BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Union and its Branches are holding out for a resolution whereby BA agrees to leave the door open for the Union to bring future court actions over issues relating to the dispute then it will never end.
It is absolutely standard practise that both sides to a dispute agree to drop all future legal actions arising out of matters pertaining to the dispute otherwise, by definition, there is no resolution.
How BASSA and AMICUS think this could be otherwise is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a legal dispute settlement agreement is all about.
I guess it's a statement that with BA always capitulating in the past, the Union and its Branches have never had to get to this level of sophistication that has applied to all other parties to commercial disputes since time began.
Indeed, one thing this entire matter has revealed is the general lack of legal sophistication shown by the Union and its chosen advisors throughout - a matter that all Trades Unions should pay attention to if wishing to pursue IR & IA effectively in modern times.
It is absolutely standard practise that both sides to a dispute agree to drop all future legal actions arising out of matters pertaining to the dispute otherwise, by definition, there is no resolution.
How BASSA and AMICUS think this could be otherwise is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a legal dispute settlement agreement is all about.
I guess it's a statement that with BA always capitulating in the past, the Union and its Branches have never had to get to this level of sophistication that has applied to all other parties to commercial disputes since time began.
Indeed, one thing this entire matter has revealed is the general lack of legal sophistication shown by the Union and its chosen advisors throughout - a matter that all Trades Unions should pay attention to if wishing to pursue IR & IA effectively in modern times.
Last edited by AV Flyer; 30th Nov 2010 at 10:26.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mariner9
very neat summary of where we are! 
baggersup
BA is not obliged to sack employees who take unprotected industrial action, but they must treat all strikers the same. i.e. if they are going to sack strikers, then they must sack all unprotected strikers, and cannot select which troublemakers to get rid of.
Source : Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
They can however sack the lot, then wait three months, and re-instate who they want, on whatever grounds they want, with no legal ramifications.
So would BA sack them...? I would guess that depends on the number of employees, who have the guts to take unprotected indutrial action.. if its a small number of trouble makers..then why not...? if its a bigger number then it could make bad press.
BA has handled the media very well throughout this dispute... i doubt they would do anything to jeopordise that....
This dispute therefore is not about disgruntled cabin crew. It is mainly about disgruntled ex-cabin crew. Not a lot BA can do about that really if DH & Co refuse to leave BASSA and the CC are too ignorant of the situation and/or apathetic to remove them.
baggersup
Question though. If BA warns of unprotected IA, and the crew go out on IA anyway, is BA obliged by law to sack them?
Source : Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
They can however sack the lot, then wait three months, and re-instate who they want, on whatever grounds they want, with no legal ramifications.
So would BA sack them...? I would guess that depends on the number of employees, who have the guts to take unprotected indutrial action.. if its a small number of trouble makers..then why not...? if its a bigger number then it could make bad press.
BA has handled the media very well throughout this dispute... i doubt they would do anything to jeopordise that....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is a new dispute, why is it that one of the main messages coming out of the CC89 mouthpiece last week in demanding a strike ballot was that "the original reason for this dispute - imposition - has not yet been resolved" ?
I'm just wondering if TW isn't actually playing a blinder and using some strategic thinking here:
Option 1 is that if a vote takes place, many will vote against, showing TW as correct and the branch committees as out of touch, or;
Option 2 is that they vote in favour, but then Unite's legal advisers declare that the strike has a high probability of being considered un-protected, and therefore as a Union they could not sanction a stike in the best interests of their members (ie it's not us but them pesky lawyers/judges/democratically elected parliament which is stopping the union from doing what the members want).
I'm just wondering if TW isn't actually playing a blinder and using some strategic thinking here:
Option 1 is that if a vote takes place, many will vote against, showing TW as correct and the branch committees as out of touch, or;
Option 2 is that they vote in favour, but then Unite's legal advisers declare that the strike has a high probability of being considered un-protected, and therefore as a Union they could not sanction a stike in the best interests of their members (ie it's not us but them pesky lawyers/judges/democratically elected parliament which is stopping the union from doing what the members want).
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was trying to ensure that there was no link between past action and the fresh call, I may have used different words than these -
- An immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA
- Binding arbitration, through Acas, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the dispute
- Restoration of the wages docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates
- 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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The disconnected and dysfunctional behaviour in reneging on agreements, switching lists of demands with no cohesion between them, etc., that we are seeing from the Union and its Branches is very typical of a party to a dispute who has lost badly and resorts to thrashing around and floundering hopelessly in the misguided belief and delusion it is still in control and going to "win" in the end.
The Union and its Branches have been completely out manouevered in every area by BA and without BA appearing to have had to exert much effort in the process which, frankly, leaves the Union looking somewhat pathetic.
Unite, under LM, has an opportunity to learn so many lessons about becoming much more professional and legally astute in building its future approach to IR. It will be interesting to see if these lessons have been learned moving forwards .......
The Union and its Branches have been completely out manouevered in every area by BA and without BA appearing to have had to exert much effort in the process which, frankly, leaves the Union looking somewhat pathetic.
Unite, under LM, has an opportunity to learn so many lessons about becoming much more professional and legally astute in building its future approach to IR. It will be interesting to see if these lessons have been learned moving forwards .......
Last edited by AV Flyer; 30th Nov 2010 at 11:00.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unite
hippenine may well have hit the nail on the head: tony woodley's comments on PM yesterday struck me as being somewhere between 'measured' and 'half-hearted'. it has been mentioned before, but not at great length, that unite has to keep in mind its relationship with other unite branches in BA. comment here suggests that other unite members in BA are less than happy with the antics of the cabin crew members of bassa and amicus.
no doubt those unite members will have made their distaste known to their reps and the reps will not be unaware that some vcc are their own members. in other words, members 'distaste' has been translated into positive action to support the company against another section of the union.
we keep thinking that this is coming to an end, but perhaps this time it really is. potential strikers, like missm, must weigh the further loss of travel privileges against the projected benefits of a further strike when they have been told clearly by tw that the first strike achieved nothing and what has been offered is 'the best deal available''
short of telling them rudely that they can't go back to woolworths, how more clearly does he spell it out if they prefer to believe ex-staff members who run their branch?
no doubt those unite members will have made their distaste known to their reps and the reps will not be unaware that some vcc are their own members. in other words, members 'distaste' has been translated into positive action to support the company against another section of the union.
we keep thinking that this is coming to an end, but perhaps this time it really is. potential strikers, like missm, must weigh the further loss of travel privileges against the projected benefits of a further strike when they have been told clearly by tw that the first strike achieved nothing and what has been offered is 'the best deal available''
short of telling them rudely that they can't go back to woolworths, how more clearly does he spell it out if they prefer to believe ex-staff members who run their branch?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV Flyer
Unite, under LM, has an opportunity to learn so many lessons about becoming much more professional and legally astute in building the future of its approach to IR. It will be insteresting to see if these lessons have been learned moving forwards .......
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: south east
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as UNITE have not conducted a ballot of members, as they promised BA they would when they negotiated the latest offer, is there any reason why BA could not, once again, make an offer to non members of the union directly.
this would serve a few purposes, in that
they could claim the moral high ground by being seen to make an offer to the staff when the union have refused
they could get on-side the CC members who resigned from the union since the last direct offer to staff
they would be in a better postion to know who were still the militants in the event they decided to take any action against them in the future
they would screw up the unions count of eligible members, which is part of the reason that UNITE won't call a ballot date yet, as they want to be sure how many members they have -at least 1 lesson learnt from the previous ballot
i cannot see UNITE agreeing to any ballot in the short term if BA was to make this offer, as it would be in their interests to see how the staff reacted to the offer.
i would bet that the number of resignations from the union, backdated a day or two
, would be quite a significant number.
this would serve a few purposes, in that
they could claim the moral high ground by being seen to make an offer to the staff when the union have refused
they could get on-side the CC members who resigned from the union since the last direct offer to staff
they would be in a better postion to know who were still the militants in the event they decided to take any action against them in the future
they would screw up the unions count of eligible members, which is part of the reason that UNITE won't call a ballot date yet, as they want to be sure how many members they have -at least 1 lesson learnt from the previous ballot
i cannot see UNITE agreeing to any ballot in the short term if BA was to make this offer, as it would be in their interests to see how the staff reacted to the offer.
i would bet that the number of resignations from the union, backdated a day or two
, would be quite a significant number.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jimd-f
one of the crucial points to consider, of such an offer, is that it is not enticing people to leave the union, as that would be illegal.
I could see BA doing this again, for the reasons you state, but it would be with a back dated point where the employee must not have been part of the union.
If they were to do this again it could be interesting, as I could see BA then having a fair number of staff "on-side" with the new contract, pay rises, guarantees etc... there would then be nothing to stop it terminating all existing LHR Worldwide and LHR Eurofleet contracts, and re-signing on new (worse) terms.
That would be an ultimatum to all staff - either accept the contract, or bye bye... you cant in all practicality sign the new contract then strike... can you?!
I could see BA doing this again, for the reasons you state, but it would be with a back dated point where the employee must not have been part of the union.
If they were to do this again it could be interesting, as I could see BA then having a fair number of staff "on-side" with the new contract, pay rises, guarantees etc... there would then be nothing to stop it terminating all existing LHR Worldwide and LHR Eurofleet contracts, and re-signing on new (worse) terms.
That would be an ultimatum to all staff - either accept the contract, or bye bye... you cant in all practicality sign the new contract then strike... can you?!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimd-f
It’s virtually impossible to leave this Union, their numbers will never be right.
My partner has 3 phone calls, a cancelled subs payment, 4 letters, 1 recorded delivery letter and still they have her as a member. I fully expect a ballot to arrive.
It’s virtually impossible to leave this Union, their numbers will never be right.
My partner has 3 phone calls, a cancelled subs payment, 4 letters, 1 recorded delivery letter and still they have her as a member. I fully expect a ballot to arrive.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard228
With regard to the unlawfulness of enticing employees to leave a union: I was surprised that more of this was not made at the time when the new contract was offered.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry Snas, Les Bayliss is going to get the membership system sorted out.........................................
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the unlawfulness of enticing employees to leave a union: I was surprised that more of this was not made at the time when the new contract was offered.
As an employee cannot retrosectively not be a member of the union, it could not entice people to leave the union, and was thus legitmate.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes fair point, but how would BA know if the member did not pay by checkoff? Through my red tinted specs, I thought is was sailing close to the mark, but I must have been in the minority of one.
Monty Python
Anyone remember the Monty Python sketch about the Romans?
We could construct a similar sketch here. Imagine the bassa committee meeting......................Instead of the People's front for the liberation of Judea, it would be the Tomato front for the liberation of CSDs. (and remember the dismissal by Cleese of other groups of revolutionaries? - a bit like bassa dismissing cc89)
If I were in BA I'd construct a sketch for their Christmas party based on this.................
What have BA ever given us?
Huuuuge salaries - for the elite few of us CSDs, up to £80,000 p.a.
The ability to travel the world for free.
The ability to take our family and friends around the world for free
The ability to stay in Hotels that we as individuals could never afford to stay in.
Security of employment. There are 5 million people in the UK on unemployment benefits of various sorts.
Long Careers, when other employers of CC force them to leave when over 30.
Branch income - estimated to be £2 million and never independently audited.
Part time work whenever we want.
The ability to sleep on the job and be paid for it.
Access to cheap fags and booze
Access to future partners.
I'd better stop.
meanwhile, what have bassa ever done for us??
er, the ability to lose all of the above?............the ability of one of the 5 million unemployed to do our jobs on much lower pay???
Next sketch - the Spanish Inquisition sketch.
We could construct a similar sketch here. Imagine the bassa committee meeting......................Instead of the People's front for the liberation of Judea, it would be the Tomato front for the liberation of CSDs. (and remember the dismissal by Cleese of other groups of revolutionaries? - a bit like bassa dismissing cc89)
If I were in BA I'd construct a sketch for their Christmas party based on this.................
What have BA ever given us?
Huuuuge salaries - for the elite few of us CSDs, up to £80,000 p.a.
The ability to travel the world for free.
The ability to take our family and friends around the world for free
The ability to stay in Hotels that we as individuals could never afford to stay in.
Security of employment. There are 5 million people in the UK on unemployment benefits of various sorts.
Long Careers, when other employers of CC force them to leave when over 30.
Branch income - estimated to be £2 million and never independently audited.
Part time work whenever we want.
The ability to sleep on the job and be paid for it.
Access to cheap fags and booze
Access to future partners.
I'd better stop.
meanwhile, what have bassa ever done for us??
er, the ability to lose all of the above?............the ability of one of the 5 million unemployed to do our jobs on much lower pay???
Next sketch - the Spanish Inquisition sketch.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Woodley's position must be somewhat precarious at the moment. He shook hands on an agreement with WW but this was rejected, without a ballot, by BASSA and CC89. So he appears to be out of touch with the wishes, hopes and aspirations of his own shop stewards - quite what the membership think, no one knows as they were not consulted. He failed to deliver the agreement he shook hands with WW, and he failed his own membership by shaking hands with WW on an untenable agreement. Does he have the faith in any one in this dispute?
Perhaps Len McCluskey will at least have the support of the shop stewards. Certainly WW would be behaving reasonably in refusing to deal with him as he cannot deliver on his promises. By playing the moderate TW is now representing no-one.
Perhaps Len McCluskey will at least have the support of the shop stewards. Certainly WW would be behaving reasonably in refusing to deal with him as he cannot deliver on his promises. By playing the moderate TW is now representing no-one.
Litebulbs.
Nope.
BA offered to take New Fleet off the table earlier in this dispute. Bassa refused that offer aswell. They refused to discuss it at all.
New Fleet is bassa's fault completely.
Nope.
BA offered to take New Fleet off the table earlier in this dispute. Bassa refused that offer aswell. They refused to discuss it at all.
New Fleet is bassa's fault completely.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can clearly see what BA give without negotiation,.....
Its been said many times, a significant proportion of CC have never had to exist in the real world, and would be incapable of getting a job even remotely as well rewarded. All this dispute has done is trash the reputation of BA cabin crew (in many cases unfairly) and dramatically worsen both their negotiating position and their future prospects.
Unions, don't you love them!!