Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

Old 2nd Sep 2010, 05:37
  #1721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
Having been found GUILTY, why haven't they applied to an industrial tribunal? I think that we all know the answer to that question.
Let's take Everard as an example. If it were proven that a BASSA rep registered a domain name mimicking a group of moderate CC, and filled that site with stomach-churning pornography, how much bad press would not only the individual, but the union receive?

Sorry Litebulbs, but I think BASSA don't really have a leg to stand on. IMHO It's just the old clique of CSDs abusing their power to try and do their mates a favour.
ChicoG is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 06:33
  #1722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 36
Is the uniteba site run by BASSA ?

Notice of Extraordinary Meeting - http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/Notice_...ordinary_M.doc


"Under the ballot rules our branch is required to hold a meeting during the nomination period (July and August 2010) in order to determine our nomination for the position of General Secretary.

This meeting will take place on:
03rd September 2010."

One rule for them, one rule for us.

Give people plenty of advanced warning for a meeting - the notice was issued on the 1/9 for a meeting on the 3/9
leiard is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 06:37
  #1723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
DH has already been to the ET to try and get his job (at an employer he publicly claims to detest) reinstated. The ET had absolutely no difficulty kicking this out. If this is anything to go by those that have also been sacked don't have a leg to stand on.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 07:47
  #1724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by fincastle84 View Post
You have put yourself forward on here as some sort of expert on IR & yet you seem foggy about disciplinary hearings. The hearing will always have in attendance someone from HR as well as a line manager, plus the accused person is allowed representation. As stated, the hearings are a procedure which is agreed by the unions.

Having been found GUILTY, why haven't they applied to an industrial tribunal? I think that we all know the answer to that question.
Without commenting on the BA cases, if you take your view to be correct then there would never be any Employment Tribunals. Just because it has been through a process, agreed or otherwise, does not automatically infer fairness. Having someone there from HR is no guarantee of fairness or impartiality.
I doubt litebulbs is 'foggy' about disciplinary hearings.
call100 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 09:40
  #1725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
if you take your view to be correct then there would never be any Employment Tribunals.
I don't quite see how you drew that conclusion from what Fincastle said, as essentially he said the same as me.

Shall I spell it out? It is my sincere opinion that the reason none of these people are going to employment tribunals is because they would all be thrown out on their arses.

Clear enough?

Do you have any alternative theory? Or do you subscribe to Litebulb's view that the procedure itself, despite being perfectly acceptable to both sides prior to this dispute, apparently has now conveniently become "flawed"?
ChicoG is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 09:41
  #1726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 43
DH has already been to the ET to try and get his job (at an employer he publicly claims to detest) reinstated. The ET had absolutely no difficulty kicking this out. If this is anything to go by those that have also been sacked don't have a leg to stand on.

In which case he was on a hiding to nothing as a tribunal has no power to force re-instatement, just decide whether the dismissal was fair or not.
Sonorguy is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 09:51
  #1727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by LD12986 View Post
DH has already been to the ET to try and get his job (at an employer he publicly claims to detest) reinstated. The ET had absolutely no difficulty kicking this out. If this is anything to go by those that have also been sacked don't have a leg to stand on.
So why would arbitration be any different? If I read correctly, Unite called for ACAS involvement in proceedings and it is the ACAS code of conduct that ET's use now, to judge if due process has been followed.

As to my foggy understanding fincastle, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I am happy in my understanding and agree with call100's last comment.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 09:59
  #1728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
I believe ACAS involvement was actually agreed at the meeting at which Simpson was gleefully twittering. Until, that is, BASSA got it cancelled.

Or, as Woodley put it at the time: "'We made some good progress with regards to discipline of our members, with the introduction of Acas into the disciplinary process that is right in the direction. We have already made it clear that we have got an agreement on the business issues in principle.''

At this time, the return of staff travel seemed to be the key issue. That was probably Unite's priority.

BASSA are now trying to make disciplinaries the priority.

It's not exactly been unusual for them to screw things up, is it?
ChicoG is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:00
  #1729 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
So why would arbitration be any different? If I read correctly, Unite called for ACAS involvement in proceedings and it is the ACAS code of conduct that ET's use now, to judge if due process has been followed.
Or indeed, to put it another way. Why on earth would BA want to add an additional layer to the cabin crew disciplinary process (as agreed by BASSA/Unite) when the ET and ACAS follow an identical protocol? As it stands every BA dismissal has been approved by the ET. As this is the same as the ACAS code of conduct what on earth is the point of an further tribunal following the same code of conduct? If it goes before an ET it covers the ACAS protocol doesnt it?????

Time wasting?
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:09
  #1730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Hotel Mode

I believe that it would save time. If it went to arbitration before an ET, then there is no right of appeal, it ends there.

With regard to mediation in the disciplinary meetings; if you are following due process, what do you have to hide?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:17
  #1731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
With regard to mediation in the disciplinary meetings; if you are following due process, what do you have to hide?
Litebulbs, who said anything is being hidden from the people concerned?
ChicoG is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:21
  #1732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by ChicoG View Post
I believe ACAS involvement was actually agreed at the meeting at which Simpson was gleefully twittering. Until, that is, BASSA got it cancelled.
If your belief is true, then more fool BASSA. In my won sense of balance, whenever I read the BASSA communications and comments on other sites, you never see "they have done nothing wrong"; rather minor breaches that have suffered disproportionate acts, to people who have been suspended pending investigation, or dismissed. I imagine that it should not be too hard to stick to the rules, if you were in dispute.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:23
  #1733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by ChicoG View Post
Litebulbs, who said anything is being hidden from the people concerned?
Fair point and bad choice of words.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:25
  #1734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

leiard,
The uniteba site you mention is the Amicus/cc89 website. Since the strike it has gone very quiet and only now publishes notices from the parent union for the members that remain in the union. I think because some reps have been suspended and others are not being released from flying duties both unions are struggling to staff their offices let alone keep the websites updated.

The BASSA website has apparently published the same Unite notice that you reproduced but their site is closed and only members of Bassa can view it. Their site is more active mainly because it has a forum for members and this is where DH posts all his strange posts.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:31
  #1735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
My belief is based on Woodley's comment:

Or, as Woodley put it at the time: "'We made some good progress with regards to discipline of our members, with the introduction of Acas into the disciplinary process that is right in the direction. We have already made it clear that we have got an agreement on the business issues in principle.''
As to your other comment: "whenever I read the BASSA communications and comments on other sites, you never see "they have done nothing wrong"; rather minor breaches that have suffered disproportionate acts, to people who have been suspended pending investigation, or dismissed."

If BA are being overzealous and petty then an Employment tribunal would find them at fault, surely. So go ahead and appeal.

I think we're going round in circles here.

I have yet to see ANY evidence of unfair disciplinaries or unfair dismissals. Ask yourself why not.

I HAVE seen evidence of a fair dismissal, cf the obnoxious and thankfully sacked Holley.
ChicoG is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:34
  #1736 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
I believe that it would save time. If it went to arbitration before an ET, then there is no right of appeal, it ends there.
But DH's tribunal came up within a couple of months, and I believe that the 6/13 of the dismissal hearings have already been heard at the ET and rejected. As yet BA have been found to be acting properly and the ET has been actng quickly. So why add another layer.
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:52
  #1737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
As far as all these suspensions are concerned if someone really can be bothered (I can’t currently) BASSA were foolish enough to detail a great long list of the various alleged transactions that have lead to the topic in hand. I specifically recall this as it was reproduced on this site and I printed it out (3 pages) and took it on a journey with me as some light reading with some friends for their amusement..!

They were far from minor matters in my view including written threats to blow slides, serious breaches of confidentially (VCC lists being passed about), acts of outright aggression towards other BA staff members, porn web sites etc – I remember wondering why BASSA released it as I didn’t think that it would generate sympathy from any reader.

I for one will not be particularly surprised that someone dismissed for threatening to blow a slide for example wouldn’t bother with a tribunal…
It’s also the case remember that the vast number of suspended staff are back at work with I assume no action or a warning at most?
Snas is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:57
  #1738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,656
ET in the South East

IMHO - There have probably been no ETs for sacked BA CC staff (in the context of this dispute).
The TW postcode (LHR) holds ETs at Reading. The UB post code (Water in Brains) holds ETs at Watford. Both Reading and Watford have months and months of delays.
My daughter is awaiting a date for an ET at Reading. Her claim was submitted last November - about 10 months ago, well before the BA sackings..

I believe that DH did not go to a full ET. I have not looked it up, but I believe it was some interim measure to ask for immediate re-instatement.

I'm sure that the Sun and the Mail will keep its readers up to date should any of the Heritage CSDs take BA to a Tribunal.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 10:57
  #1739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by ChicoG View Post
I don't quite see how you drew that conclusion from what Fincastle said, as essentially he said the same as me.

Shall I spell it out? It is my sincere opinion that the reason none of these people are going to employment tribunals is because they would all be thrown out on their arses.

Clear enough?

Do you have any alternative theory? Or do you subscribe to Litebulb's view that the procedure itself, despite being perfectly acceptable to both sides prior to this dispute, apparently has now conveniently become "flawed"?
Quite easily, is the answer to that. You should have noticed I said 'Without commenting on the BA cases'. It was a direct reply to his assumption that because it was an agreed process and HR were involved that it was automatically fair. So if you are saying the same thing then you are also wrong.
As for the BA cases, they may have been unfair or not. That is to be decided by others involved. If the Union lawyers (who make the decision to proceed) think they have a case then they will go forward........Until then, it's pointless stabbing in the dark...
call100 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 11:50
  #1740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
It was a direct reply to his assumption that because it was an agreed process and HR were involved that it was automatically fair.
It was fair enough when the union agreed it. What has changed?
ChicoG is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.