BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV
There are a number of complex issues in the circumstances of an unprotected "strike" - or any other breach of contract.
This and the other thread have overly focused (IMHO) on the issues to do with the individual.
Unite will not/do not care about the individual. They never have cared for an individual in this dispute. Unite will care about their own legal and financial position - i.e. Litebulbs' subs.
There is another branch of the law - entirely independent of the TULRA stuff that Unite will have a concern about.
That is the potentially unlawful act of inducing someone to breach their contract.
If any "Official" of a TU induces someone to breach their contract outside a protected dispute, BA can take that official, and the TU, to court for all and any costs and losses arising from the breach.
Unite are very aware of that, and can and will stop the bassa junta from doing anything that opens Unite's finances as a piggy bank for BA.
That's why Unite disowned the bassa letter about the window blinds - within 24 hours. Staff must follow a reasonable instruction from their employer, no matter what the local branch might think.
At least the Unite lawyers can stop the wilder acts of the heritage junta. That legal framework also explains why the bassa junta's ideas about guerrilla action just will not work.
This and the other thread have overly focused (IMHO) on the issues to do with the individual.
Unite will not/do not care about the individual. They never have cared for an individual in this dispute. Unite will care about their own legal and financial position - i.e. Litebulbs' subs.
There is another branch of the law - entirely independent of the TULRA stuff that Unite will have a concern about.
That is the potentially unlawful act of inducing someone to breach their contract.
If any "Official" of a TU induces someone to breach their contract outside a protected dispute, BA can take that official, and the TU, to court for all and any costs and losses arising from the breach.
Unite are very aware of that, and can and will stop the bassa junta from doing anything that opens Unite's finances as a piggy bank for BA.
That's why Unite disowned the bassa letter about the window blinds - within 24 hours. Staff must follow a reasonable instruction from their employer, no matter what the local branch might think.
At least the Unite lawyers can stop the wilder acts of the heritage junta. That legal framework also explains why the bassa junta's ideas about guerrilla action just will not work.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't think BA would sack anyone on day 1 - just activate the 90 day take it or leave it option.
British Airways, the company, strives to be a fair and just employer and for all the pomposity and belligerence displayed by individual managers and TU reps alike, the Leadership Team still want BA to be seen as good employers. I really think that "the company" still wants the new working conditions accepted voluntarily.
Internally, changes had to happen to enable the airline to hold its place in the industry and, despite the pain and hardship to family men and women, every department, save one, within the airline agreed to make changes for the sake of "business efficiency".
It's easy to blame BASSA, but I feel that their management must share some culpability for failing to communicate effectively the challenges that BA was facing and the sacrifices other workers were making. I still think that if the "rank and file" BASSA members had been kept fully "in the loop" that very few would have heeded the union's clarion call and very few would have lost their staff travel.
If it really, really wanted to, British Airways could put every single employee on a new contract immediately. With the formation of IAG, British Airways plc, the name under which our contracts were accepted, ceased to exist. However, the "Leadership Team" have that essential quality - a sheer British sense of fair play - and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.
This dispute must come to an end. It is corrosive to the business and potentially corrosive to the good and safe operation of BA's aircraft. If CRM fails to such an extent that the Kegworth situation were to re-occur thaen things have become downright dangerous. Reading some of the vile and toxic language used on some of the forums and the vilification of individuals and hatred that is evident on some forums it can easily be argued that the BA Board need to act now to bring this thing to an end.
The, so called "90 day option" could be seen as a way of ending this dispute now. The cost of terminating the employment of those who will not sign the new deal and paying off the 90 days in lieu of notice may well be a cheaper option than sustaining the losses another strike, even a poorly supported one, like the last one.
BASSA do not seem to want to bring this dispute to an end. At some point BA will have to act to end it, this may mean sackings and suspensions. It seems certain that BA will not cave in and give BASSA what they want, that would be storing up the same trouble for a couple of years down the line. BASSA has failed to see that at the moment they hold NO weapons that will work to force BA to settle, only BA's patience has kept the hold-outs in employment.
When faced with unemployment in a very difficult economic period or accepting a settlement most would opt for the continuance of pay and T&Cs.
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
But doesn't the 90 day take it or leave still fail to address the problems.
As said given the choice of unemployment or taking it if everyone takes it BA will still have the diehards on staff who will be waiting to cause problems in the future! In reality, I guess, there will never be any appeasement with some of the CC until they leave BA's employ at some point in the future.
Bealine
Before BA could do this they would have needed (still need in my view) to get into a position where staff actually take any account of communications from BA. As related a number of times previously, there are a significant number of staff who do not read or listen to anything BA has to tell them. Their only source of credible information, to their minds, is the union.
I am reminded of a recent discussion with a good friend.
On airport standby recently a member of main crew (aged in her late teens/early twenties) commented she was bored. The suggestion was made to go and seek out duty managers and others and introduce herself to them, find out what they did etc. This was met with horror and a comment that she wanted nothing to do with any manager!
This was not a militant, but there seems to be this huge divide that BA needs to address (of course also the question of where it comes from - I have seen comments last year pointing at the training system being responsible)
I would suggest that this is one of BA's biggest challenges
As said given the choice of unemployment or taking it if everyone takes it BA will still have the diehards on staff who will be waiting to cause problems in the future! In reality, I guess, there will never be any appeasement with some of the CC until they leave BA's employ at some point in the future.
Bealine
I still think that if the "rank and file" BASSA members had been kept fully "in the loop" that very few would have heeded the union's clarion call and very few would have lost their staff travel
I am reminded of a recent discussion with a good friend.
On airport standby recently a member of main crew (aged in her late teens/early twenties) commented she was bored. The suggestion was made to go and seek out duty managers and others and introduce herself to them, find out what they did etc. This was met with horror and a comment that she wanted nothing to do with any manager!
This was not a militant, but there seems to be this huge divide that BA needs to address (of course also the question of where it comes from - I have seen comments last year pointing at the training system being responsible)
I would suggest that this is one of BA's biggest challenges
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy to blame BASSA, but I feel that their management must share some culpability for failing to communicate effectively the challenges that BA was facing and the sacrifices other workers were making. I still think that if the "rank and file" BASSA members had been kept fully "in the loop" that very few would have heeded the union's clarion call and very few would have lost their staff travel.
If it really, really wanted to, British Airways could put every single employee on a new contract immediately. With the formation of IAG, British Airways plc, the name under which our contracts were accepted, ceased to exist. However, the "Leadership Team" have that essential quality - a sheer British sense of fair play - and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.
If it really, really wanted to, British Airways could put every single employee on a new contract immediately. With the formation of IAG, British Airways plc, the name under which our contracts were accepted, ceased to exist. However, the "Leadership Team" have that essential quality - a sheer British sense of fair play - and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.
The formation of IAG does not mean current employment contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. The new BA operating entity will have inherited these contracts and the obligations that arise from them.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
west lakes
I agree in the main with what you say. However, the baleful influence of the union would be significantly reduced should BA employ the 90 day route. The union would be largely powerless to prevent it from happening as their own QC admitted in court that this was a legitimate option for BA. Those stupid enough not to listen to BA communications on such a subject would be self-selecting themselves to leave the company. I also suspect that things would happen much quicker than people think, There would be a time window in which to accept the offer, failure to accept would lead to those failing to accept being given 90 days notice. This notice would not be worked, rather it would be paid off. Recruitment would be ramped up to cover the temporary shortfall of the few stupid enough to think they could ignore this deal. I am not sure that people who put themselves in this situation would really deserve any sympathy. It would be industrial Darwinism.
Bitterness over this dispute will linger, there is no way to avoid it, but the sooner it is over the sooner things will settle down. If fools leave the business because they failed to heed BA communications, that would perhaps teach others not to be so stupid and trusting of the BASSA leadership. The foolish notion that what BASSA says is gospel and BA can be ignored needs to be thoroughly discredited. If people lose their job over such misplaced trust then perhaps that will be the price of their stupidity. Stupid people have no place in aviation, nor indeed in any safety critical industry.
Bitterness over this dispute will linger, there is no way to avoid it, but the sooner it is over the sooner things will settle down. If fools leave the business because they failed to heed BA communications, that would perhaps teach others not to be so stupid and trusting of the BASSA leadership. The foolish notion that what BASSA says is gospel and BA can be ignored needs to be thoroughly discredited. If people lose their job over such misplaced trust then perhaps that will be the price of their stupidity. Stupid people have no place in aviation, nor indeed in any safety critical industry.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I see where you're coming from, I don't agree that all of BASSA's followers were necessarily foolish or stupid or deserving of the sack - misguided perhaps.
I am still of the opinion that whatever British Airways can or cannot lawfully do, the Leadership Team will still attempt to win hearts and minds voluntarily. The small number of hardcore militants will either end up doing something stupid and getting sacked or will be so disgusted at having to work a wee bit harder that they'll end up leaving. In either event, in the middle of a whacking great economic crisis, that is stupid!
I am still of the opinion that whatever British Airways can or cannot lawfully do, the Leadership Team will still attempt to win hearts and minds voluntarily. The small number of hardcore militants will either end up doing something stupid and getting sacked or will be so disgusted at having to work a wee bit harder that they'll end up leaving. In either event, in the middle of a whacking great economic crisis, that is stupid!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is being set out is that any company has the legal right to "fire" (such a horrid word) any employee at any time, regardless of taking industrial action.
The employee has then the right to seek unfair dismissal, and compensation; re-instatement may be sought, but the company never has to agree to this actually happening.
If sacked under a "protected" strike, along will all other strikers (so treated equally) there may be recourse to an Employment Tribunal (ET), for compensation. Re-instatement may be sought, but even if granted is not enforceable.
If sacked under an "unprotected" strike, and treated the same as other strikers, there is no recourse to an ET, no compensation payable.
It only takes one of the formal reasons to strike to be proven as connected to render the strike "unprotected". Just one. That is why BASSA proposing ten reasons was barmy.
And including the phrase "related to the previous dispute" in the official communique to BA means it will be very hard for anyone to demonstrate it is unprotected.
Some have stated BA haven't done this previously, but I sense a change of tone here; the previous strikes weren't unprotected, BASSA has zero left in its (already modest) armoury, and support is waning whilst fatigue with the dispute is on the rise.
I would expect a fair, but very ROBUST, response by BA once the undoubted "yes" vote is revealed.
With Holley's ET ruling being released publicly around that time, and a failure to produce the BASSA accounts (and I don't think that's really a legal issue, the contempt Holley shows his membership by refusing access to them is enough), and possible de-recognition of BASSA, the way forward for BA is clear.
If that means they have to ramp up Mixed Fleet recruitment to replace the jobs vacated by the more militant aspects of the BASSA fraternity, then so be it.
BA hasn't set out to "bust the Union", but BASSA's intransigence risks a self-fulfilling prophesy of BASSA's own making.
The employee has then the right to seek unfair dismissal, and compensation; re-instatement may be sought, but the company never has to agree to this actually happening.
If sacked under a "protected" strike, along will all other strikers (so treated equally) there may be recourse to an Employment Tribunal (ET), for compensation. Re-instatement may be sought, but even if granted is not enforceable.
If sacked under an "unprotected" strike, and treated the same as other strikers, there is no recourse to an ET, no compensation payable.
It only takes one of the formal reasons to strike to be proven as connected to render the strike "unprotected". Just one. That is why BASSA proposing ten reasons was barmy.
And including the phrase "related to the previous dispute" in the official communique to BA means it will be very hard for anyone to demonstrate it is unprotected.
Some have stated BA haven't done this previously, but I sense a change of tone here; the previous strikes weren't unprotected, BASSA has zero left in its (already modest) armoury, and support is waning whilst fatigue with the dispute is on the rise.
I would expect a fair, but very ROBUST, response by BA once the undoubted "yes" vote is revealed.
With Holley's ET ruling being released publicly around that time, and a failure to produce the BASSA accounts (and I don't think that's really a legal issue, the contempt Holley shows his membership by refusing access to them is enough), and possible de-recognition of BASSA, the way forward for BA is clear.
If that means they have to ramp up Mixed Fleet recruitment to replace the jobs vacated by the more militant aspects of the BASSA fraternity, then so be it.
BA hasn't set out to "bust the Union", but BASSA's intransigence risks a self-fulfilling prophesy of BASSA's own making.
VK,
You have appeared here relatively recently. Your posts are generally accurate, if a little lengthy, and written mainly from the Employer's perspective.
A touch of BAe in there.
Are you McCarthy in disguise?
You have appeared here relatively recently. Your posts are generally accurate, if a little lengthy, and written mainly from the Employer's perspective.
A touch of BAe in there.
Are you McCarthy in disguise?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If sacked under an "unprotected" strike, and treated the same as other strikers, there is no recourse to an ET, no compensation payable.
The only thing protection provides is a guarantee that the dismissal will automatically be deemed unfair. That means compensation will have to be paid. Being sacked during an unprotected strike can still be unfair, it just means the dismissed person would need to prove the lack of fairness at the Tribunal.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's McCarthy?
Unfortunately sound bites don't work, so I try to set out the position as clearly as possible and use referenceable material rather than hearsay where it is possible to do so. It is for others to make up their mind if what I post stacks up, or is a pack of deficient ramblings; where I believe the strike is unprotected, and have set out why, I have seen no such reasoned argument as to why this current ballot is unprotected.
JT, I should have perhaps used more precise language. Rather than "no recourse" I should perhaps have stated they would be "likely to have their case thrown out by any ET".
I am not an employment law expert, so welcome those with more authority on the matter than me, but the relevant guidance states:
---
--------
Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
Unfortunately sound bites don't work, so I try to set out the position as clearly as possible and use referenceable material rather than hearsay where it is possible to do so. It is for others to make up their mind if what I post stacks up, or is a pack of deficient ramblings; where I believe the strike is unprotected, and have set out why, I have seen no such reasoned argument as to why this current ballot is unprotected.
JT, I should have perhaps used more precise language. Rather than "no recourse" I should perhaps have stated they would be "likely to have their case thrown out by any ET".
I am not an employment law expert, so welcome those with more authority on the matter than me, but the relevant guidance states:
---
Originally Posted by HM Govt.
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.
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.
Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient Observer
I just popped in for a look this morning.
The handle 'Vintage Krug' is well known on the Business Traveller and Flyertalk fora.
If it it is the same person, s/he claims not to be an interested party (i.e. BA staff or supplier) and is noted for cutting and pasting information from various sources.
Bye, I'm off again.
I just popped in for a look this morning.
The handle 'Vintage Krug' is well known on the Business Traveller and Flyertalk fora.
If it it is the same person, s/he claims not to be an interested party (i.e. BA staff or supplier) and is noted for cutting and pasting information from various sources.
Bye, I'm off again.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by west lakes
Which is where one of the rubs stands, BA could not just sack all day 1 strikers and ignore any others, they must sack all strikers so as not fall foul of this clause.
Remember, it's not "all those who voted to strike" who would risk dismissal, just those who withdraw their labour on that day. And with the significant possibility of unprotected action, that number choosing to risk dismissal is likely to be less than it has been in past "protected" action.
Especially after Holley's ET tribunal judgement is made public around that time.
If we assume a generous "yes" vote of about 5,500 in the current ballot (assuming some double counting last time), and a historical tendency for less than half those to actually carry out their threat, it's actually quite a small number.
Certainly, given current overstaffing, part time flexibility, MF recruitment and VCC plus temps, as well as cover provided by leased aircraft/crews, I think the numbers lost would be manageable, though very regrettable on many levels, especially when you consider the large pool of experienced crew made redundant by airlines such as bmi who would be able to quickly re-train as BA crew if offered the opportunity to do so.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unprotected strikers - dismissals
The scenario VK describes is imaginable i.e. striker numbers not being too high on 'day 1' to consider mass dismaissal. More so if you factor in BA making it absolutely plain what action would be taken in the event of unprotected action (didn't Assange get clobbered for that?) and the effect that would have on striker numbers.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
meanwhile
Air China, the country’s flag carrier, signed an agreement to buy five Boeing 747-8 aircraft, each capable of carrying more than 460 passengers, as part of its drive to expand its international network.
In a separate agreement announced Tuesday but still being completed, Hong Kong Airlines, part of HNA Group, said it would purchase 38 Boeing aircraft, including 30 of the plane maker’s new Dreamliners and 6 freighters. Together, the Boeing aircraft are worth about $10 billion at list prices, though purchases are often subject to undisclosed discounts.
In a separate agreement announced Tuesday but still being completed, Hong Kong Airlines, part of HNA Group, said it would purchase 38 Boeing aircraft, including 30 of the plane maker’s new Dreamliners and 6 freighters. Together, the Boeing aircraft are worth about $10 billion at list prices, though purchases are often subject to undisclosed discounts.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has changed?
Been away a while and the discussion seems to be the same ... having got it horribly wrong last time, I'll punt my incorrect thoughts out again:
1) If BA were going to sue Unite and sack strikers they would have allowed the last strike to go ahead. The timing was great as it would have had minimal impact on peak seasons and the strike was clearly "unprotected" so I think if this approach was going to happen then BA would have done it by now. Contrary to Litebulbs thoughts - I believe strikers could be sacked on day 1 without any referemce to internal process. Anyone can be sacked at any time for any reason. The recourse is through an ET but if the strike is ruled as "unprotected" then an ET is unlikely to rule in the strikers favour.
2) SOSR - 90 days - nope. Not happening. That would have to apply (I think) to all cabin crew equally. And I can't see BA penalising those that have come into work. Although from previous discussions I seem to remember some crew (e.g. LGW) saying a SOSR that applied to all crew might actually improve their T&Cs.
3) I am coming to the opinion that BA really are just going to sit this one out. They hold all the cards. They know that the number of strikers is falling. They know they can run a near full operation. So they will take the hit financially on potential lost bookings and just wait until the unions and strikers give up. My only concern with this approach is that it leaves the issues largely unresolved and potentially just puts them off for a future date.
I think one thing has been consistent throughout this dispute. BA have stated what they will do and they have carried through that promise. So I don't think we'll see any sudden sackings or SOSR. They'll announce the options facing cabin crew and let cabin crew make their own choice and decide their own fate.
1) If BA were going to sue Unite and sack strikers they would have allowed the last strike to go ahead. The timing was great as it would have had minimal impact on peak seasons and the strike was clearly "unprotected" so I think if this approach was going to happen then BA would have done it by now. Contrary to Litebulbs thoughts - I believe strikers could be sacked on day 1 without any referemce to internal process. Anyone can be sacked at any time for any reason. The recourse is through an ET but if the strike is ruled as "unprotected" then an ET is unlikely to rule in the strikers favour.
2) SOSR - 90 days - nope. Not happening. That would have to apply (I think) to all cabin crew equally. And I can't see BA penalising those that have come into work. Although from previous discussions I seem to remember some crew (e.g. LGW) saying a SOSR that applied to all crew might actually improve their T&Cs.
3) I am coming to the opinion that BA really are just going to sit this one out. They hold all the cards. They know that the number of strikers is falling. They know they can run a near full operation. So they will take the hit financially on potential lost bookings and just wait until the unions and strikers give up. My only concern with this approach is that it leaves the issues largely unresolved and potentially just puts them off for a future date.
I think one thing has been consistent throughout this dispute. BA have stated what they will do and they have carried through that promise. So I don't think we'll see any sudden sackings or SOSR. They'll announce the options facing cabin crew and let cabin crew make their own choice and decide their own fate.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BetterByBoat
We do not hold contrary views. You are right, BA can sack who they want, when they want. But for it to be fair, due process has to be followed. Taking unprotected action would lead to a gross misconduct dismissal, but if due process was not followed, it may not be a fair dismissal and then potentially very expensive.
Going on strike and the sanctions around it are based in civil law and are statutory inventions and would be seen as unlawful, not illegal.
Going on strike and the sanctions around it are based in civil law and are statutory inventions and would be seen as unlawful, not illegal.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me this whole strike issue has lost any relevance. I have four long haul segments booked in June and am not at all concerned, is anyone? The current ballot will certainly return an overwhelming percentage in favor of IA. Red Len may want to have a strike as it may coordinate with some of his other actions but will in no way further the cause of BA CC. Undoubtedly IA will cause BA some financial distress but should not impact the operation from the pax point of view to a great extent. What is in it for striking CC? I assume BA will not threaten termination for strikers but will at least do the following: loss of wages until next rostering, no bonus for 2011 ( already stated), loss of staff travel forever. If my perspective and assumptions are incorrect please correct me. If, however, my thoughts are correct what CC in their right mind would actually strike?