Snas and Baggers
 

You are both probably right, but just, if that makes sense.

BA's offer to non-union members is quite specific as to membership status and QUITE specific that no members of BASSA would be asked or allowed to sign the agreement outside of their union's agreement.

No coercion involved.

If you are retired BCal/BA crew as you state, you will know that the crew can not and do not operate from base without a minimum legal rest period between flights. The flight is automatically recrewed. We don't even get a say in it and you can be sure ops would have known pretty much exactly what time the crew made it back to LGW as we have to sign out on the computer system. Even without the computer, they'd have the times from the transport company. But like I said, you don't need me to tell you that as you'll already know.

Apologies for the thread drift as this isn't even related to commuting, let alone the dispute, but I will not sit back while someone implies that we are flying illegally.

Recently on the PPRuNe Cabin Crew forum I read that the following had been posted on the BASSA website:Reading that it appears that BASSA is NOT pursuing legal action in the UK courts. And the posts by many BASSA supporters (a.o., Ava Hannah) indicates that in the absence of relevant UK law on the subject matter, they are relying on the ECHR to regain ST.

But on another forum on BA matters, the following comment was posted:If BASSA were to be honest (an oxymoron), that “further update very soon” will not be a positive one.

How long is it likely to take for the ECHR to hear this application?

I prefer to liken BASSA to Iranian democracy. You can vote how you like, and many of the brainwashed will vote for those in power. But if you vote against, your life will be made a misery.

Litebulbs
 

OK. No offense intended, but don't you think it's odd ? A few moments reading these threads would serve notice as to the likely response to a posting describing a comfortable lifestyle whilst trying to cause harm to a company and its customers by your self-serving actions.

And also trying to cause harm to your colleagues, as evidenced by the company-wide support offered to BA to limit the damage BASSA has tried to inflict.

What amuses me is how any criticism of their actions will automatically be described as an "insult", when insulted is the perfect word to describe the rest of BA's employees who have made sacrifices to aid the company, yet get called "scabs" - and much worse - for doing so.

Forgive me Litebulbs if I can't take your position seriously.

I simply find that the BASSA diehards are quick to blame everyone for ruining their strike, and point blank refuse to accept that not only was industrial action unnecessary, but that their actions have threatened the jobs of thousands of other employees who don't think it is unreasonable to ask a senior member of staff to get off their arses and do a bit more work.

Perhaps it dismays you that so many people are against Unite's actions, but in reality many of the people who disagree are members of the trade union movement and are not against Unite, but purely against the amateurs that run BASSA so badly.

So what would a BASSA member have to do, if they wanted to sign the contract on offer?

And a few more moments reading these threads will show you that I am not involved, so I am unable to be blamed for self serving actions.

Why don't you write to Mr Woodley and Simpson and share your view?

Kappa,

I agree that it is strange that it appears that the issue of ST, will be taken to the ECHR in the first instance.

Litebulbs
 

You asked
The answer is that an existing BASSA member is not able to sign the contract on offer. This is because you have delegated all power relating to negotiating your terms and conditions of employment to the union you joined. If the majority vote is for accepting the offer, then you can sign it, however, if your colleagues reject the offer, the only way you might be able to sign the contract would be to leave the union and gamble that BA would extend the period in which the offer is open. It might be something worth asking Bill Francis about. BA cannot induce you to leave the union

They need only tell their reps, in suffecient numbers, by ballot or other means.

BASSA reps could do with being remined what "rep" is short for after all.

Colonel White
 

I imagine that the collective bargaining rights of Unite/BASSA is an express term in current contracts. I would imagine that this would not be so in any new contract offered. So why would you need to leave BASSA to sign a new contract?

It would be very interesting, if elections were due before the next round of balloting. But then others would have to step up.

Interesting indeed. I believe that’s part of the issue actually. CC tend to be the most apathetic of militants (an odd concept I know) and therefore they are easily lead, or mislead depending on your point of view. It is hard to imagine the style of BASSA changing easily.

From the comments on this site and my own conversations I haven’t before encountered people who’s strength of views are only matched by their ignorance of the facts. It’s this that leads people to start using unfortunate and unhelpful comparisons with cults perhaps?
The repeated statements of facts that we all know have been disproved time and again is a little weird to say the least?

There seems to be very little desire to make an informed decision using information more than one source, one seems to be enough for some apparently!

I have no confidence that BASSA is going to improve anytime soon, and neither did my partner, which is why she left a while back, and very happy about that choice she is too.

Snas
 

How do you think that BASSA managed to convince the workforce that your suggested facts are not what they seem? Is it the SCCM doing this on flights? A couple of mass meetings that you have to drive to, is not a realistic delivery mechanism for the pro BASSA position.

As to your partners choice to leave, do you accept that that makes the pro strikers position stronger?

Perhaps I could tw*tter them while they're in the next bout of the negotations they take so seriously. That's if they aren't in Cyprus or a Bangkok Whore bar.

Litebulbs
 

How do you reconcile the views of BASSA militants like MissM, Ava and WWW that it was BA that did not negotiate in good faith despite the ruling of a court case and the video of the meeting where the rank and file voted to not negotiate? I would prefer a direct answer rather than the usual tactic of responding to a question with another question. I ask because of your last response to Snas where you referred to "suggested facts".

Thanks
TB

I would only know the actual facts if I was there, or a detailed transcript was published from the negotiations. However, I cannot deny that the ruling showed the internal struggle within Unite in a very bad light. Did that struggle help its members? No.

What would you advocate that BASSA/Unite should do from this point Litebulbs? Vote for further IA or accept the deal and attempt to get ST returned through the courts? Or some other strategy?

Mariner 9
A straightforward question, which demands a straightforward answer.
Over to you, Litebulbs

Life is to short
 

Litebulbs et al. Give it up, it's not worth this. How can you not know ?

I would be testing the removal of ST as a tactic to stop and then punish strikers, through the courts.

So when presented with 3 options, one of which was taking the deal and attempting to get ST back through the courts.

Was your answer inclusive of taking the deal or are you being awkward and evasive on purpose in only saying, "I would be testing the removal of ST as a tactic to stop and then punish strikers, through the courts. "?

Again, if it was me, which it isn't, I would have pushed to the union to legally challenge the removal when it happened. So, no, I would not be accepting the deal until a result was determined.

But again, it isn't me.

LITEBULBS. Firstly, as other people have said, I welcome your views from the Strikers side, but they are no longer making good sense.Surely it has been said ad nauseum on this, and other sites, that ST is a perk, and non-contractual. Surely there would be no difference if I was running a business, and decided to install a free coffee machine for the workers, and discovered after a few months that the costs were unacceptable to me. If I then removed it from the rest area, how could this be considered illegal!!. It's a perk that was offered by me to the workers. There is surely no difference with this hypothetical scenario, than there is with removal of ST. Why can you not understand this.? Why, when you knew you were going to lose it, did you strike in the first place. You don't seem to have a leg to stand on over this issue.. You were told, quite categorically, that it would be removed, and it happened. Big surprise, but only, it seemed, to the strikers. I'll offer you a little advice. Take the offer, go back to work, and eventually things might get a little better for you , but the strikers have nobody but themselves and their Union/Dis-Union to blame for the loss of ST.

To use your analogy of a coffee machine - you remove the machine, it is removed for all, not a select few. What you and many others keep failing to grasp and what I keep repeating, is that I would test whether going on strike is something that you can be punished for. Just because BA has carried out an action, it does not make that action lawful.

No, I don't fail to grasp it at all! You lost it because you went on strike, the others kept it because they didn't. It's a perk. If it was contractual, then it would be illegal. Yes, you were punished for going on strike. Did you not expect to be?. It's legal to remove it, otherwise BA wouldn't have done it. You had ST. Your actions [all strikers, I'm not being personal] cost your employer millions on a very selfish strike. Take the consequences, because you won't have a choice.

And that is the question I would be testing legally and I think you mean they.

west lakes
 

This somewhat curt, shoot from the hip, response to my post regarding the previous (openly discussed by the cc) duty period whilst taxying out from Gatwick typifies the intransigent attitude displayed by the pro strike people to their CEO and his negotiating managers clearly displayed on the BA/Bassa site. Any implied criticism is treated with immediate hostility.

I did say "a while ago", yes there was a Gatwick flight to Atlanta and by listening to the crew talking, they were way out hours having diverted to Stansted and returned to their Gatwick by road and believe me "Hotel mode" I didn't make it up.

Litebulbs #392
 

I think you fail to grasp the hypocrisy of your argument. I have not seen any posts from the Union side complaining that BA discriminates amongst staff within its staff travel scheme when such discrimination benefits the Union. You all crawl out of the woodwork only when it doesn't.

BA's scheme includes a right to higher class of travel etc for more senior staff does it not, eg a CSD gets to fly First/Club whereas the oiks slum it in World Traveller? Isn't this discriminatory? And doesn't it benefit the class of staff from which about 95% of BASSA reps belong? How come this has never been a problem of discrimination that needed to be tackled?

It would seem that not only has Unite/BASSA expressly acknowledged over long periods that staff travel is a non-contractual perk provided at the absolute discretion of the company, but within the scheme itself they have happily accepted a discriminatory seat allocation structure. I'm afraid it's a bit late to start rolling out the sibling solidarity line now. If BA wants to adopt a policy that further segments access to a discretionary perk then they are perfectly entitled to do so. All the guff about Human Rights Act protection and ECoHR is just nonsense. It's entirely inapplicable. If there were any chance to Unite winning such an argument, the legal action would have commenced already. They know the provisions often quoted do not apply.

You, and others, seem to think that legislation, including HRA and ECoHR somehow protect people against any form of discrimination that may arise as a result of taking industrial action. It does not. It provides a degree of protection to individuals against action for breach of contract. More importantly, it protects the Unions calling for action against the (normally) much higher claims that might be made against them for costs arising out of action they have induced members to take. However, BA can take many discriminatory actions against staff with no fear of legal redress against them. Provided such steps do not break specific legislation on discrimination (eg based on colour, gender etc), then BA can do pretty much what it likes.

You need to get over the idea that somehow discrimination is always disallowed. It's actually entirely the reverse. Discrimination is always allowed except in the specific circumstances laid out in law when it isn't. We are all discriminated against at work, normally on the basis that we don't have the necessary skills and experience for a particular role. If BA wishes to provide an employment perk, and then segment access to that perk, it is perfectly entitled to do so. The fact that one element of the segmentation is that persons who went on strike are disallowed, or otherwise handicapped in enjoying the perk, is allowable. "Fairness" only enters into it to the extent that they treat everyone in each segment equally. So, for instance, if BA were to decide arbitrarily to grant full access to staff travel to some strikers but not others, that may be grounds for challenge. However, if all strikers are treated equally, then BA is free to do pretty much what it likes with its non-contractual perks. I think you'll find there are Tribunal cases along pretty much these lines, but I'm not sure if there are any High Court or Employment Appeall cases to provide legal precedent.

Litebulbs; can we clear one thing up? I thought you said in an earlier post you are not aircrew neither are you employed by BA.

Correct. I have said it more than once.

JayPee28bpr
 

I am sure you will find many precedents to show that it is reasonable and fair to have varying benefits within a scheme. What we are debating is whether taking part in industrial action is punishable or not. For that, I cannot find any precedents to whether it is lawful or not and their would be only one way to find out.

Thanks for answering Litebulbs.

So you would advocate a legal challenge to the removal of ST. One might question why Unite did not instigate immediate legal action in support of their striking commuters, who utterly depend on ST for their employment.

Given that BA almost certainly sought legal advice before removing ST, and that Unite probably did likewise once it was removed, do you not think it significant that no action has yet been lodged by Unite? Further, why would Unite seek to prolong the dispute by making ST a sticking point if it could easily be restored through the Courts?

In my view, Unite have likely been advised by their legal team that they risk defeat in Court. If they went to Court and lost before the dispute was settled, it would seriously affect morale and the appetite for any futher strike action amongst their members. Hence their inaction on this point to date.

Litigation on the withdrawal of ST could easily run for several years.

Perhaps the reason why Unite has not instigated legal action is because it has already blown millions of its members' money of fruitless court cases (failing to get an injunction to block the crewing changes, losing at the High Court on the crew complements case)?

As suggested elsewhere the best hope for the full reinstatement of ST in the future is to accept a deal now, and hope that ST can be put back on the agenda when this has died down and there has been a period of "good behaviour" by BASSA.

Mariner9
 

I am not saying that ST will be restored through the courts. It would be as incorrect as saying ST would be restored in 5 minutes.

But to risk defeat in court would not make the situation worse for those that have lost ST, but it could improve it. Whether they would get ST back is another point too. They may just be compensated by BA, if their was a breach of some national or EU right.

LD12986
 

It is true that litigation may take some time and I would suggest that is why it has not been approached yet, rather than the risk of failure. But that is only my opinion.