BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The actual question"
Malcolmf asks on the other forum
This is also what I have been searching for._ The best that I can find is
reference:-__link
I presume that the ballot paper has a piece of paper in the same envelope that lists these five issues._ I also presume that the vote is to go on strike because of this bundle of five issues.
I have also failed to find a good reference for the wording for the ballot that was about twelve months ago.
Apologies if I've missed it, but has anyone seen the actual question on the ballot paper?
Is it "Are you prepared to take strike action" or "Are you prepared to take strike action over the introduction of Mixed Fleet" or some other reason?
Is it "Are you prepared to take strike action" or "Are you prepared to take strike action over the introduction of Mixed Fleet" or some other reason?
Unite says the five issues between the crew and the airline are:
1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA.
2. Binding arbitration, through Acas, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute, which led to 22 days of strike action between March and May 2010.
3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this
5. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union.
The ballot will close on 21 January 2011.
1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA.
2. Binding arbitration, through Acas, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute, which led to 22 days of strike action between March and May 2010.
3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this
5. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union.
The ballot will close on 21 January 2011.
I presume that the ballot paper has a piece of paper in the same envelope that lists these five issues._ I also presume that the vote is to go on strike because of this bundle of five issues.
I have also failed to find a good reference for the wording for the ballot that was about twelve months ago.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW is on the up now as far as BA are concerned... an extra 777 and a number of A319s for this years summer programme!
Will BA invest in a B737-400 replacement against easyJet? People always say "yeah the A319s from LHR are coming" but they're still being heavily used at LHR and they won't be taking 25 A320s anytime soon to replace them. The decision has been pushed back to the end of the B734s useful life so they can't extend that any more even if they wanted to. Expansion at Madrid will cater for a lack of capacity at Heathrow, and I still believe when reality bites, they will *have* to put in a third runway at LHR. It's the least worst of a bad pile of options.
Tempting option : Consolidate Spanish routes with Iberia on larger capacity aircraft, free a small pile of slots up for the B777 leisure routes we are led to believe make money and move them to LHR. EuroGatwick closes as the B737s have reached the end of the road.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Skipness and Litebulbs for "wishing" us at LGW out of a job. 
LGW is doing really well, and has done for some time. The 737s are due to stay until possibly 2016 due to various modifications. It makes more sense to use our own aircraft instead of leasing "new" ones which would cost more.
There will be more routes announced from LGW in due course, it's a matter of gaining slots and airframes. I personally can't wait.
LGW is doing really well, and has done for some time. The 737s are due to stay until possibly 2016 due to various modifications. It makes more sense to use our own aircraft instead of leasing "new" ones which would cost more.
There will be more routes announced from LGW in due course, it's a matter of gaining slots and airframes. I personally can't wait.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIDLGW
Why do you think I would wish anybody at BA LGW out of a job? I have still got loads of friends in various departments at BA LGW and I wish them every success. I am just hoping the people who determine the strategy for BA, think the same way.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got the idea from your recent postings about LGW being threatened with closure, Litebulbs. We within the company knows what's going on (to a certain extent), and have tried to inform you of this, but you still go on about it.
You might not wish closure on us, whence the " used, but it came across as insensitive. I have to add that I'm very loyal to LGW and therefore will defend my base.
You might not wish closure on us, whence the " used, but it came across as insensitive. I have to add that I'm very loyal to LGW and therefore will defend my base.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIDLGW
I speak from personal experience within BA at LGW. I work with people who took redundancy, rather than get moved to LHR and in my time as a rep at BA, numerous GM's used the threat of closure to vary working practices and shifts.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apology accepted, Litebulbs. Thank you.
In previous years, yes, the threat of closure was used fairly often, but not in a few years now, due to how well we're actually doing, customer satisfaction stats, on-time departures, cost cutting, etc etc.
In previous years, yes, the threat of closure was used fairly often, but not in a few years now, due to how well we're actually doing, customer satisfaction stats, on-time departures, cost cutting, etc etc.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: US
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being in London, had dinner tonight with a fellow who helps my business partner and me out with some of our (soon to be cut back) dealings with UK industrial relations strategies.
We were discussing the confab going on over the current ballot.
He said if he were running BA, being sensitive to the fact that firing everybody who goes out on a possible unprotected strike would be destructive to the employee relations in the extreme for years, go for a middle ground.
Those who go out on uprotected industrial action, after being duly warned at least 3 times by BA in writing ahead of time, are terminated as of midnight on the day they go out on strike.
However, they can immediately reapply for their job, on the terms and conditions of the offer that was made (and being signed up to by many non-union cabin crew at present), however with a new hire date, putting them at the bottom of the seniority pile. They would be new hires on the WW contract, that they can sign themselves (presumably not union members until they rejoin later).
So no permanent loss of job in the end (unless BA decide not to hire back a handful of the worst of the worst), they have jobs under the new contract the union was rejecting and life goes on. There is a consquence to having gone out on an uprotected strike, but not permanent loss of job.
My friend and I were talking over what this does to their union membership, so not sure if being dismissed ends their union membership automatically--if not, then signing the contract on their own might be problematic if they are still in the union, even though not employed by BA.
But if their union membership ends at midnight as their job does, that would be a big dent in the BASSA union dues for a while until the dismissed cabin crew had gone through the rehiring process and were back on salary.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, but BA have been very creative so far in not going TOO far in punishing people, other than removing ST.
This idea my friend had was an interim step between permanent dismissal for unprotected IA and no consequence at all. But I don't know if once lawyered by BA's legal eagles, it would fly (no pun intended!)
We were discussing the confab going on over the current ballot.
He said if he were running BA, being sensitive to the fact that firing everybody who goes out on a possible unprotected strike would be destructive to the employee relations in the extreme for years, go for a middle ground.
Those who go out on uprotected industrial action, after being duly warned at least 3 times by BA in writing ahead of time, are terminated as of midnight on the day they go out on strike.
However, they can immediately reapply for their job, on the terms and conditions of the offer that was made (and being signed up to by many non-union cabin crew at present), however with a new hire date, putting them at the bottom of the seniority pile. They would be new hires on the WW contract, that they can sign themselves (presumably not union members until they rejoin later).
So no permanent loss of job in the end (unless BA decide not to hire back a handful of the worst of the worst), they have jobs under the new contract the union was rejecting and life goes on. There is a consquence to having gone out on an uprotected strike, but not permanent loss of job.
My friend and I were talking over what this does to their union membership, so not sure if being dismissed ends their union membership automatically--if not, then signing the contract on their own might be problematic if they are still in the union, even though not employed by BA.
But if their union membership ends at midnight as their job does, that would be a big dent in the BASSA union dues for a while until the dismissed cabin crew had gone through the rehiring process and were back on salary.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, but BA have been very creative so far in not going TOO far in punishing people, other than removing ST.
This idea my friend had was an interim step between permanent dismissal for unprotected IA and no consequence at all. But I don't know if once lawyered by BA's legal eagles, it would fly (no pun intended!)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggers
IF the action is judged to be unlawful, then what an idea. I suppose it would balance on whether BA tried to block any action first. If they did, the a ruling would be made prior to the action and if the courts decided there was a link, then the idea would never see implementation. Well I wouldn't walk out after the courts have told me that the action was not protected, but that is just me, but who can speak for Unites biggest branch?
As to union membership; it has nothing to do with employment status, although being a member of the BASSA branch might have. I don't know, but I imagine that the subscription is deducted by checkoff through BA pay role for the majority, so if you are not being paid by BA.......
As to union membership; it has nothing to do with employment status, although being a member of the BASSA branch might have. I don't know, but I imagine that the subscription is deducted by checkoff through BA pay role for the majority, so if you are not being paid by BA.......
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs.
................. I don't know, but I imagine that the subscription is deducted by checkoff through BA pay role for the majority, so if you are not being paid by BA.......
Roger.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I wouldn't walk out after the courts have told me that the action was not protected, but that is just me, but who can speak for Unites biggest branch?
Tribunal timings for lhr area
Just a quick update on Employment tribunal timings for the lhr area.
A case which I am familiar with was caused by dismissal in November 2009. The ET1 and papers were submitted in 2009. The case is now listed for January 2011, but may well be postponed due to other cases running over.
The Reading ET (where lhr cases are heard) has a serious shortage of "Judges" - the one who sits in the middle.
So if you were dismissed by BA in, say, March 2010, the case might be listed for May 2011.
DH 's case was not a "regular" case - it was fast tracked for some reason. Some sort of "relief"?
Baggersup
Whilst that theory is an interesting one, BA's track record has been even more cautious than that.
If they went down that sort of route, they would apply a process to it, with meetings involved. I suggest they would want each individual to sign a bit of paper to say that they had read, and understood the consequences of their actions.
Difficult to fix with thousands of staff.
A friend of mine runs a UK ER consultancy service. If you want details, pm me.
A case which I am familiar with was caused by dismissal in November 2009. The ET1 and papers were submitted in 2009. The case is now listed for January 2011, but may well be postponed due to other cases running over.
The Reading ET (where lhr cases are heard) has a serious shortage of "Judges" - the one who sits in the middle.
So if you were dismissed by BA in, say, March 2010, the case might be listed for May 2011.
DH 's case was not a "regular" case - it was fast tracked for some reason. Some sort of "relief"?
Baggersup
Whilst that theory is an interesting one, BA's track record has been even more cautious than that.
If they went down that sort of route, they would apply a process to it, with meetings involved. I suggest they would want each individual to sign a bit of paper to say that they had read, and understood the consequences of their actions.
Difficult to fix with thousands of staff.
A friend of mine runs a UK ER consultancy service. If you want details, pm me.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think DH is technically correct.
Strikers are not sacked for striking, they are sacked for breaching their employment contract.
You can be sacked for not turning up for work, but whether it is because you went on strike or failed to set your alarm clock is only a detail.
However, the law allows strikers to to seek reinstatement or compensation if dismissed whilst on a strike during the protected period.
Strikers are not sacked for striking, they are sacked for breaching their employment contract.
You can be sacked for not turning up for work, but whether it is because you went on strike or failed to set your alarm clock is only a detail.
However, the law allows strikers to to seek reinstatement or compensation if dismissed whilst on a strike during the protected period.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technicalities aside, DH’s failure to explain the situation correctly leaves CC under the impression that they can’t find themselves out of work.
By example I can tell you that it’s unlawful for someone to steal your TV from your home, am I giving you all the information you need when deciding to lock your front door or not?
....this doesn’t of course mean that the theft won’t happen and further if the thief is caught and punished you may very well still be without a telly….
DH has a duty, as I see it, to explain the ramifications fully to his members. He’s either failing to do so through a lack of understanding of the situation or it’s deliberate on his part to ensure the greatest yes vote regardless of the possible consequences to that same membership. Either way I think his performance on this issue is poor.
By example I can tell you that it’s unlawful for someone to steal your TV from your home, am I giving you all the information you need when deciding to lock your front door or not?
....this doesn’t of course mean that the theft won’t happen and further if the thief is caught and punished you may very well still be without a telly….
DH has a duty, as I see it, to explain the ramifications fully to his members. He’s either failing to do so through a lack of understanding of the situation or it’s deliberate on his part to ensure the greatest yes vote regardless of the possible consequences to that same membership. Either way I think his performance on this issue is poor.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the law allows strikers to seek reinstatement or compensation
All topical stuff actually as I was listening to a bunch of employers moaning on the radio this morning about the fact that it's all to far over in the employees favour - I really dont see it like that, if you lose your job thats it, you are out of work, end off. At best perhaps you might get £5k-£10K as a result in most cases.
Snas
I think you'll find that the point they were making was that there has been a massive increase in applications to tribunals in England - as this is a no-cost item for the applicant.
Small businesses, however, can rarely afford the costs involved and are often forced to settle out of court regardless of the merits of the case.
That is unlikely to be the position with BA.
Small businesses, however, can rarely afford the costs involved and are often forced to settle out of court regardless of the merits of the case.
That is unlikely to be the position with BA.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scotbill, yeah I know really.... BA would indeed be a different situation I agree.
I also agree there are too many cases without merit - Indeed my favourite example is the one I lost to a chap whose employment I terminated when his Visa to remain in the uk expired. The chairperson stating that “the purpose of the tribunal is to deal with employment law, not immigration law” !!!! (This was quite a while ago, I think they are a bit more sensible these days?)
That was the very last I attended, from then on I just settle as winning is an impossibility, even if you win, you lose, which I agree was the point they were making on the radio this morning.
But, if we set aside claims without any merit whatsoever, would you say that the tribunal system is biased to the employee? Unless the claim involves some form of discrimination the likely award for an employee treated poorly is, well, poor.
I also agree there are too many cases without merit - Indeed my favourite example is the one I lost to a chap whose employment I terminated when his Visa to remain in the uk expired. The chairperson stating that “the purpose of the tribunal is to deal with employment law, not immigration law” !!!! (This was quite a while ago, I think they are a bit more sensible these days?)
That was the very last I attended, from then on I just settle as winning is an impossibility, even if you win, you lose, which I agree was the point they were making on the radio this morning.
But, if we set aside claims without any merit whatsoever, would you say that the tribunal system is biased to the employee? Unless the claim involves some form of discrimination the likely award for an employee treated poorly is, well, poor.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Skipness and Litebulbs for "wishing" us at LGW out of a job.
My reading of the situation is that BA have played a long strategic game. They have cut out loss making regional and used the threat of closure at LGW to introduce new Ts & Cs on Single Fleet LGW, proved they can work, then rolled them out into Mixed Fleet LHR cutting the feet out from under BASSA.
Hence the loss making regional operations are gone and BASSA nutured. Some would argue ten years overdue. The master plan may be with BA having the "North Atlantic" hub at LHR T5 and massive growth potential from the Spanish hub at MAD when the synergies kick in with the Iberia merger. Hence the possibility may be there to consolidate some slots on the shared BA/IB Spanish routes out of LHR onto bigger aircraft and free up the 7-8 daily slots for the LGW B777 fleet to move into the mainline T5 operation and onto Mixed Fleet. If this becomes possible prior to 2016, the question on the table becomes :
Might the capital expenditure to replace 25 life expired B737s to compete against easyJet out of Gatters have a better return elsewhere?
My heart loves you all, my head says the long game will see you gone.I would be delighted to be proven wrong.