BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again we have people selectively posting clips of what people write and twisting it to make a completely different point.
I post on hear to explain things to people from a cabin crew point of view when I read something that may be misleading, that all.
I post on hear to explain things to people from a cabin crew point of view when I read something that may be misleading, that all.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA's gone very quiet lately...Holley must be feeling humble after losing his ET appeal. The writing was on the wall back in June when Judge Ryan stated:
Duncan Holley's application to Watford Employment Tribunal for reinstatement was dismissed today. Holley had applied to be reinstated pending a full hearing of his unfair dismissal claim against BA claiming that the sole or principal reason for his dismissal was his trade union membership and activities. He asked the Tribunal to order the continuation of his employment pending a full hearing of his case. BA claimed that the reason for the dismissal was Holley's refusal to go to work when rostered on a number of times in December.
Judge Ryan denied the request saying he felt it was more likely than not that BA would demonstrate at trial that Mr Holley's dismissal was because of his refusal to come to work to perform his rostered duties and his refusal to attend meetings with his manager.
Amongst other things he said "The claimant is simply not entitled to take into his own hands the decision whether to work or not".
Judge Ryan denied the request saying he felt it was more likely than not that BA would demonstrate at trial that Mr Holley's dismissal was because of his refusal to come to work to perform his rostered duties and his refusal to attend meetings with his manager.
Amongst other things he said "The claimant is simply not entitled to take into his own hands the decision whether to work or not".
Last edited by VintageKrug; 5th Mar 2011 at 17:27.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is indeed a "cost per flying hour" measure of all the different fleets (EF, WW, LGW SF).
It is a pity that BASSA did not have intelligent business-focused leadership that could have sought ways of reducing this without adverse impacts on crew and all the grief of the past 12+ months.
It is a pity that BASSA did not have intelligent business-focused leadership that could have sought ways of reducing this without adverse impacts on crew and all the grief of the past 12+ months.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Ahh, thank you, VintageKrug. Several people were waiting for that news.
And the source is ????
And the source is ????
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
The writing was on the wall back in June when Judge Ryan stated:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quoted text refers to the June 2010 hearing; the rumour about the determination of Holley's ET is second hand, so I cannot corroborate at this stage.
Nonetheless, I trust my source.
'Tis done.
Nonetheless, I trust my source.
'Tis done.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
ooops ... sorry 
It's been a bad week, and a long day.
Apologies.
It's been a bad week, and a long day.
Apologies.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA and DH may well now have an advance copy of the Employment Tribunal's decision pending public release for review for factual accuracy/commercially sensitive information etc.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to sources over on cabincrew.com DH has lost his claim against BA. Apparently he was informed on Monday and will be getting the whole written judgement on March 28th.
In the meantime I suppose Unite will be trying to focus on getting their ballot right......
It's quite entertaining over in the other forum at the moment.....
In the meantime I suppose Unite will be trying to focus on getting their ballot right......
It's quite entertaining over in the other forum at the moment.....
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
From what I recall a Unite member who has been dismissed(sacked) can only remain in Unite as long as the union supports them at any IT.
So the question is, how far will Unite go in supporting him or will the same rules apply as to others - a less than 50% chance of winning = no support.
Of course if DH ceases to be a member under the above rule, he must then cease to be Gen Sec of BASSA
So the question is, how far will Unite go in supporting him or will the same rules apply as to others - a less than 50% chance of winning = no support.
Of course if DH ceases to be a member under the above rule, he must then cease to be Gen Sec of BASSA
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was somewhat amused by this comment on the other thread:
"...As we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it."
Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.
"...As we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it."
Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChicoG said
I disagree._ GlamGirl is just protesting about the simplistic way that Cabin Crew are often portrayed by outsiders._ In exactly the same way a teacher or a social worker will sometimes show sensitivity about the gross simplification of what it takes to do their job.
If anyone has any doubts about GlamGirl they only have to look at -__link
Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.
If anyone has any doubts about GlamGirl they only have to look at -__link
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GayGourmet
In the past BA had to talk to Unite and were constantly frustrated by their resistance to change for customer benefit. Involving unite has proved time and again to be the least effective way to re-design service on board.
Evidence to support GG's statementHere is the HotTowelGate link:
BASSA LGW/LHR - 29/01/09 Hot Towels
And here is ClubWorldLondonCityGate:
BASSA LGW - 24/07/09 - Club World London City Service Update
you can see that BA originally wanted a la carte dining for London City, but it "wouldn't work" according to BASSA. Here:
LGW - 27/07/09 - CWLCY - Failure to Agree
you can see that Unite originally wanted Cabin Crew to have 24 hours rest in Ireland after operating the arduous (less than one hour!) LCY-SNN service.
While there may have been a few valid points in all that, it's just no way to operate a modern business.
BASSA LGW/LHR - 29/01/09 Hot Towels
And here is ClubWorldLondonCityGate:
BASSA LGW - 24/07/09 - Club World London City Service Update
you can see that BA originally wanted a la carte dining for London City, but it "wouldn't work" according to BASSA. Here:
LGW - 27/07/09 - CWLCY - Failure to Agree
you can see that Unite originally wanted Cabin Crew to have 24 hours rest in Ireland after operating the arduous (less than one hour!) LCY-SNN service.
While there may have been a few valid points in all that, it's just no way to operate a modern business.
I clearly stated there "may have been a few valid points in all that" but there is no evidence that BASSA proposed new ways of working which would have addressed concerns (it is BASSA which stated that a la carte dining trials failed); once again it seemed BA had to do most of the running, with BASSA yet again failing to agree a variation to the Gatwick Memorandum of Understanding, thus requiring volunteers for the service. BASSA's stated response in the links "even if you have volunteered for this [new service] you can still withdraw your name at any time).
On the point of hot towels in WT+, this was still not part of the standard service on the very few occasions in the past decade or so I have not been able to be seated in Club or First. Do any passengers have experience of it being done on MF routes?
I have experienced CWLCY first hand, and the service levels are very good indeed; indeed I find Gatwick crews (and I fly quite regularly exLGW) to be much more relaxed and happier in their jobs than the otherwise good crews at LHR who are experiencing so much stress at work due to BASSA's former stranglehold on operations and working relationships.
It's good to see BASSA's influence waning.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he links illustrated BASSA's history of intransigence, on a matter (WT+ Hot Towels) which has almost mythical status, but which many people believed was mythology. It was not meant to spark yet another irrelevant debate.
Moving on to the very valid point of "connected/protected" strikes:
Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
If you read the astonishingly high number of reasons for this ballot, you will note the BASSA Muppets even managed to include the phrase "related to the original dispute" in the reasons. So it's 100%, incontrovertibly a connected strike on those grounds, and likely also on other grounds as well (specifically point 6, and especially relevant once Holley's judgement is made public).
No protection from dismissal will be given to those striking; even of BASSA does not believe this, it has a moral imperative to inform its members of the potential risks.
Moving on to the very valid point of "connected/protected" strikes:
Originally Posted by HM Govt.
Official industrial action organised by a trade union is 'unprotected' if:
If you are dismissed while taking part in unprotected industrial action called for by your trade union, you cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if all the other employees taking part are dismissed as well.
You can complain about unfair dismissal if you are dismissed:
Just because you can make a claim for unfair dismissal does not mean it will be successful.
- the trade union has failed to hold a postal ballot in-line with the law
- the trade union has not told the employer, in-line with the law, about the industrial action ahead of a ballot or ahead of the industrial action
- it has been disowned by the trade union (e.g. because someone without authority called for the action, or because the trade union considers the dispute to be resolved), sometimes called 'repudiated action'
- it is secondary industrial action (in support of workers of another employer), sometimes called 'sympathy action'
- it promotes ‘union labour only’ practices (also known as a ‘closed shop’)
- it is in support of any workers who have been dismissed for taking unofficial action
- other aspects of industrial action law have been breached by the trade union
If you are dismissed while taking part in unprotected industrial action called for by your trade union, you cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if all the other employees taking part are dismissed as well.
You can complain about unfair dismissal if you are dismissed:
- for an automatically unfair reason (eg because of your duties as a health and safety representative)
- while taking part in the industrial action but others taking part are not dismissed
- for taking part in unprotected industrial action, after you stopped taking part
Just because you can make a claim for unfair dismissal does not mean it will be successful.
If you read the astonishingly high number of reasons for this ballot, you will note the BASSA Muppets even managed to include the phrase "related to the original dispute" in the reasons. So it's 100%, incontrovertibly a connected strike on those grounds, and likely also on other grounds as well (specifically point 6, and especially relevant once Holley's judgement is made public).
No protection from dismissal will be given to those striking; even of BASSA does not believe this, it has a moral imperative to inform its members of the potential risks.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChicoG said
Quote:
Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.
If anyone has any doubts about GlamGirl they only have to look at -__link
Quote:
Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.
I disagree._ GlamGirl is just protesting about the simplistic way that Cabin Crew are often portrayed by outsiders._ In exactly the same way a teacher or a social worker will sometimes show sensitivity about the gross simplification of what it takes to do their job.
I was merely stating that such an absolute is something on which BASSA's leadership rely: "Whatever we say is the truth, and do not question it".
And we know how reliable they are.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westlakes ......
Of course if DH ceases to be a member under the above rule, he must then cease to be Gen Sec of BASSA
Yes - normally it would work that way - but ............
For some reason to do with the convoluted history of BASSA prior to joining Unite as a "Branch" (and that normal status is not certain) - it appears that BASSA were/are able to change their regs/rules.
One such change supposedly took place prior to/during 2009, in that it was formally agreed that no elections would be allowed at any time when BASSA was in dispute, such elections could only take place when there were no outstanding disputes, and BASSA had sole authority to agree that a dispute was settled.
This is why, when Woodley originally said that he had negotiated the best deal possible with BA as head of Unite, when he recommended and offered it to the membership, and BASSA then said it was unacceptable, he then took the posture that he could not recomend it as BASSA had refused it!! and listed strike dates!! - and now of course we have the ballot.
It appears therefore, as a result of BASSA's rules, Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA.
Holley drew his BASSA and BA salaries up until the time he was dismissed, at which point it is said he had just activated his BA pension. He still draws his BASSA salary as does Malone, but he also supposedly to personally get 5% of the membership fees (which were around £1.8m in 2009) as Secretary. In Q4 this year both he and Malone are supposed to be able to start drawing their BASSA pensions, so the supposition is that this dispute will be agreed by BASSA at the end of the year, which will allow Unite to agree it - if Len Mcluck wants to of course and, also if Holley's hatred of BA and its management will allow him to go on to being just a toma-toe farmer. Everything has to be supposition, as I do not believe that anyone has been able to view the BASSA Rules and Regulations or Minutes.
Have a nice day!!!
Yes - normally it would work that way - but ............
For some reason to do with the convoluted history of BASSA prior to joining Unite as a "Branch" (and that normal status is not certain) - it appears that BASSA were/are able to change their regs/rules.
One such change supposedly took place prior to/during 2009, in that it was formally agreed that no elections would be allowed at any time when BASSA was in dispute, such elections could only take place when there were no outstanding disputes, and BASSA had sole authority to agree that a dispute was settled.
This is why, when Woodley originally said that he had negotiated the best deal possible with BA as head of Unite, when he recommended and offered it to the membership, and BASSA then said it was unacceptable, he then took the posture that he could not recomend it as BASSA had refused it!! and listed strike dates!! - and now of course we have the ballot.
It appears therefore, as a result of BASSA's rules, Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA.
Holley drew his BASSA and BA salaries up until the time he was dismissed, at which point it is said he had just activated his BA pension. He still draws his BASSA salary as does Malone, but he also supposedly to personally get 5% of the membership fees (which were around £1.8m in 2009) as Secretary. In Q4 this year both he and Malone are supposed to be able to start drawing their BASSA pensions, so the supposition is that this dispute will be agreed by BASSA at the end of the year, which will allow Unite to agree it - if Len Mcluck wants to of course and, also if Holley's hatred of BA and its management will allow him to go on to being just a toma-toe farmer. Everything has to be supposition, as I do not believe that anyone has been able to view the BASSA Rules and Regulations or Minutes.
Have a nice day!!!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entaxei
Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA
You might be right about this but:
If you read the relevant clauses highlighted by VK in an earlier post as follows........the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992............you will find I think that there is an overarching statutory requirement.
You can't rewrite the law for your own subset, so to speak. Otherwise I would alter the law for my own house and allow marijuana to be grown and consumed within its boundaries, and that would just be the start!
Post posting note: Only Trade Unions are governed by the relevant 'elections' statute as strictly defined and maybe as a 'branch' BASSA can make up its own rules???
You might be right about this but:
If you read the relevant clauses highlighted by VK in an earlier post as follows........the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992............you will find I think that there is an overarching statutory requirement.
You can't rewrite the law for your own subset, so to speak. Otherwise I would alter the law for my own house and allow marijuana to be grown and consumed within its boundaries, and that would just be the start!
Post posting note: Only Trade Unions are governed by the relevant 'elections' statute as strictly defined and maybe as a 'branch' BASSA can make up its own rules???
Last edited by mrpony; 6th Mar 2011 at 11:33. Reason: I said I might be wrong and I was right!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course if DH ceases to be a member under the above rule, he must then cease to be Gen Sec of BASSA
Yes - normally it would work that way - but ............
For some reason to do with the convoluted history of BASSA prior to joining Unite as a "Branch" (and that normal status is not certain) - it appears that BASSA were/are able to change their regs/rules.
One such change supposedly took place prior to/during 2009, in that it was formally agreed that no elections would be allowed at any time when BASSA was in dispute, such elections could only take place when there were no outstanding disputes, and BASSA had sole authority to agree that a dispute was settled.
This is why, when Woodley originally said that he had negotiated the best deal possible with BA as head of Unite, when he recommended and offered it to the membership, and BASSA then said it was unacceptable, he then took the posture that he could not recomend it as BASSA had refused it!! and listed strike dates!! - and now of course we have the ballot.
It appears therefore, as a result of BASSA's rules, Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA.
Holley drew his BASSA and BA salaries up until the time he was dismissed, at which point it is said he had just activated his BA pension. He still draws his BASSA salary as does Malone, but he also supposedly to personally get 5% of the membership fees (which were around £1.8m in 2009) as Secretary. In Q4 this year both he and Malone are supposed to be able to start drawing their BASSA pensions, so the supposition is that this dispute will be agreed by BASSA at the end of the year, which will allow Unite to agree it - if Len Mcluck wants to of course and, also if Holley's hatred of BA and its management will allow him to go on to being just a toma-toe farmer. Everything has to be supposition, as I do not believe that anyone has been able to view the BASSA Rules and Regulations or Minutes.
Have a nice day!!!
Yes - normally it would work that way - but ............
For some reason to do with the convoluted history of BASSA prior to joining Unite as a "Branch" (and that normal status is not certain) - it appears that BASSA were/are able to change their regs/rules.
One such change supposedly took place prior to/during 2009, in that it was formally agreed that no elections would be allowed at any time when BASSA was in dispute, such elections could only take place when there were no outstanding disputes, and BASSA had sole authority to agree that a dispute was settled.
This is why, when Woodley originally said that he had negotiated the best deal possible with BA as head of Unite, when he recommended and offered it to the membership, and BASSA then said it was unacceptable, he then took the posture that he could not recomend it as BASSA had refused it!! and listed strike dates!! - and now of course we have the ballot.
It appears therefore, as a result of BASSA's rules, Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA.
Holley drew his BASSA and BA salaries up until the time he was dismissed, at which point it is said he had just activated his BA pension. He still draws his BASSA salary as does Malone, but he also supposedly to personally get 5% of the membership fees (which were around £1.8m in 2009) as Secretary. In Q4 this year both he and Malone are supposed to be able to start drawing their BASSA pensions, so the supposition is that this dispute will be agreed by BASSA at the end of the year, which will allow Unite to agree it - if Len Mcluck wants to of course and, also if Holley's hatred of BA and its management will allow him to go on to being just a toma-toe farmer. Everything has to be supposition, as I do not believe that anyone has been able to view the BASSA Rules and Regulations or Minutes.
Have a nice day!!!
I can (sort of) understand now!
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
The point being made by Glamgirl, was that the information about the meal service and the SNN stop on the LCY-JFK was from, shall we say, the horses mouth, as the person giving it is involved with the operation of those flights.
As has been seen a few times BASSA has been very good at giving the impression that they are responsible for stuff like this!
I'm sure BA did as well, but we don't have access to those documents.
(it is BASSA which stated that a la carte dining trials failed
I'm sure BA did as well, but we don't have access to those documents.
Last edited by west lakes; 6th Mar 2011 at 12:11.