Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

BASSA Branch Secretary ET Minutes Now in Public Domain

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

BASSA Branch Secretary ET Minutes Now in Public Domain

Old 22nd Nov 2011, 09:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Exclamation BASSA Branch Secretary ET Minutes Now in Public Domain

British Airways’ cabin crew union is Unite; BASSA is the local branch of this union and is run by the Cabin Crew representatives.

The Branch Secretary of the BASSA branch was sacked by BA for gross misconduct. Unsurprisingly, he claimed this was unfair, and all about Union Busting.

The sacking was upheld by the Employment Tribunal. There was no evidence of “union-busting” presented.

The BASSA Branch Secretary’s Employment Tribunal Minutes are now in the public domain. Those BA passengers who have been implored by BASSA to support the actions of the BASSA leadership, and castigate BA Management’s handling of the strike, will find the minutes of the ET of interest:

http://www.mediafire.com/?t9jdr3ydm9pj9pu

I understand that he is now receiving an £8,000 per month honorarium for his remaining months as Branch Secretary – so in effect works full time for Unite. £96,000 a year – not a bad deal at all.

Others in a similar position, egged on by their leader, have not been so lucky and continue to be without work.

Highlights:

---

"When summoned to a meeting with his manager, the claimant refused to attend"

"He said that as Branch Secretary he was afforded the same status as that of a senior BA manager"

"Ms XY contacted him by telephone on 16 Feb while he was on leave. He responded by sending a text message to her complaining that he was being harassed whilst on holiday. The text message read:

"No, I have already spoken to BAHS for 45 minutes last week. BAHS , with your involvement, are now making things much worse! Can't you idiots appreciate if someone is off sick the last thing they need is to be pestered by people like you."
---

It is important that this document has a wider audience so that contributors here can see the incompetence which lead to his own sacking, and the sacking of several other BA cabin crew who were BASSA members, went right to the very top of the organisation.

I trust this thread will be locked, but that free speech will be ensured by keeping the single post up, for those who have an interest in this matter.
VintageKrug is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 09:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Important Historical Facts should be accessible on pprune

Please mods padlock this thread but keep it available to your readers.
notlangley is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 12:13
  #3 (permalink)  

You Think, Therefore I Am
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 3,587
Happy to leave open, provided that it doesn't become a new home for the usual tedious comments
TightSlot is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 14:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,692
Thanks for posting it.
It is worth noting that the ET were not unanimous...........
A Mr D Warburton agreed with Mr Holley. I do not know who that D Warburton is/was, but there used to be a David Warburton who was a GMB National Official.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 15:48
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: US
Posts: 78
Having been stung a bit [financially as well as in disruptions] in the whole IA mess, was interested to read the entire ET report.

In the bit where the claimant is ordered on one occasion to pay some of BA's counsel's fees and expenses, due to an apparent snafu resulting in some lost court time caused by the claimant's attorneys, it says,

"Accordingly, as the claimant now works full-time for his union, we
order that he pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £4786."

Do they mean the alleged honorarium? Or an actual salaried job?
baggersup is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
Originally Posted by TightSlot View Post
Happy to leave open, provided that it doesn't become a new home for the usual tedious comments
Thanks TightSlot - I agree there is no reason to lock out SLF from commenting on this, I'm intrigued why the OP and the following post ask for it to be locked. I wonder if either would care to comment on this.

Having said that I'm not certain that this tread really belongs here. It doesn't seem to follow the raison d'être of the SLF forum. However given the (often tedious) threads that were put in SLF, following the restriction of threads in the CC forum relating to the BA CC, perhaps it is appropriate.

It does seem to me that we are seeing more and more CC posting here in SLF, not to answer our questions (which is much appreciated), but to provide us with their views and opinions. A few have been of interest, but not many. I'm not suggesting that these be censored, but perhaps they should be made in the CC forum.
ExXB is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:33
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

ExEB
None of the above posters are cabin crew.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:39
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
...or even

"none of the above posters is cabin crew"
VintageKrug is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

That just sums you up VK.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hongkong
Posts: 185
Grrr is/are

Oooooooh....there'll be letters.....perhaps even at:Prime Minister's Q's!!!
Sygyzy is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 18:12
  #11 (permalink)  

You Think, Therefore I Am
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 3,587
Oh goody - we're off to a fabulous start!
TightSlot is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 21:54
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Darkest Lincs
Posts: 486
My only view is that from this transcript, I would prefer not to be represented by some-one as out of touch with reality as Mr H appears to be!
wowzz is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 23:05
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lichfield UK
Posts: 159
Interesting this.

As someone who is (sadly) involved in lots of these, it emphasises that someone needs to get a grip of our employment laws - it seems that every line manager needs to have an employment lawyer tucked away in a cuboard in case of emergencies.

That said, as an outsider, I think that BA have handled this in an exemplary manner given the difficulties that they were presented with - but do BA's disciplinary processes really need two appeals? Rod for back springs to mind.

The minority judgement is really puzzling - it seems to me DH was seeking martyrdom. And I am surprised that DH didn't make more of his 'pychological illness' and claim it as a disability that BA failed to take account of when they considerd his behaviour!! (I'm not sure how effective a CSD this would make him either???)
RealFish is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 08:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
I've followed the progress of the strike and Mr. Holley's involvement with huge interest. Unfortunately, my draconian computer system at work won't let me access the link; I've tried gooooogling to see if I can get the transcript from another source, but can't find it. Does anyone by any chance have another link that my computer won't take offence at?
Octopussy2 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 10:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
None of the above posters is/are cabin crew

When I was a boy at a Public School I was taught that in some circumstances the subject and the object of the verb "to be" can be different in singularity/plurality.
I find support for find this on the Internet - link
Summary: None can be singular or plural, unless it quantifies a singular or mass noun . Don’t believe anyone who says none has to be singular because it’s a contraction of not one . Both none of the meals is and none of the meals are are okay, and both none is and none are are okay. *None of the stuff are is ungrammatical, though.
notlangley is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 10:51
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Hmm. I'm not sure I'd trust a blog authored by "Gabe Doyle, a fourth-year graduate student in Linguistics at the University of California, San Diego".

There are plenty of sites out there (particularly US-based) which have a "come as you are" anti-prescriptivist attitude to grammar. Many of them perpetuate inaccuracies.

Just as it's equally grammatically correct to use -ize or -ise at the end of a word, the US English approach generally "favors" -ize and the UK English favours - ise.

It is still correct UK English to write "none of the authors is" and would be incorrect to write "none of the authors are".

Though I would much prefer some commentary on Duncan Holley's Employment Tribunal Judgement.
VintageKrug is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 12:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Message to VintageKrug

This is on page 664 of Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage
Clearly none has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen in the 19th century. If in context it seems like a singular to you, use a singular verb; if it seems like a plural, use a plural verb. Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism.
notlangley is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 13:34
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,692
I've had another look at the wording.
It seems to me that Mr Warburton has substituted his judgement for the judgement of the employer. This is not allowed.
The Tribunal must judge whether or not what BA did was within the range of what a reasonable employer would have done.

As to what was done, all us "experts" will tell you that the employer must find the "moral high ground" and find a means of dismissing awkward shop stewards that members of a Tribunal would understand.

Let's be clear - BA changed the habits of a lifetime by specifically refusing time off for Mr H. The trumped up excuse was the weather and the ensuing chaos. The background was "Operational requirements". They had never had those requirements before.........especially not when Mr H was running BA, with CC managers scared of his every action, so we experts will tell you that the "requirements" were found in order to fire Mr H.
The cock-up by Mr H was that he not only refused to turn up, he made it clear that he would not/never be bound by existing agreements.
That's the moral high ground that he gifted to BA.
As to his allegation that the HR bloke agreed it all (secretly) in advance with Unite................ He probably did, but even someone from BAe isn't daft enough to leave any evidence around.

Mr Warburton's "judgement" of what happened probably isn't wrong, but the rules don't let him put his judgement in place of BA's alleged judgement.

PS many years ago, the O & C Board gave me a grade "A" at A level. That does not mean that my grammar is any good as mine was/were the first year that did not need to know grammar to get an English A level.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 14:23
  #19 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,287
Angel

PAXboy stares out of the window before going to work and muses quietly to himself, "For an honorarium of £8,000 per month, I could be someone's martyr. ANYONE's martyr ..."

Back to reality: What's done is done. The old situation could not continue - whichever side you side with - common sense in the 21st century told you that everything had changed.

The question is: Will this dismissal change anything? I know that I am the Cassandra of the forum but I suggest that: It will make no long term difference. The fate of BA was cast years ago and this change is minor by comparison to other factors. However, I do think that it had to be done and only wish that BA's earlier managers could be punished for their lack of backbone. But that's life!
PAXboy is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 19:01
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
Originally Posted by Betty girl View Post
ExEB
None of the above posters are cabin crew.
Betty Girl, thank you. My comments were more related to posts on other threads rather than this one. Your comments in this forum are most welcome, I appreciate the information you have past on that has helped me understand the perspective of the CC - my comments were addressed to other posters.

Since this thread posts little interest to me, other than being curious why two posters wanted the mods to lock it, this is my final comment here. I repeat my invitation to VintageKrug and notlangly, why do you want this thread locked.
ExXB is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.