Not sure quite how it will have "serious implications" for most contributors to this (SLF) thread SC. Unless BA remove our airmiles that is.

But on a serious note, I personally support the removal of ST because in my view, it resulted in a large number of CC working rather than going on strike, thus allowing the airline to keep flying through this ridiculous dispute.

Removasl of staff travel..
 

I can see where Safety Concerns is coming from and might be tempted to agree where it not for the fact that BA has removed staff travel from groups of workers in the past, albeit for relatively short periods of time. True, it wasn't as a consequence of strike action. The arguement runs thus. Staff travel is a gift from the company and is something the company can rescind at any time and for any reason it sees fit.Employees who behave in a manner calculated to lose the company revenue shall be deemed to have acted contrary to the good of the company and any gift from the company will be rescinded. The penalty is not for going in strike, it is for harming the revenue stream of the organisation.

In regards to ST (sorry to harp on about it), the company has removed it from individuals in the past as a consequence of bad behaviour. Nobody batted an eyelid then so what's different?

If this were a dispute like previous disputes where management offer a pay deal of x%, union proposes y%, strike ensues, then many may agree with you that withdrawal of staff travel is below the belt.

However, I think many would argue that this is no ordinary industrial dispute it is the behaviour of BASSA that has been well and truly below the belt.

The industrial action started in response to BA changing the crewing levels on aircraft to achieve costs savings after no less than 9 months of negotiations with BASSA during which (as documented in a High Court judgment) BASSA refused to sit in the same room as the reps from CC89 and there were, in the words of the High Court judge, "heated arguments" between the two factions. Also, the largest accountancy firm in the world found that BASSA's own cost-saving proposals were not even one third of what they claimed.

Many would argue that BASSA's behaviour has been wholly unwarranted and massively disproportionate - not least because the "imposition" that prompted the strike was a direct consequence of its own failings. There can be no clearer evidence of this than the massive response of BA's own unionised workforce to mitigate the impact of the strikes. Has there ever been an industrial dispute where the strikers have been undermined by their own fellow unionised colleagues?

So let's put this another way, if a group of workers inflicts £150m+ of damage to a company which makes changes found by a High Court to be perfectly reasonable when in the teeth of one of the biggest crises in aviation and the near meltdown of the global financial system, should that company continue to provide that group of workers with a generous non-contractual perk?

Who..............are you?
 

Safety Concerns

As young Roger used to sing, Whooooooooooooooo r u?

You are articulate, not connected with Aviation, and suggesting via implication that you are simply "interested". You have quoted one case without a link to the case.

You do not sound like a bassa apologist.

However, we've been short of bassa folk both on here and on the CC thread, over the last couple of days, so clearly their BFC core team have retreated back to their Berlin bunker so that new instructions can be issued to the poor sods who are instructed to keep the good fight going on PPrune.

My guess is that you've picked the short straw, and been asked by the Heritage bunker crowd and their SWP supporters to find novel ways of fending off those nasty people in pprune who care about customers.

I have a simple response to this whole "perk" debate that bassa are so keen to keep alive.

No-one else in this working world gets free trips to the Caribbean for them selves, their whole family and their mates, FOR FREE.

Just no-one.

So all the legal stuff matters not one-jot. Whilst the Daily Mail might take one approach, and even the Times might become a little Murdoch like with overtures of Murdoch speak, when the Grauniad and the Eye turn against CC - as they now have, that is it. End of. Simples.

Oh, and by the way - the BA action sets no precedent at all for anyone. Let's not have any of this "it's the end of the working class's ability to take industrial action against their oppressors" stuff. It would not be true, and no-one is buying it.

The Junta from the Bunker
 

I note that the Ruling Junta from the Bunker have issued new instructions to their jack-booted (and Jimmy choo booted) blitzkrieg leaders. Duncan says

"the strife and hardship you are all currently facing without your staff travel etc."

Yup, he's really concerned about working BA CC like Tira et al, isn't he?

@Safety Concerns
"There has already been a similar court case although in reverse. The employer offered free flights to all those who continued to work and refused to take part in strike action.

The strike duly finished, the union waited until the first person took up this offer and then successfully went to court on the basis of discrimination to get strikers a free flight as well.

They won apparently because the strikers had done nothing wrong and so the offer of a free flight for some employees and not others was discrimination. "

What court case was this? from a common working stiffs perspective it seems a fair deal.. don't strike and we will give you a non contractual perk for your loyalty.

As opposed I suppose to stike and we will remove your non contractual perk.

I havent heard BA saying anything about the removal of ST being permanent and forever. But BASSA can't negotiate on when or if because of its stated position and harm done to its members who have lost ST.

I think too many of you are allowing your anger at Bassa's behaviour to get in the way of some real life realities.

So you get to go to the Caribbean free and? The seat was empty anyway.
Just like bankers get cheap loans, the car industry offers cheap cars, MP's get expenses, there are perks in every walk of life. Maybe 20-30 years ago a trip to the Caribbean was something special, now its relatively normal.

But you are all still missing the point in your haste to beat down the big bad Bassa. The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more. Bassa believe one thing, it seems the majority here at least believe something else. Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.

You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.

And whether you agree or disagree with their industrial action, it is legal and they have done nothing wrong. Don't lose sight of that fact.

It isn't about the strike. The staff travel action goes much further than that.

To be clear:
It has nothing to do with the strike, it has nothing to do with contractual or non contractual, it has to do with punishing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Their crime is to have a different opinion to company management. That's why this has the potential at least to set a very dangerous precedent.

So if the courts decide that the removal of a non-contractual perk is legal, does that also mean that BA has done nothing wrong?

On the one hand you're saying that as the industrial action is technically legal any points of principle surrounding it should be discarded and CC cannot be deemed to have done anything wrong, but removal staff travel must be opposed on a point of principle.

Safety Concerns

I agree that this is an emotional issue and has been made so mostly by BASSA. However, I believe that when removal of staff travel was first announced, BA indicated they were doing so in part as a cost saving measure. In other words, those who cost the company revenue and expense would have to shoulder the burden of added cost savings.

Remember, staff travel actually costs BA taxes that have to be paid to HMRC along with catering, fuel and back office expenses.

Given those points, I don't see this as a punishment but as a legitimate way for BA to save costs and fairly allocate those cost saving measures to the employees that directly cost the company money.

TB

Look, a strike and its consequences are well known. You cannot use that as a basis for claw back.

Even then the who is right and who is wrong is largely opinion. You may believe your right in condemning the strikers and you may well be right that they have it all wrong. But time may also potentially show Bassa to be correct. We can't say today.

So far you are all arguing from the perspective that Bassa are fundamentally wrong and so they deserve all they get. Guilty until proven innocent would be a better term.

But that is missing the point. You allow someone to tinker with perks and use them as a weapon at your peril. There will be no winners here if you are not careful.

@Ancient Observer, Roger was often very vocal and a lot can be gleaned from the lyrics of "won't get fooled again" yet we do, again and again and again and again

Perhaps not to the Caribbean, but in the days of British Railways, and possibly still in the current franchise era, railway workers had the privilege of cheap travel for themselves and their family at any time (a return ticket for half the published single fare) and a limited number of free tickets each year. Some of these free tickets could be used for journeys outside the UK, to the South of France, for example.

on a slightly different theme, various quotations from legislation and supporting documentation that have appeared on this and the other thread imply that an employer may lock out strikers who attempt to return to work. The only sanction on the employer appears to be that the period during which strike action is protected is extended by the length of the lockout. So sanctions against strikers, including financial sanctions, are permitted. If my reading is correct, there seems to be no case in UK law for the return of discounted travel to strikers, let alone compensation for having to pay full fare to get to work or fly on holiday.

Bearing in mind BA have some outstandingly clever legal folk, just look at their success rate so far, I suspect the ST thing is a complete non starter :ok:

As an aside we are off to Denver on the 3rd Sep any chance of a strike over that period as it would be nice to get a happy crew :ok:

Safety Concerns
 

Oh to have your ability to underline a point. Excellent reading. Many may not agree, but at least the contributors will have to put some effort into reasoning against your points.

It is a debate that has no influence on what is actually going on within the BA community, but I am learning from it.

If after their interminable deliberations, the Eurojudges were to decide that 'a trip to the Caribbean' is indeed a Human Right, can we all get one?

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/beach3.gif

The argument is not that the trip to the Caribbean is a human right, but that there is a "Right to Strike" without there being any form of discrimination or punishment involved.

There is actually a wider point of law here; the various treaties and agreements that the UK has ratified actually make it clear that taking strike action should be viewed as a suspension of contract rather than a breach of contract. It is an interesting note that for 13 years a Labour government saw fit to do nothing about this failure to comply with the relevant EU legislation on this. A Tory/LibDem government with a stated intent to reassert the supremacy of UK courts over the EU is extremely unlikely to change anything.

As any case that goes upto the ECHR is basically a case of individuals against a state, that state's law's having failed to protect those human rights, BASSA will need to get the government to change it's policy for this approach to work.

There is an interesting case that may have some relevance, that of Danilenkov Vs Russia. The case revolves around discrimination for union activities. Sound familiar? Well Danilenkov et al won, but read the whole thing and you find that the victory was pyrrhic - each of those in the case were awarded 2500 Euros compensation, but never got back their jobs, and the whole thing took several years.

Neptunus Rex
 

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/beach3.gif

Are you the blonde on the right? If so, may I come with you to the Caribbean? It's a long time since we went on detachment together.

Seriously though, having read Holley's latest rant on the CC thread it's obvious that not only is Unite devoid of ideas but so is Bassa!

Done nothing wrong
 

"discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong"

As I understand it, if you go on strike you are in breach of your contract - however you are protected from sanctions by employment law for a number of weeks.

But if you are in breach of your contract, how can you have "done nothing wrong?" :confused:

Safety Concerns #851
 

I actually agree with you that there is far too much emotion in this debate, and that is clouding judgement. However, the main result is that we see people assuming this matter is going to end up in front of the judiciary at a suitably senior level to produce a precedent-setting decision. I'd suggest you fall into this category too.

This issue will never get anywhere near that stage. As I've noted earlier, BA will settle the issue, probably once they've starved out a lot of commuting strikers. If we are to believe the tales of hardship about striking commuters, then there really are possibly hundreds of crew who will have to leave soon because they cannot afford to get to work. So this issue really does seem to have provided BA with an unexpected benefit, namely managing out a significant number of expensive (and relatively disaffected) staff at zero cost. Once they've actually gone, to be replaced with lower cost staff on New Fleet terms, BA can afford to reach a (financial) settlement with Unite/BASSA. If BA really does not want to reinstate seniority for staff travel, it could always offer cash compensation for its loss to the staff affected. That immediately renders any legal action very much harder to sustain as BA would have implicitly acknowledged the principle behind the Unite/BASSA argument if not necessarily agreed to their preferred means of rectification. You will never get a precedent set simply because one party does not agree with how the other prefers to rectify a breach.

In any case, you seem to forget that BA has actually offered to reinstate staff travel for strikers. They simply will not do so with previous seniority. Therefore the human right that Unite/BASSA really seems to be asserting here is the right to contined preferential treatment in respect of a perk, ie effectively stating that ANY variation to the perk linked to industrial action is a breach of workers' rights. If the Court were to agree to this then I would have to acknowledge how right you are in terms of its impact on employer/employee relationships. Unfortunately there is no precedent to support interference at such a level, and a lot of precedent to suggest the Court will not see it as within its competence to interfere. To do so would imply a degree of intrusiveness in individual agreements way out of line with the intentions of either Parliament or the framers of the ECoHR.

But let's say BA really is as intransigent as you imply, and takes "the bosses" position versus Unite's "the workers" position as a fundamental matter of principle. It duly ends up either at the Supreme Court or ECoHR. "The workers" win. The next question is how will employers generally react? You seem to assume that they'd just accept the result and do nothing. I suspect the reality would be rather different. Either employers would simply withdraw all non-contractual benefits from all staff, hardly a victory for "the workers" generally. Or, more likely in my view, they'd tighten up the language dealing with circumstances in which they may be withdrawn, such that employees acknowledge certain specific cases in which they will no longer qualify for the perk or its terms may be varied (such as engaging in industrial action even when such as action is "legal"). Leaving aside the current dispute, many people (not all of them on "the workers" side of the debate) would welcome greater clarity in certain aspects of employer/employee relations, including discouragement of "at our complete discretion"-type wording in contracts or related documents.

From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.

Whilst there is a degree of emotion displayed on here, the dispirting fact for Unite/BASSA is there is no such display of emotion from BA. They clearly set out what they wanted to achieve in terms of cost cutting, clearly stated what they would do to undermine any industrial action and the effectiveness they anticipated from their contingency plans, and delivered on it. Everything BA has done to date has been driven by delivering the improved cost base it promised investors. Resolving the staff travel issue will be no different. As and when BA can settle it at lower cost than continuing to oppose Unite/BASSA, and in a way that does not require them to back down on what they now consider the principle of non-return of seniority, they'll take it. This is only a matter of principle to those on one side of the argument.

I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.

I agree that BA almost certainly don't want the cost of taking this to court. however it is to be remembered that BA have good in-house lawyers (I've worked with them over the years) who will do most the work. The question that is more interesting is how long can BASSA/UNITE financially support the legal action? Especially if their funds are drained by other strike action across the public sector.

So yes I would expect this to be settled before it got to the final day in court, but that will probably be due to BASSA/UNITE needing to save funds/running out of funds, and so accepting pretty much any settlement from BA. Especially is BA ensure the day in court is pushed out 2/3 or more years.

I also see that some people think that victory in court would be a huge win. But to settle out of court in 3 years, would be a very hollow victory, and even then the court is highly unlikely to enforce the return of ST with seniority (return of ST maybe, but the seniority highly unlikely). By then BA is likely to have returned it anyway. But I also see that this is not a clear cut (either way) case. Imagine also the affect if UNITE/BASSA were to refuse all settlement offers and then LOSE in court in 2/3 time, and then have BA's costs to pay, even if they only get 50% of the costs awarded against them. They have a lot more to lose in a long drawn out court case.

jayPee28bpr
 

That is an absolutely fantastic post on how you see it playing out. The added benefit to BA is that if Unite do settle, then the reps will have to explain why they did, to a workforce who were expecting staff travel back in 5 minutes.

If you don't mind am going to ask my regional officer how he sees the staff travel issue playing out and I would like to use that post as an example.

"the strife and hardship you are all currently facing without your staff travel etc."
 

...I see that with this admission we have officially come half circle from the 'staff travel isn't even as good as paying to book EasyJet' message.

You'd think the union were fighting to get ST back for the foot soldiers. But BA have offered to reinstate ST anyway. The hardship is actually being endured so the architects of this debacle can retain their place in the pecking order for seats, 'J' entitlements and 'firms'. :*

you really do need to detach the staff travel issue from the dispute itself.

If this was about hardship of individuals getting to work, I would have expected action immediately. I suspect that Unite

a) didn't consider that BA would follow through on the threat
b) expected this to be over by now and staff travel fully re-instated

You don't start legal action on the basis of the threat of removal and you don't start legal action if you are expecting the issue to be resolved within a reasonably short period. We now clearly have neither. Therefore legal action has been instigated because the premise of using perks as a weapon against individuals who have done nothing wrong, is in itself fundamentally wrong.

Removing all the political aspects to this issue of BA wouldn't want and Unite wouldn't want, looking at Unite's financial figures for 2009, I don't think you need to worry about whether they can afford this.

Safety Concerns....
 

You write:

Followed immediately by a rather big opinion of your own:

:ok:

Having done, as you say, "THINK" I would argue that the bigger danger here is allowing a union to pursue reckless and unjustified IA without regard to the consequences for the wider workforce, public and all the ordinary people who have invested. But it's still just an opinion.

Safety Concerns
 

Do you agree with the points that JayPee is making? Unions are very good at the "greater good" actions. The successful outcome of the legal route, would be for the courts to agree or for BA to settle prior to that. But as JayPee states, BA are under no obligation to reinstate full ST, but may have to compensate. Unite win, but still no ST at the level it was and some very annoyed members.

@oggers you are missing the point completely. I may even agree with your final statement but at the end of the day it has nothing to do with the staff travel issue. Detach the two, separate them and then look at the issue of punishing innocent people. Do you agree with punishing innocent people?

Again this is your take on the situation and in fact mine as an outsider. However it is still only an opinion as there is obviously disagreement between two sides. Even if you take the opposing view, it does not give you the right to punish those on the other side.


@litebulbs. My heart tells me that any right minded judge will force the FULL reinstatement of staff travel as it was prior to the dispute. My head tells me that the outcome will set a precedent (if it goes that far) that could go either way.

Safety Concerns
 

The only way that the legal system could force full reinstatement, is if they made the compensatory award at a level that BA would baulk at. They have been quite happy with the £150m cost so far.

I am not sure I agree. I think a lot would depend on what the court decided. If a human rights breach is accepted it would reflect very badly on BA and could potentially cost them dear in a number of ways.

Human rights breach isn't good publicity. But that is what makes this so fascinating. A real time, live lesson in how not to conduct industrial relations.

That said, whatever side of the fence you sit, you overlook basic fundamental principles at your own peril.

Sadly for the BASSA case, the English legal system quite often cannot force the system to be changed back to it's initial conditions. Rather it awards compensation for losses.

As ST has already been offered back but with ammended DOJ etc, BA can easily argue that financial loss incurred is zero or very low. BA have offered that ST is returned so it can be argued that all that is preventing it's return is the stance of the union. If the judge were to agree that the financial losses incurred have been caused largely by the refusal of the union to accept its return then the compensation awarded would amount to nothing. BASSA would win but gain nothing.

This is not a clear cut case either way, and BASSA may rue the day they took it to court. BA have a long history of appealing everything, to the highest court possible and dragging every court case out as long as possible. This could easily take years of going back and forth with no actual change for those involved. If you can afford years of buying commuting tickets as your extra earnings dwindle as NF grows, then good luck. In the meantime BASSA are sidelined and made to look irrelevant.

This may well be an important point of principle for the union movement, but that will not help current BASSA members who have lost their ST through their own stupidity.

BASSA here are fiddling while Rome burns, this whole issue is a smoke screen - it grabs the heartstrings and diverts attention away from the real issue. BASSA have significantly mismanaged this whole affair and the deals offered by BA are getting worse with each iteration. The imposition has happened, NF has happened,and BA are now managing their business with no reference to BASSA.

BASSA have failed to stop anything BA wanted and in fact gifted them some things that were at one stage off the table - NF. Indeed membership levels have reduced, LGW is almost wholly ignoring BASSA.

I'm sure BA is more than happy with things as they are going.

So keep on with the pointless sideshow that is the ST court case, BA and WW will continue to run the business without BASSA.

Safety...
 

No, I took your point but, with respect, didn't respond. What I was doing was making a point of my own ie you wrote:

Followed by:

You've said some interesting stuff but I'm genuinely interested: what is it about your above comment that you think elevates it above the "why's and wherefores" and 'nothing more than opinions'? :hmm:

@Safety Concerns


No, but I do agree with punishing stupidity , even if it is legally protected.

I think this strike sets records in all kinds of negative waysr and therefore feel that it is right to punish the strikers, even if I believe that many are simply gullible fools who follow their reps without demur.

If you believe that the strike has been driven by the personal motives of CSD's likely to suffer a small disadvantage, who have then misled or lied to the bulk of their members to get their support, then although legal because they went through the motions, the thing is a fraud.

Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?

If it could be shown that the reps were pursuing their own goals and using the members to achieve them whilst deceiving them, could they be sued for loss of earnings and other things or is there anything in TU legislation that gives them protection?

SC - but the issue at stake is not a fundamental human right in the UK. The previous Government decided that with the opt out of the Treaty of Lisbon and I bet the new Government will not be rushing to change that position. However, I have also read that the opt out may fail if tested the correct way, so it is precedent time, unless BA settle as JP suggests.

My point now is how Unite are briefing this to its members at BA. Unite may win, but the affected people may still not get ST back.

If you have a right, you cannot be lawfully punished for it, but who is to say it won't happen, regardless of the right.

That is an interesting point. If it was proved, then as far as I am aware, both BA and Unite members could pursue damages. I little light reading for me now to see if I can find anything firm on your question.

To an extent - and that's why it's an example of the lawyers licking their lips at a nice big fat fee. However, as I understand it, that would be a matter of finding against the UK, not against BA, because it would be the UK in breach whilst BA were merely following English law as it currently stands.

Now, I'm no lawyer, so would welcome correction, but as far as I can recall, in these instances the requirement is on the state to change the law to comply, rather than the company to offer redress specifically.

That being the case, even if it did go to the ultimate end, I can't see how it would benefit those who have lost their staff travel right now. To use an example, the ECHR found against the last government over the question of DNA retention - when they gave their judgement it then took that government several months to come up with a response, during which time there was no right for people to have their profiles removed from the database, and even then the government came up with a response that caused campaigners to state that it wasn't good enough and was probably still in breach. That particular campaign has been made moot by the arrival of the new government determined to change the rules on it completely, but it's a good example of even a ECHR ruling not meaning that all is suddenly fine and dandy.

@oggers, I am genuinely not trying to elevate any point above another. All I am saying is that the tactic of using staff travel as a weapon is fundamentally wrong and should be considered in isolation.

I actually agree with many posters on the strike issue itself but you cannot allow stupidity, opinions or the right to strike be punished unless somebody somewhere has done something wrong. It is a fundamental principle we all share and enjoy and is a basic of peaceful, civilized life. Lynch mobs, arbitrary punishments, mobbing you name it, belongs elsewhere and not in the 21st century.

And if you wish to counter with but Bassa members have done this and that forget it. If they have behaved inappropriately there are procedures to deal with it and if proven may even result in the removal of staff travel.

As much as we may detest such behaviour, we cannot punish until proven guilty.

@litebulbs this is what makes this interesting. It has serious consequences at many levels depending on what happens next. I suspect Unite will be briefing as they genuinely perceive the situation. We need to accept that may not be as we perceive it.

Their lawyers obviously have a contradictory opinion to those of BA's lawyers. Unfortunately we will have to wait and see!

Were such a thing to happen I bet that 5 minute comment about ST will come back to bite them in the ankle.

Surely the first stage for any BA employee is to raise the thing as a grievance through the internal system.

My understanding is that courts tend to only want to look at something like this after any established process has already been exhausted.

Courts seem to be unhappy of anyone going straight to litigation.

Has Bassa/Unite started/prompted/supported this route yet.

If not then are BA's legal team not likely to simply point this out and suggest the court refuse to consider until other options are exhausted?




To me the key is going to be how a court (if it gets there) will consider the "perk".

Is it the company making a legitimate removal of it's goodwill towards employees who have clearly demonstrated their withdrawal of goodwill towards the company.

Or is it an effort to punish for taking industrial action.


Any court delivers "the law" as it's written .... not "justice" .....

Litebulbs
 

Feel free to use my points internally in Unite.


I've got another angle on this for you to think about too. There are plenty of comments around in the public domain from striking cabin crew saying that they aren't bothered about losing staff travel, not that valuable etc etc. They can hardly now claim "punishment" by virtue of losing it, at least not to the level of a human rights breach. Equally, however, we have evidence that at least one commuter, Ava Hannah, may have to quit her job because of loss of staff travel. Cases like that clearly can be construed as disproportionate or "punishment", possibly to the level of a breach of rights, and may be worth contined pursuit.

Let's just consider what this actually means. It is really saying that BA effectively have removed Ava's ability to get to work. This is what differentiates Ava & Co from the bulk of strikers. The loss to Ava is fundamantal, to the non-commuters it's inconsequential. Let's assume Unite take this as high as they can, and ultimately win. At first glance this looks like a "win for the workers".

The UK government duly changes UK legislation, but the Conservative interpretation of the judgement is most likely to be to create a broader "right to get to work", rather than a narrow "strikers cannot be punished". What this would mean, perhaps, is that everyone has a right to expect, for instance, public transport companies to provide them with a reasonable service to allow them to reach their place of work on each and every business day. What implication does this have for workers in the public transport sector? Well I would certainly think it would make it possible for affected companies to impose no-strike clauses on some of their workers at least, or even for the government to make it illegal for public transport workers to go on strike, simply on the back of complying with the Court's judgement. What do you think the rail Unions would think of that one?

I'm really being a bit mischevious here, but there is a serious point to illustrate. And that is there are many rights enshrined and protected by the Human Rights Act and ECoHR. My mischevious scenario highlights how these rights can conflict, and therefore need the Court to decide which is more fundamental than the other. There is already the power to enforce no strike obligations on certain workers (police, military) within the terms of HRA/ECoHR. So the right to strike isn't universal, and I'm not suggesting a government could invent something totally new on the back of a seemingly favourable decision for workers' rights. They could screw you with your own victory though.

On the subject of the staff travel dispute generally, what we have is a classic "Men are from Mars" etc scenario. I'm sure you are very genuine in your view of this as a matter of principle. But to BA it's just all about the money. Basically, you just don't talk the same language as each other. Now I'm surprised if this is the case at the Woodley-Walsh level, as TW is generally pragmatic. It begs the question why he's part of the BASSA panto act. More on that in a moment. For now, you just need to accept that WW & Co don't get bonuses for "winning the argument" or upholding principles. They get bonuses and other incentives for share price performance. This isn't dependent on much else other than their ability to deliver profits, ie all about the money. They'll happily concede the principle of cheap tickets for staff when it pays to do so. Indeed they did concede it as part of the last offer. They just won't reinstate the old queuing system, and nor will any Court of sufficient seniority to matter do so either. As I've implied before, Unite is just wasting its (actually yours and the members you represent) money if it is really serious about pursuing the legal route.

The questions you should be asking internally are actually very simple. How has Unite allowed itself to get into the position where the BASSA tail so very clearly wags the Unite dog? On what basis can BASSA apparently require endless amounts of other branches'/divisions subs to be spent on actions and disputes with very limited bearing on the rest of the Union's activites? Is there, in fact, any limit on what can be spent? What are the strategic implications on the Union's ability to fight other issues affecting much larger groups of members, eg changes to public sector redundancy terms? If it's clear BA has no intention of giving back seniority, is Unite really going to stand on a matter of principle and allow hundreds of members to be starved out? What matters to Unite: winning the principle or protecting people not previously threatened with losing their job with precisely that fate? Now that 2 senior BASSA reps have been dismissed, with 4 more on the same track, isn't there a major conflict of interest between their interests (actually their complete lack of any future interest) and those of members most affected by the staff travel ban? How does Unite propose to resolve that conflict of interest in order to represent the bulk of members and not the chosen few?

Hope that helps.

I agree with your point on what would happen if this went to ECHR. If it was found that UK law was incorrect (a big if), then it would mean secondary legislation in the UK. But the precedent could be achieved in the UK courts long before Europe.

On the subject of the BASSA reps, I think there's a strong case that they have been grossly negligent in fulfilling their duties, as per my post below: