Oh well, "The Winter of our Discontent" was expected!!

1. "Concessionary Travel" ... The travel concession was a concession, not a right, and employees were warned it would be withdrawn. I personally can't see that one going very far, if at all.

2. "Umin Rites" over the ballots? That's a giggle, surely? IIRC the problem was not 'a dozen spoiled ballots' but that ballot papers were being sent to all and sundry. Some other balloting practices, like not asking LGW CC, might be raised by the BA lawyers.

3. "Breach of Contract" ... now there's a trick BA missed. Does this mean that somewhere in the documentation is something that says hat the number of CC on a flight is 'contractual'. Or does this just refer to BASSA/Unite insisting that THEY manage the company, and manning levels on aircraft?

I'm glad Unite has an enormous fighting fund for all these actions; it will show the BASSA membership that their subscriptions have not been completely wasted.

I regret I'll be out of the country when this happens [flying BA of course] so I shall be relying on PPRuNe to keep me informed ;)

The "hot towels" test
 

I'm flying BA L/H in a couple of days, in Econ plus.

I wonder whether I'll get hot towels, or whether the cult's stipulation of no hot towels for econ plus is how BA still manage the place.....................

Well I got hot towels in First yesterday :ok:

I would describe the attitude of the CC on board to be just as professional & courteous as ever (of course), but they seemed somewhat subdued. I didn't see many smiles amongst the crew on the flight. Having said that I had no real complaint, the service was excellent.

I flew the same route (London-Nairobi) last week with Virgin Upper Class - I have to say the attitude of the Virgin CC seemed so much better on those flights, they all appeared happy, plenty of smiles, and were friendly and willing to chat. Of the two, I have to say I preferred the Virgin experience.

I await my return leg with BA (in Club this time) with interest.

Who cares? The Members of the Union are paying for the Game, with their subscriptions.
Enjoy. :ok:

MPN11
 

If the case gets to explore punitive action to dissuade/persecute union members for taking protected industrial action, then it is money well spent, whatever the result.

@ Litebulbs
 

No problem, Litebulbs.

You clearly see it as persecution.
Others may see it as a reflection that BA runs BA, not BASSA.
We shall never agree on that basic point.

Peripherally, do I think it was a fair sanction?
I think it may have been a bit 'robust', but it was clearly stated what would happen. IMO, from that point onwards, the striking CC dug their own hole ... with fanfares of trumpets, the Bedfont Festival and parades along the Bath Road [not forgetting all the other aspects that BASSA introduced to the equation].

If a sensible, adult resolution had been sought, who knows what BA might have said or done? However, BASSA chose the ultra-militant path instead of negotiation [did that EVER happen?]. So BASSA is where it is, in a location of it own making. Militant to the last, using the Courts instead of reasoned debate, and apparently revelling in every moment. That's fine, that's their right.

Have you noticed that BA is still operating? Pax are flying? Aircraft are not parked at Cardiff and Shannon? Oh ... and the new Mixed Fleet arrangements have happened already.

Feel free to campaign, but perleeze have a good argument/case for damaging BA even further.

I had noticed, but the fight for survival seems to have been last years argument. But I am not campaigning for specifics, just discussing broader principles.

No problem, Litebulbs.

Happy to discuss the 'broader principles'.

Which are?

[BTW ... enough screen time for one day, what with my job and other things. Perhaps tomorrow, if you're free?]

Punitive action against workers, who carry out protected industrial action.

Perhaps that is because BA achieved the "survival savings" it needed by imposing what was needed on the cabin crew and negotiating savings with the other staff groups. The survival issue "going away: does not mean that it was some kind of opportunistic subterfuge. Nor does it mean that it has gone away, just that it is being managed.

Our economy is still in crisis, mortgages are hard to get, quantative easing may have been reduced but it is still going on. Business traffic may be recovering but it is still down on what it was 3 years ago. The market for the legacy carriers has changed, and the way that BA and the other carriers do business has changed.

The unions need to accept this basic premise and develop ways to work within this new structure, ways to work with business rather than against it. UNITE, and their client BASSA have completely failed to grasp this nettle and they are handling this whole dispute in a manner which is proving detrimental to their members. It is more about old fashioned union power and the political ambitions of the union leaders.

Let's put in another way shall we?

The global financial system has gone into near meltdown to the extent that one of our major retail banks was 30 minutes away from turning off its cash machines. The aviation industry enters the worst crisis in its history. Several airlines go out of business.

Cabin crew union refuses to negotiate permanent savings. All they offer a temporary savings that aren't even one third of what they claim to be and refuse to discuss any further.

After months and months of fruitless negotiations (all documented in a High Court judgment), BA makes non-contractual changes found by a court of law to be reasonable.

In spite of the fact that the company allowed an extension of the deadline to call industrial action to let members vote on the BA offer, Unite calls industrial action anyway. Industrial action that arose as a direct consequence of the failings of the union itself.

Litebulbs, tell us why staff who participated in this action and deprived the hand that feeds them of £150m should continue to receive a generous non-contractual benefit from the company.

Because, as it stands today, protected industrial action is not unlawful. What will be explored (well maybe), is if there is a right to strike. It may possibly be a human right within the EC, but whether that right is enforceable in the UK, is a discussion point. If it is a right, then I doubt very much if sanctions could be handed out for exercising the right.

Litebulbs

I'm sure you were aware before it was posted here that "perks" can be withdrawn anytime, but for you to mention it now weakens ( or confuses ) your argument.

I absolutely agree that the withdrawal of ST was a punishment for the legal IA.

However since the law says that the IA is protected and also says that a perk can be withdrawn anytime, then there is a stalemate until this point is considered and a judgement given.

I don't see how it can be done, but I feel that some law of relativity is necessary and that if a union calls IA for something frviolous ( hot-towels or window-blinds for example ) then their action should be able to be declared unprotected )

I feel it morally correct that people lost ST for taking part in this farce ( see previous para for reasoning )

Whether the removal of staff travel was a punitive action depends on how you view the sequence of events.

The initial strike ballot took place in November 2009. BA was successful in getting a high court injunction that ruled the ballot as being void. In January 2010 Unite then announced that they intended to go forward with a new ballot, at a time yet to be determined. At that point BA stated that a direct consequence of going on strike would be the permanent removal of staff travel benefits. So before any ballot took place, the workforce had been advised that anyone who went on strike was kissing goodbye to this perk. Now it could be argued that BA were attempting to dissuade union memebrs from voting for strike action. The alternative view is that perks are there to reward the workforce and clearly, if a group of workers act in a way calculated to hit the profitability of the company, then they should have any perks removed.

What happened next is well established. The cabin crew members voted for strike action, a number of them did walk out and, surprise, surprise, did have their travel benefits removed. Howls of indignation. Did they think that it was an empty threat ? Did they not see that by walking out, they were going to cost the company money ? Of course they did. The trouble is that the cabin crew expected BA management to crumble at the eleventh hour and give in to the union demands. It didn't happen. In fact the more Unite and BASSA turned down offers made by BA, the poorer the offers became. Why ? Because it is manifestly unfair to penalise other sectors of the business simply because the cabin crew representatives were unwilling to countenance the changes in working practices being put forward.

If BA had not warned cabin crew up front what it intended to do if a strike took place,but had withdrawn staff travel after the industrial action had commenced, then it would be seen as punitive action, but the very fact that staff were warned well in advance meant that they acted in full knowledge of the consequences. Thus it was not punitive but consequential.

Perks can be removed at anytime, for all, or for under performance of some. But we are talking about industrial action. Now, clearly a business can do what it wants, when it wants and at any time. It is then for the courts to decide whether it was a lawful action.

But the question is whether BA have the right to do what they did. If it turns out that the right to strike, is a UK right, then it would be unlawful to take action to stop individuals exercising that right. It does not mean that BA would have to return ST, but they may have to compensate for a potential unlawful action.

Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it could (and probably will) be argued that just as an employee has a right to withdraw labour, an employer has an equal right to withdraw perks. The pinhead we are trying to balance an infinite number of angels on is whether BA in removing staff travel perks from those who went on strike were acting in a manner calculated to prevent staff from exercising the right to strike. Since the removal of the perk was after the individual had gone on strike, it could be argued that the act of removal did not prevent the individual from taking strike action but was consequential.

Unite will need to establish that the threat of removing staff travel was not only intended to prevent staff from going on strike but also was the sole reason that some staff chose not to go on strike. Going to be quite a tall order given the abuse heaped by BASSA on those who did work normally.

LB – you are beginning to sound like a stuck record and none of your arguments are convincing.

BA did not take any action to stop individuals exercising their right to strike.

4963 cult members chose to follow their leader and are now suffering the consequences. I suspect their judgement call was made partly on the advice that staff travel would be returned in “5 minutes”. It was their decision.

Quite frankly I will be amazed if the Courts deem any of BA’s actions to be unlawful.

BA simply warned them in advance they would be punished for striking. It's still a punishment.

In previous IA throughout the airline for at least 30 years, maybe 40 or more, staff travel has been routinely withdrawn at the start of IA, and always returned with full seniority on agreement. Why should CC have seen this time as any different?

Removal of ST evidently did not stop a strike and it did nothing to remove any such (as yet to be proven) right. It did place consequences upon such action, of which there are several others - you do not get paid while on strike, should this then also be lumped in with removal of ST as an illegal act?

There has been no erosion of any right to strike, BA placed a consequence upon an individuals actions, making them take some responsibility for the harm done to the company by their actions. The union does not like that as it diminshes their ability to force a company to it's will through the blackmail of a strike. It is therefore attempting to muddy the waters, to make this an issue of the right to strike, which it patently obviously is not.