BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggins was married to Australian actress Beatrice Norbury from 1971 to 1974. He is now openly gay and formed a civil partnership with his partner, flight attendant Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, on 30 December 2006 at Hackney Register Office.
I do think that the 'partners with alternative lifestyles' thing has been somewhat overdone.
Mr Biggins is such an important meeja megastar that 'Oor Wullie' should be afraid - in fact, be very afraid!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this is interesting, and explains some of his motivation:
Read more: Queen of the luvvie jungle: How Christopher Biggens can wave goodbye to years of z-list pantos | Mail Online
Evidently Mr. Biggins is still not exactly flush.
Moderators. I did not eliminate Mr. Sinclair's name as he has been quite open regarding his relationship with Mr. Biggin's, including participating in media opportunities.
He jokes loudly that one of the good things about being with his partner, BA steward Neil Sinclair, is that he can fly round the world on 10pc fares.
Evidently Mr. Biggins is still not exactly flush.
Moderators. I did not eliminate Mr. Sinclair's name as he has been quite open regarding his relationship with Mr. Biggin's, including participating in media opportunities.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear, Oh Dear!
From today's Daily Telegraph:
Not again, surely. It's time for BA to drop these malcontents from the 'First Team.'
Passengers facing the threat of Christmas strikes as union hardliners moved to escalate the long-running cabin crew dispute.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus Rex:
I note that after his triumph in the Jungle he is back to Panto...
Messers Walsh and Francis I'm sure are prepared for this formidable foe.
Duncan Holley's unfortunate comments virtually asking people to fly another airline will have serious impact on BASSA. Watch the acceleration of Mixed Fleet being one effect, and rightfully done.
I note that after his triumph in the Jungle he is back to Panto...
Messers Walsh and Francis I'm sure are prepared for this formidable foe.
Duncan Holley's unfortunate comments virtually asking people to fly another airline will have serious impact on BASSA. Watch the acceleration of Mixed Fleet being one effect, and rightfully done.
Last edited by Diplome; 31st Aug 2010 at 18:19. Reason: Additional comment
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
@ Neptune ... tut tut, Sir 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If (and it is a very big if) BASSA are intent on damaging BA's revenue by threatening strike action they need to be very careful. Unless they have a genuine grievance they might fall foul of TULRCA. BA could then sue for loss of revenue. Sure, there's a soundbite in it for the union, but the cost will be severe. I quote from the act
Thus threatening strike action without a ballot could be a tort.
Legal bits aside, I predict that certain parts of the media will talk of this as a mass meeting even though the largest room at the venue is barely able to hold 750 people. It would be a body blow to BASSA if they were unable to fill that with supporters given that four times that number rejected the pay deal offered. Of course it won't be representative of the rank and file, only a naive fool would believe that to be possible. The whole meeting is a bit of a gamble in some respects. If there is a small number who are prepared to challenge the BASSA hard line in the meeting, it could backfire badly on the union. Instead of headlines about possible strikes, the media may talk of internal union strife and the way that dissent is handled by BASSA.
Liability of trade unions in proceedings in tort
20 Liability of trade union in certain proceedings in tort
(1) Where proceedings in tort are brought against a trade union—
(a) on the ground that an act—
(i) induces another person to break a contract or interferes or induces another person to interfere with its performance, or
(ii) consists in threatening that a contract (whether one to which the union is a party or not) will be broken or its performance interfered with, or that the union will induce another person to break a contract or interfere with its performance, or
(b) in respect of an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or to procure the doing of an act which, if it were done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable in tort on such a ground,
then, for the purpose of determining in those proceedings whether the union is liable in respect of the act in question, that act shall be taken to have been done by the union if, but only if, it is to be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by the trade union in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) An act shall be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by a trade union if it was done, or was authorised or endorsed—
(a) by any person empowered by the rules to do, authorise or endorse acts of the kind in question, or
(b) by the principal executive committee or the president or general secretary, or
(c) by any other committee of the union or any other official of the union (whether employed by it or not).
20 Liability of trade union in certain proceedings in tort
(1) Where proceedings in tort are brought against a trade union—
(a) on the ground that an act—
(i) induces another person to break a contract or interferes or induces another person to interfere with its performance, or
(ii) consists in threatening that a contract (whether one to which the union is a party or not) will be broken or its performance interfered with, or that the union will induce another person to break a contract or interfere with its performance, or
(b) in respect of an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or to procure the doing of an act which, if it were done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable in tort on such a ground,
then, for the purpose of determining in those proceedings whether the union is liable in respect of the act in question, that act shall be taken to have been done by the union if, but only if, it is to be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by the trade union in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) An act shall be taken to have been authorised or endorsed by a trade union if it was done, or was authorised or endorsed—
(a) by any person empowered by the rules to do, authorise or endorse acts of the kind in question, or
(b) by the principal executive committee or the president or general secretary, or
(c) by any other committee of the union or any other official of the union (whether employed by it or not).
Legal bits aside, I predict that certain parts of the media will talk of this as a mass meeting even though the largest room at the venue is barely able to hold 750 people. It would be a body blow to BASSA if they were unable to fill that with supporters given that four times that number rejected the pay deal offered. Of course it won't be representative of the rank and file, only a naive fool would believe that to be possible. The whole meeting is a bit of a gamble in some respects. If there is a small number who are prepared to challenge the BASSA hard line in the meeting, it could backfire badly on the union. Instead of headlines about possible strikes, the media may talk of internal union strife and the way that dissent is handled by BASSA.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the legal issues, I think DH has been sailing very close to the wind for a long time. A lot of the comments he has made about the company and its senior management are defamatory. Time will tell whether the company has been waiting to choose the right moment to do anything about this.
As for next week's meeting, I suspect BASSA will not allow any cameras into the meeting. Whatever happens, I'm sure DH will issue a rousing account of the "electric" atmosphere, 100% support for a strike etc.
As for next week's meeting, I suspect BASSA will not allow any cameras into the meeting. Whatever happens, I'm sure DH will issue a rousing account of the "electric" atmosphere, 100% support for a strike etc.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tactic of non union membership has not helped either. The mixed fleet bargaining group would not have been set, so the restriction on non membership was not needed. It that caveat was not there, then I imagine the uptake would have been greater.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may have been a better move not to dismiss him and it still may turn out to be an unfair dismissal. It certainly has not removed him from the dispute.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is whether you look at new fleet as a new entity. You cannot stop anybody being a member of a union. However, you do not have to voluntarily recognise a particular bargaining group. New fleet will not have a recognised bargaining facility, as it is new, with new terms and conditions. The move to it would be voluntary and there would be no negotiating facility in place. The risk for BA would be if 50%+1 of transferees still wanted BASSA representation and could force the CAC into granting automatic recognition.
This is what I think would be the case, but that is based on my knowledge as a rep, not a legal expert, so I could be completely wrong!
This is what I think would be the case, but that is based on my knowledge as a rep, not a legal expert, so I could be completely wrong!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may have been a better move not to dismiss him and it still may turn out to be an unfair dismissal. It certainly has not removed him from the dispute.
BASSA should indeed be worried at the rate that they are losing members and new staff are joining Mixed fleet. If BASSA call a strike for crimbo which results in strikers getting sacked, the replacements will be more mixed fleet folk. I would bet that this would also be the point at which more members resign the union, so could prove to be the final tipping point to derecognition. A pity really as there is clearly a need for a strong union in this area and a revived BASSA with new blood in the executive might mean a more foward looking union, but the way this is now shaping up, I can only see one end result.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel White
I have absolutely no idea on BASSA rules and that is only slightly less than my knowledge of Unite rules. You will need to speak to a branch secretary for that info, but I am sure that that may take some asking.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say, Duncan Holley has already taken BA to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal ... and lost. Hence his current boasts that BA can't control him. My understanding (and a BASSA member may be able to correct me on this) is that his position as branch secretary was due for election just before this dispute began. The decsion was taken to defer all elections until after the current dispute had ended. He is able to cling on to his job as branch secretary despite not being employed by BA as I beleive Unite allows branch secretaries to be appointed by the union as a short term measure pending an election. Perhaps Litebulbs can confirm this.
BASSA should indeed be worried at the rate that they are losing members and new staff are joining Mixed fleet. If BASSA call a strike for crimbo which results in strikers getting sacked, the replacements will be more mixed fleet folk. I would bet that this would also be the point at which more members resign the union, so could prove to be the final tipping point to derecognition. A pity really as there is clearly a need for a strong union in this area and a revived BASSA with new blood in the executive might mean a more foward looking union, but the way this is now shaping up, I can only see one end result.
BASSA should indeed be worried at the rate that they are losing members and new staff are joining Mixed fleet. If BASSA call a strike for crimbo which results in strikers getting sacked, the replacements will be more mixed fleet folk. I would bet that this would also be the point at which more members resign the union, so could prove to be the final tipping point to derecognition. A pity really as there is clearly a need for a strong union in this area and a revived BASSA with new blood in the executive might mean a more foward looking union, but the way this is now shaping up, I can only see one end result.
It is further required that a fair procedure be developed by the Executive Council to deal sympathetically with cases where a member’s eligibility to stand for election or continue to hold office may be affected by employer victimisation.
To be honest it doesn't really matter if he is Branch Secretary or not. People are either listening to him, or not, dependent on which side of the fence they sit.