's Tony Woodley is due to meet BA chief exec Willie Walsh for more talks on the pay dispute on Monday.

But Bassa - the militant cabin crew union within Unite - is keen on a new strike ballot to get a mandate for the 12-day Christmas stoppage.

A source told The Sun: "The feeling is that we can't let BA run away. We need to prolong it."

BA, which is expected to confirm today that this year's stoppages have cost it almost £150million, has said it will fly all services in a strike - using volunteers trained up as cabin crew.

But the source said: "I doubt they'll fancy it over the Christmas holidays."

Two marvellous points there:

(1) The biggest selling UK daily calls them Militant.
(2) Only one person has an interest in prolonging it; once it's over, he stops getting wads of his members cash.

[Lotpax]

Please note before flaming me that I am not a supporter of unions and BASSA has handled this industrial action very poorly, in my opinion.

In the interests of balance, I would like to point out that over 10% of the BA workforce went on strike in the last round and that this is a very large minority of staff, if Duncan Holley is capable of mass hypnotization on this scale, I am sure that he will not be short of interestng and lucrative job offers in the future.

It seems now that things will likely drift into an uneasy stalemate, where dissatisfied strikers will work alongside folks who backed BA and new hires on a different contractual arangement.

The use of the word 'Vietnam', whilst repugnant to many (me included), probably describes pretty well what is might be like in the future as crew members are unsure whether their co-workers are on their side or the other and the passengers will be likely to experience service varying from the very good to the lacklustre and this is unlikely to polish BA's tarnished reputation much.

No, it takes two to tango and I don't see either party as having done a stellar job of resolving this dispute.

I'm also still interested in reasons why BA did not take the Aer Lingus approach to reducing staffing costs.

[Pohutu]

As others have pointed out, the BASSA reps who no longer work for BA do have something of a vested interest in prolonging the dispute rather than seeking resolution. But they also have a bit of a dilemma when it comes to calling any further strike action. If a new strike is called, it seems to me that there are two possible outcomes:-

1. The strike is found to be related to the original dispute, and anyone who strikes is therefore unprotected, or
2. The strike is found to relate to a new dispute, in which case the BASSA reps are no longer protected by the 'no elections during the dispute' agreement.

[Mocamps]

My point about 'Hector Vector's' identity is that if he is actually Duncan Holley (and even if he isn't!) and it is his wife who is airline staff, should he be posting on the forum for current airline staff only? Isn't it more appropriate for him to post on THIS forum? But then, I guess he's not too keen on taking on the passengers!!!

[Juan Tugoh]

If I understand it correctly the current industrial action has now ended .. without resolution.

Further industrial action can only take place after annother vote/ballot (on a seperate issue if, as I understand the various posts, dispute protection is to exist) when authorised by Unite - as made very clear by the recent missive from Unite on the blinds.

Not quite. The original ballot for IA is still good and UNITE can allow further strikes without any new ballot. The problem with this is that the protected period of 12 weeks IA is now over. This means that strikers could be sacked for breach of contract and it would not automatically be deemed to be unfair dismissal.

A new ballot would have to be over entirely new issues for there to be a new protected period, which presents BASSA and UNITE some difficulties as they clearly linked ST and Disciplinary issues in with the earlier period of IA.

The window blinds issue is illegal IA as this has not been balloted upon. BA would be within their rights as an employer to summarily dismiss anyone taking this unofficial wildcat action.

[Mariner9]

I seem to recall that Holley had only done a handful of flights over the last couple of years so you could hardly call him a serving CC even before his dismissal! However, in my view, a BASSA rep should be able to post on the other thread where the thread rules are presumably to deter "outsiders" like us SLF whereas BASSA reps have an obvious direct role in the matter.

With regards to the "Protected action" point made above, the latest Union mouthpiece on the other thread has already intimated that the (mostly sacked) BASSA leadership think this is irrelevant as "BA couldn't sack 7000" (yes, I know the number is incorrect and the premise is dangerous in the extreme).

Easy to have that viewpoint when you are not personally facing dismissal which is all the more reason why Holley & Co, if they had any honour whatsoever, should resign their position. Quite why the BASSA members can't see this obvious point and do something about it is beyond me

[ChicoG]

I'm also still interested in reasons why BA did not take the Aer Lingus approach to reducing staffing costs.

Lotpax,

Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom, and in the United Kingdom it is illegal to sack your employees and re-hire them on lower pay. Perhaps Ireland does not offer the same protection?

Besides which, what was the approach you are talking about?

It doesn't appear they sacked anyone.

A total of 92pc of the (cabin crew) staff dramatically reversed their earlier vote against the rescue programme after the airline announced it would take drastic measures against them.

Three weeks ago, cabin crew rejected the cost cuts, known as the Greenfield Plan, by a majority of almost two-thirds.

The way is now clear for the airline to implement its plan to achieve over 650 voluntary redundancies within two years, pay cuts up to 10pc, which will be applied to the next payroll, and a three-year pay freeze.

Added: Link to original article.

Aer Lingus cabin crew vote for cuts after threat of sackings - Irish, Business - Independent.ie

[Lotpax]

ChicoG

Have you ever heard of SOSR? (One of the six categories of fair dismissal under UK law.)

For example, where there is no actual 'redundancy' situation but an employer wants to introduce new terms and conditions for sound business reasons.

Anyway, the threat of this by Aer Lingus seemed to focus 92% of minds in that particular dispute and a swift resolution follwed.

The BA dispute drags on and and on by comparison.

As I said earlier, I have no personal stake in this, but to balance the strong anti union sentiments on this thread, I think we should also consider whether senior management has done the best job, too.

[ChicoG]

LotPax,

ChicoG
Have you ever heard of SOSR? (One of the six categories of fair dismissal under UK law.)
For example, where there is no actual 'redundancy' situation but an employer wants to introduce new terms and conditions for sound business reasons.

For SOSR to be on legally sound ground the employer must NEED to introduce new terms and conditions, not want to!

Not to mention they would have to SOSR EVERYONE out of cabin crew, and I believe that they are not legally allowed to rehire them immediately. So it sounds to me like it's out of the question. With MF, they've found a way to introduce new T&C's anyway, so I doubt any judge would accept SOSR now.

As I said earlier, I have no personal stake in this, but to balance the strong anti union sentiments on this thread, I think we should also consider whether senior management has done the best job, too.

There is no point in considering something for the sake of it.

And furthermore, I am a firm believer in well run trade unions. However, BASSA is run by a bunch of immature, spoilt brats, and UNITE is run by a bunch of 70's-style flag-waving socialist proles.

So I don't count either of these as a well run trade union.

Next?

[Lotpax]

For SOSR to be on legally sound ground the employer must NEED to introduce new terms and conditions, not want to!

Wouldn't you say that making sustained losses of several hundred million was enough reason to argue that the market has changed and requires new T&C's?

There is no point in considering something for the sake of it.

As the thread title is "BA Strike - Your Thoughts and Questions", I thought that this was a legitimate subject.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled "The bash BASSA thread."

By the way, the moderator title seems to have slipped from your handle, just thought you whould be aware.

[ChicoG]

Wouldn't you say that making sustained losses of several hundred million was enough reason to argue that the market has changed and requires new T&C's?

It doesn't matter what I would say. What matters is that BA would have to prove in a court of law that it was not down to a global financial meltdown, so no, it isn't. Probably one reason why they haven't done it. Even if they sack all their cabin crew, they are not allowed to re-hire them within a year, I believe. How do they run an airline in the meantime (I could be wrong on that, but I believe that is the case; I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

As the thread title is "BA Strike - Your Thoughts and Questions", I thought that this was a legitimate subject.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled "The bash BASSA thread."

It is a perfectly legitimate subject, and you keep bringing it up, but every time I ask you to give an example of an action BA management took that has extended this dispute unnecessarily, you have avoided answering.

So by all means contribute to the debate by offering an opposing viewpoint, but it doesn't really offer much to sit there saying something vague like "For the sake of balance, BA must be doing something wrong" and then sitting back and complaining because few seem to agree with you.

I'll ask again. What do you think BA management has done wrong, and so as to keep it within a reasonable scope, let's say since January 2009 when they told BASSA they needed to make changes, since that effectively covers the period of this dispute.

I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Again, I am not anti-union. Unions are wonderful things if run properly, and used for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Added: a paragraph on SOSR:

...employers should remember that establishing a potentially fair reason for dismissal is only half the battle. It must also be shown that a dismissal was procedurally fair in accordance with Section 98(4) ERA. When undertaking a business reorganisation or seeking to amend the terms of an employment contract, an employer should undertake appropriate consultation with the affected employee to ensure that all possible alternatives have been explored. Then, of course, there is still the matter of complying with the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedure.

I think the general interpretation is that SOSR can only be used when none of the other 5 reasons apply, and therefore BA can ONLY use it as a last resort.