BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[Litebulbs]

Agreed? Effective consultation on policy that is non contractual, that is altered by statute law, statutory instruments and guides. I believe crewing levels were agreed too? If an ET finds those dismissed to have been treated unfairly, they will still be dismissed, but with some cash in their accounts. What would you have to fear from arbitration, if what you have done is fair?

[Dawdler]

I think the feeling is that Arbitration in this case means compromise - the suspended are either guilty or they are not. Perhaps that compromise is the likely hood of them getting away with the action that brought them to attention in the first place. However mitigating circumsances may be taken into account when considering the penalty. We often hear about those found guilty and sacked, but little about those who have been found not guilty of misdemeanour, or those whose actions did not warrant being fired, i.e. kept on, but an admonishment entered on their record.

[pcat160]

BA has won. Why should they open the door for BASSA even an inch? If there are hard feelings between the two sides so be it. Making concessions to Bassa is not the way to heal the feelings. Let’s face it the rest of BA staff do not care how the strikers feel. It is the strikers problem to reintegrate themselves with the rest of BA staff. Litebulbs from a Union Rep’s prospective what course of action do you think Bassa should take? Other than accepting the offer on the table what can they achieve for their members? Certainly they can cause additional financial damage to BA, but what does this accomplish for their members and at what possible harm to their members? It’s over and Bassa/Unite need to move on. I think I answered my question from my prospective, sorry for that, but would like to hear your prospective.

[ChicoG]

Litebulbs, if BASSA feel that those dismissed have been dismissed unfairly, despite it being done using agreed procedures with the union, then they go to tribunal and the truth comes out. We will then hear exactly what they did and be able to judge for ourselves, as will those leading the tribunal.

What is stopping these people doing this?

I think you can guess as well as I can.

BA are most likely under agreement not to release details of these cases, and I'm sure if they did there would not be much sympathy for the individuals concerned.

Like most BASSA foot stomps, this is yet more wind and p***.

We know why Holley got the boot (fair) and we can probably guess why Everard is in the mire. I doubt any of the rest are much different, but if they are, let them take it to tribunal and show the world how "macho bullying and harrassing" BA actually are.

Don't hold your breath though.

[fincastle84]

Litebulbs

You are not tried by a jury of your peers, but by a manager of some sort. It is not the most impartial system,

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.

[ChicoG]

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.

[leiard]

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

[LD12986]

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.

[call100]

Originally Posted by fincastle84

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.

[ChicoG]

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"?

[Sonorguy]

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.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by LD12986

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.

[ChicoG]

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?

[Hotel Mode]

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?

[Litebulbs]

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?

[ChicoG]

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?

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by ChicoG

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]

Originally Posted by ChicoG

Litebulbs, who said anything is being hidden from the people concerned?

Fair point and bad choice of words.

[Betty girl]

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.

[ChicoG]

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.