BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Paxing All Over The World
As a pax, on a Monday afternoon, this cheered me no end:
Amusing to see that admission in plain print. If they cannot establish contractual right this for "every member" then who works out which members can have it? 
The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they think that those members who have never signed the ST agreement coould have it. As I have previously posted I think the lawyers know very well the language has been included for some time. It is BASSA that are using the excuse of not knowing to avoid tellling the members that if they signed the agreement in the past they are probably toast when it comes to potential compensation. Keeping the hope of potential compensation alive will contribute to some members rejecting the contract.
So much for getting ST back "in 5 minutes................."
On a more serious note, this whole affair has now become one big yawn.
How long can Unite keep DH and the Heritage shower quiet? It's so boring when he's got a Unite muzzle on.
On a more serious note, this whole affair has now become one big yawn.
How long can Unite keep DH and the Heritage shower quiet? It's so boring when he's got a Unite muzzle on.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
One bristles at the very thought. Just when we hoped we had a handle on things, there's the prospect of a new head? I'll just sweep that under the carpet and hope for the best.
[Sorry, Mods]
[Sorry, Mods]
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St - T & C's
The wording of the Terms & Conditions requiring signature to obtain a 'Staff Travel' ticket are very explicit.
a) They very clearly separate the transaction to purchase a ticket at lower than list price from any other contracts or terms and conditions.
b) They very clearly establish that the transaction is solely between BA and the other party for the purchase of a ticket at that time and they are the only parties to the transaction.
c) The transaction does not include any other transaction - past or future.
d) The transaction is clearly labelled as a Contract, solely between the parties and solely concerning the purchase at that time of the ticket, it excludes any other terms and conditions.
e) It is very clearly an agreement which is a Contract to purchase between the parties for a price advantage and as such is made under contract law.
f) It has no connection to or relevance to terms and conditions of employment.
g) As each transaction arises and completes with the issue of a ticket, the structure continually renews as another separate accepted form of contract each time one is signed - and apparently has been doing so since the 1960's
without any form of challenge by the unions.
If BASSA or whoever have received any form of advice suggesting that the ST contract could be construed as part of the employee terms and conditions of employment, then I suggest that they try engaging lawyers who have at least some understanding of contract law, rather than totally wasting their members money.
a) They very clearly separate the transaction to purchase a ticket at lower than list price from any other contracts or terms and conditions.
b) They very clearly establish that the transaction is solely between BA and the other party for the purchase of a ticket at that time and they are the only parties to the transaction.
c) The transaction does not include any other transaction - past or future.
d) The transaction is clearly labelled as a Contract, solely between the parties and solely concerning the purchase at that time of the ticket, it excludes any other terms and conditions.
e) It is very clearly an agreement which is a Contract to purchase between the parties for a price advantage and as such is made under contract law.
f) It has no connection to or relevance to terms and conditions of employment.
g) As each transaction arises and completes with the issue of a ticket, the structure continually renews as another separate accepted form of contract each time one is signed - and apparently has been doing so since the 1960's
without any form of challenge by the unions.
If BASSA or whoever have received any form of advice suggesting that the ST contract could be construed as part of the employee terms and conditions of employment, then I suggest that they try engaging lawyers who have at least some understanding of contract law, rather than totally wasting their members money.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the ST removal issue, I found this on the web - an analysis/article written by Stephen Ravenscroft, a partner in the employment and benefits group at White & Case, LLP. It makes interesting reading...
Withdrawing Non-contractual Benefits from Striking Workers
Withdrawing Non-contractual Benefits from Striking Workers
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
My sympathy cup overflows ... yea, verily.
For it was written, "This is a non-contractual benefit, and if ye seriously pi$$ off he who gives that benefit, ye shall be cast into the outer darkness, and have to pay your own way from Barcelona, San Francisco or Glasgow."
Thus it was that light shone upon some of them, and they realised that being unemployed was worse than wittering about "Rights" and "Clauses". And many were brought back to the path of sensibleness.
... probably.
For it was written, "This is a non-contractual benefit, and if ye seriously pi$$ off he who gives that benefit, ye shall be cast into the outer darkness, and have to pay your own way from Barcelona, San Francisco or Glasgow."
Thus it was that light shone upon some of them, and they realised that being unemployed was worse than wittering about "Rights" and "Clauses". And many were brought back to the path of sensibleness.
... probably.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPN11:
You are in fine form..lol.
Seriously, even those of us who came late to this dispute understand the language regarding Staff Travel that Cabin Crew were dealing with.
And now it represents a reason to delay a ballot??? I don't think so.
There is no BASSA member that can defend this piece of inane activity because there is no defense.
Unless your legal team is Larry, Curly and Moe.
You are in fine form..lol.
Seriously, even those of us who came late to this dispute understand the language regarding Staff Travel that Cabin Crew were dealing with.
And now it represents a reason to delay a ballot??? I don't think so.
There is no BASSA member that can defend this piece of inane activity because there is no defense.
Unless your legal team is Larry, Curly and Moe.
Court Hearings - Court of Appeal Civil Division
Right at the end. On Wednsday. (Judgement of imposition Appeal).
Right at the end. On Wednsday. (Judgement of imposition Appeal).
Last edited by Fly380; 2nd Nov 2010 at 09:16.
I suspect Wednesday's Appeal Court judgement is the real reason for the delay to the ballot.
Excellent link regarding ST NF, at last we have the views of a "real" lawyer concerning the issue. I suspect it would make sobering reading for striking CC's (assuming it was properly understood). Another question they could ask themselves is why Unite have not yet pursued the return of ST through the Courts and are apparently "recommending"
acceptance of an offer that would remove any chance of such action in the future.
Excellent link regarding ST NF, at last we have the views of a "real" lawyer concerning the issue. I suspect it would make sobering reading for striking CC's (assuming it was properly understood). Another question they could ask themselves is why Unite have not yet pursued the return of ST through the Courts and are apparently "recommending"
acceptance of an offer that would remove any chance of such action in the future.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The link above to the legal expert was very interesting, his view that TULRCA 1992 does not protect strikers from any detriment arising directly from actual industrial action, other than from actual dismissal in the protected period, would, if correct, scupper any claim by UNITE that BA were wrong to withdraw staff travel. (Sadly IMO, but I know I'm in a minority on that point here, I just don't like the idea of punishment for a legal strike)
Also, the past case quoted in the European Court, where the court agreed article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) was breached, but decided it was 'justifed and not disproportionate' would seem to make a European Human Rights ruling in UNITE's favour unlikely as well. The fact that BA have offered to give back Staff Travel in full by 2013 will make the original withdrawal seem 'not disproportionate' I should think, especially as an earlier -rejected - offer included seniority on commuter routes immediately (don't know if the latest offer does).
If UNITE's lawyers have reached the same conclusion (which would explain why they are prepared to 'recommend' an offer than precludes them from taking further court action) hopefully a sensibly worded ballot will be issued after the 'imposition' ruling tomorrow. No point trying to second guess that one, we'll hear soon enough.
Also, the past case quoted in the European Court, where the court agreed article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) was breached, but decided it was 'justifed and not disproportionate' would seem to make a European Human Rights ruling in UNITE's favour unlikely as well. The fact that BA have offered to give back Staff Travel in full by 2013 will make the original withdrawal seem 'not disproportionate' I should think, especially as an earlier -rejected - offer included seniority on commuter routes immediately (don't know if the latest offer does).
If UNITE's lawyers have reached the same conclusion (which would explain why they are prepared to 'recommend' an offer than precludes them from taking further court action) hopefully a sensibly worded ballot will be issued after the 'imposition' ruling tomorrow. No point trying to second guess that one, we'll hear soon enough.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protected
One thing I have I have misunderstood but subsequently realised through the discussions over time on 'ere, is that you will never be protected; at best you could possibly be compensated after the event.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you will never be protected; at best you could possibly be compensated after the event.
In this case however I personally think that BA has shown remarkable restraint to be frank.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly that is the case, which is where as has been agreed (I think) a sensible union with corresponding lay officials, members & full time officials is a necessity.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malone & ors vs BA Plc - Appellants Lost Appeal
Just heard on BBC News 24
BASSA are so unable to know when they are beaten I can see them pushing Unite to appeal these two decisions to the Supreme Court. Whether or not they would get leave to appeal further from the Courts is another matter. Even the Courts have a method to stop time (and money) wasters.
BASSA are so unable to know when they are beaten I can see them pushing Unite to appeal these two decisions to the Supreme Court. Whether or not they would get leave to appeal further from the Courts is another matter. Even the Courts have a method to stop time (and money) wasters.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV Flyer
Thank you for the news.
A link to the Independent for those interested:
BA cabin crew lose appeal over cuts - Home News, UK - The Independent
It must be interesting for Gatwick crew members, who have worked to this scheme quite capably with BASSA's agreement, to hear BASSA now state what a hardship it is for Heathrow crew.
What other pending court cases does BASSA/Unite have at the moment..if any?
Thank you for the news.
A link to the Independent for those interested:
BA cabin crew lose appeal over cuts - Home News, UK - The Independent
It must be interesting for Gatwick crew members, who have worked to this scheme quite capably with BASSA's agreement, to hear BASSA now state what a hardship it is for Heathrow crew.
What other pending court cases does BASSA/Unite have at the moment..if any?
We presumably have the much anticipated "5 minute" return of ST hearing to come, should Unite's legal team get round to actually commencing the action. Which should in itself tell a story.
I dont think today's judgement will have much impact in truth - crewing levels were never going to revert to former levels, and now LHR CC know they have no chance of compensation over having to work as hard as their colleagues in Gatwick. This will hardly improve their disposition towards BA, and they may see no other way of "revenge against the evil BA Management"
other than by rejecting their offer and pushing for further strikes.
Cutting off their nose to spite their face maybe, but both judgement and a sense of reality seem sadly lacking from those BASSA members involved in this dispute
I dont think today's judgement will have much impact in truth - crewing levels were never going to revert to former levels, and now LHR CC know they have no chance of compensation over having to work as hard as their colleagues in Gatwick. This will hardly improve their disposition towards BA, and they may see no other way of "revenge against the evil BA Management"
other than by rejecting their offer and pushing for further strikes.Cutting off their nose to spite their face maybe, but both judgement and a sense of reality seem sadly lacking from those BASSA members involved in this dispute