My experience as a spouse of BA staff is that ST was returned immediately on settlement of the dispute, with full seniority. (3 times to my spouse)

My point was not so much the right or wrong of removing it permanently, which a court will decide, as to show why CC would assume removal would not be permanent whatever BA said beforehand. BA have always said it, yet always given it back. So CC weren't just believing BASSA and it's '5 minutes' claim, but going by history.

Mrs DH
 

Sorry to disappoint you Atlas Drawer but Mrs DH still flies. She moved from Eurofleet to Worldwide last year. She is a purser, and is a lion compared to her 'pussycat' husband!! Louise will be giving it 100% towards the cause I can tell you.

The dispute isnt settled though. So whether staff travel would or wouldnt be returned on settlement is still in question. In no previous dispute has staff travel been returned before settlement.

It was in the settlement agreement of course, the BASSA membership however elected to continue the dispute.

Too right
 

Ancient Observer, you are so right IMO. Its the history bit that many I believe were following. Even if you had only been with BA a few years, the old lags were quoting chapter and verse from previous campaigns. But the 'one trick pony way' hasn't worked this time. I said at the time of the removal to several crew that I believed WW was going to stick not twist this time. DH like Arthur Scargill before just thought, well its worked before so it'll work again:ouch:

Strikers & ST
 

so Unite claim almost 7000 strikers, and BA just under 5000.

If both have to provide their lists to court, what impact on the "missing" 2000?

Potentially they have fraudulently claimed strike pay, or incorrectly claimed they were "sick" or BA have made an error in not removing their ST.

So they could be sued by Unite for claiming strike pay when they weren't on strike, disciplined by BA for calling in sick when they were on strike, or have their ST removed by BA (particularly if BA win the case).

That would be a great own goal - court action that makes 2000 workers worse off!

(Possibly missed a scenario, but you get the drift)

JUAN TRIPP you seem to be the subject of veiled threats on the other thread (p*sts 2678 and 2680). Should this be something for you to worry about?

That wasn't AO, that was me :) And I also thought Walsh was being so dogmatic about it this time, that he would look really silly if he backed down later, so was unlikely to, but then I'm not CC - it's easier on the outside looking in.

Or - some went on strike during the first period, and claimed straight away, and again in the second period, and BASSA haven't counted names, just number of claims.

Apologies
 

Sorry 'Just an observer' for mixing you up. JT


SSK wroteNo not really. Dave3 got upset last week when I posted about the Manchester memorial being connected with the Bassa meeting. All I did was say what a lot of people said, but he particularly got upset with me. Thats life

ST a perk or not?
 

There's obviously been an ongoing discussion on whether ST is considered to be a perk or not. Surely the easy answer would be for one of the CC who contribute on this thread to look through their contract and confirm whether it is included or not. If it is, then BA are in breach of said contract; if not, it can be assumed it's a perk and it's removal or otherwise is at the discretion of BA - unless the court rules otherwise.

(Sorry if this has already been done - I have been reading all this thread and the other thread but can't remember whether this aspect was confirmed or not.)

moleytt

SSK:

Its rather amusing to see dave3 argue that just because I tell you you have to keep a secret you have to keep a secret.

fruitbat's post put it bluntly:

Incredible how vehemently BASSA members object to their statements being public.

They don't want their comments in the public domain because they know that without the backslapping cohorts "megaditto'ing" every word, they are mostly embarrassing and pathetic.

I should add: and they are more often than not snide, sarcastic, sneering, vicious, malicious, dismissive, petulant half truths or outright lies.

Juan,
Please keep posting and copying.
thanks
AO

How sad - how very sad.

Tell us some more!

Neptunus, I can offer you numerous examples. Just get on the CC dispute thread #1 and start reading.

Moleytt, staff travel is definitely a perk and is not contractual. It can be removed and generally this only happens if someone abuses staff travel itself. My spouse has been with BA a lifetime and I can't recall ever hearing of it being removed as part of, say, a disciplinary, unless the disciplinary was for the staff travel abuse in the first place.

However, as staff travel is available to all staff who don't abuse staff travel, withdrawing it from a group who happen to take part in a legally authorised strike (even if the grounds for voting for said strike are pretty thin) sounds like punishment to me. Yes I know they could have had it back without seniority, but in some ways that's worse, I know how I'd feel if as a family we had to go back to the bottom after years of working ones way up the priority ladder.

To imagine my spouse to have to make a decision to risk that against going against his union colleagues would be agonising however he felt about the IA itself. And if he voted against a strike but the majority vote was in favour, then he firmly believes he should strike. CC have always been a bit half hearted about actually going on strike, as opposed to simply voting to give the union backing in negotiations, in the past many have got round it by going sick, hence the requirement to provide medical of sickness proof this time or it counts as on strike.

just an observer
 

Re Staff Travel
I am fairly sure that during periods of industrial disputes staff travel has been suspended for all staff not just those involved in the dispute.
Except for those returning to base from holidays etc.
This meant that those going on holiday would have to cancel.
I always assumed that this was to reduce the risk of lots of stranded staff overseas and to allow the airline to concentrate its efforts on fare paying pax.

There is a rumour about that DH will have no further action taken against him by the CPS. At least one poster on the other thread seems to equate this as "having no case to answer" whereas being I believe being cautioned as to ones future behaviour is not quite the same thing. Which one of these applies here perhaps we will learn later.

to 77

Yes staff travel is often 'embargoed' during times of IA, but this is different to your right to it being removed, which happens only to the people involved in the dispute, and has been restored (in the past) on settlement. Embargoes also apply at certain times of the year on certain routes anyway.

We in fact called a halt to a planned holiday this year on the assumption staff travel would be embargoed, but in the end it wasn't.

just an observer
 

Agreed. Staff travel has been "removed" or "embargoed" in the past during industrial disputes for all staff. Usually restored. Your entitlement (not right) to staff travel is also suspended when off work sick.
It is not unusual to remove staff travel entitlement. The difference in this case is not restoring the entitlement. BUT they were warned.