Litbulbs - I meant 5000 as a % of Unite's membership in BA.
That is a tiny minority.

Litebulbs
 

The way forward must surely be:

Bassa' current leadership to change in full, the current leadership accepting to take the blame for the current debacle in full

Bassa's new leadership to stop nonsense about wanting to being involved in any way in the management of BA and concentrating on negotiating reasonable rewards for new staff whilst maintaining WITHIN REASON the current rewards of current staff taking into account the state of the industry and it s changing needs

BA management to further improve it s open and honest modern style management and so slowly regain the confidence of all staff

(this in no way implies the company is not allowed to change it s opinion on issues affecting staff as and when the industry health state dictates)

Will never happen. BASSA can't spin that as a "victory".

Carrier of choice
 

Can only speak for myself, but when deciding (early this year) on my carrier of choice to Oz in oct for daughter's wedding I specifically deselected BA due industry uncertainty.

Normally as a frequent SH, rare LH user, it's not all about cost. I compare carriers based on: departure/destination airfields (distance to drive this end, that end; car parking; ease of access), time of travel both ways, cost.

ChicoG

Absolutely correct. The current BASSA leadership will not let go until they take a torpedo below the waterline.

"Stand by Mr Fincastle - fire one!"

"Aye aye Sir - fire one - torpedo running. Impact at P plus 45."

I thought cabin crew were 'professionals'
 

When will cabin crew join the real world and have their performace assessed and be paid accordingly?
Surely the idea of a fixed rate for the job however well or badly done is very 19th century?
Courage Willie! Make them join the world the rest of us are (or were) in,

Carrier of choice
 

I think this is a bit of a tangent for the thread, but heck here is my ore sticking in for what it’s worth.

For me, especially on SH, it’s about the airport. My disappointment that Coventry were ceasing the regular Spanish flights I had to take was huge. It was park, walk in, wave to security, board aircraft, and job done.

Compared to the completely hellish experience and hurry up and wait mentality of LHR and others where every single aspect of boarding is made as difficult and inefficient as possible this was bliss.

As for service on LH, BA can be the best AND the worst, there is no consistency whatsoever. Knowing a bit about the behind the scenes stuff in my view it’s all down to the attitude of the CSD during briefing. Get a stinker and the crew become equally so, get a good one and the example rubs off accordingly.

So, that in mind if I want good service I would pay to fly with an airline that I can be close to certain will provide it, equally if I’m thinking about cost I’ll go cheap knowing that I’ll be ignored all the way there. BA is a lucky dip.

Backing BA
 

Served a purpose?

http://www.pprune.org/showthread.php...24#post5851124

Business is a harsh world. Or is PTC a deeply embedded BASSA stooge?!

Were any promises made as to guaranteed jobs under Mixed Fleet? Doubt it.

LD12986
 

You are right, of course.

From the CC thread

Some interesting things in that notice.

Indeed. Has the Executive Council actually given authorisation for a third ballot?

Part of my thought relates to the discussions before Christmas that BASSA, after the problems of a few years ago, did not need Unite's permission to call a strike. this seems to refute this argument.

My understanding is that after the 2007 strike BASSA changed its constitution so that a strike could be only be called off with the permission of BASSA (so Unite couldn't do a deal with the company without deferring to BASSA, which is what happened in 2007).

I don't think BASSA can start a ballot without permission from Unite.

LD12986
 

Agreed, legislation backs that up.

The Individual
 

Window Blinds.

The union have clearly had to repudiate the call from BASSA and are probably hoping an ex employee made the call.

As it is an addition to what is custom and practise, what would happen, as an individual who forgot or chose not to do it? Would it be refusing a reasonable instruction?

Now before everyone starts getting all Daily Mail on me, I am asking what legal challenge could be made.

Have a listen to the audio file on here regarding holiday pay and trade unions. Interesting HR speak (definitely non union) about the law.

XpertHR > Article > Podcast: Holiday pay; working with trade unions survey

Personally Litebulbs I was quite heartened by the Unite memo which seemed to me to spell out the situation succinctly to their members, and thus protecting them from possible sanction.

Whether their advice that failure to close the blinds may be classed as unprotected IA is correct or not is unclear but sounds plausible to an employment-law numpty like me.

If you think otherwise, what would you say were Unite's motives in the memo? Seems to me that they could only be to either protect their members (as they should) or to give BASSA a bloody nose.

The Individual
 

Litebulbs,

If somone was dismissed for "forgetting" or "choosing not to", and then they went to an employment tribunal, it would be the panel that finally decided whether it was a reasonable instruction or not. Without taking a management or Daily Mail stance, in this case, BASSA Admin would seem to be believe that it is not reasonable (in Employment law context), whereas Unite's position would seem to be that it is reasonable. (note, they make no suggestion that closing the blinds should be subject to a grievance procedure, failure to agree, etc.).

Additionally, an ET would look at each case on its merits (and presumably BA's own internal processes would do the same for the dismissal to be fair - if they didn't, it would be automatically un-fair, irrespective of reasonableness). For eg, was there a pattern of not doing it, did the individual state that they deliberately didn't do it, were there any extenuating cirumstances, etc. It is exactly the same with any disciplinary issue investigation. So there is no simple answer to the question.

FWIW, I can't see an argument that because it has been custom and practise not to close blinds, that therefore an instruction to do so is unreasonable is going to get anywhere.

nb what has a discussion about the very specific area of Illegal Deduction of Wages (which carries its own very particular set of case law and legislation) got to do with closing blinds ?

The intellectual man's union leader?
 

We have become used to reading a mountain of puerile trash from Duncan Holley. I admit it has been quite entertaining reading the guy make a total fool of himself – a touch of the David Brents. Now the latest is, I think, quite the most ridiculous offering to date.

Nice cut and paste description of the US ideological issues in prosecuting the 2nd Vietnam War. Not a single lucid comment on why BASSA are unable to arrive at a ceasefire in their own - somewhat less grave but evidently just as ideological - conflict.

I would be most interested to see what the 100-odd intellectual IR experts of ‘letter to the Guardian’ fame have to say about it. I would say that this latest is a clear illustration of that vital piece of information that they were missing when they penned it - ie the man running BASSA has a kangaroo loose in his top paddock. Or maybe DH passes for the model of a good union leader – in the rarefied atmosphere of the IR intellectual's world? :rolleyes:

It is an interesting situation, no doubt carefully mapped out by the management team. For BASSA to make the statement that they did, in my mind was unlawful, causing Unite to act. What you do as an individual, is up to you. Not closing a blind is at best, a potential capability issue, if you do not comply. As a collective group, i.e. whole crew in a premeditated action, is industrial action short of a strike, which in itself, is unlawful if there has not been a ballot etc.

However, it would not be a contractual obligation, exactly like the hot towels, so you would not be in breach, unless it could be proved that it was a reasonable action.

Do you think it is reasonable? I am sure if you asked someone walking down the street, that if he/she was asked to close a window blind by his boss, to aid in a potential cooling of a room, what would be his/her response?

Nothing at all, just interesting tribunal legal speak, with a bit about working with unions at the end.

oggers
 

The missives from Bassa's bunker do verge on the ridiculous. Try imagining the music that would accompany the words being read out in solemn tones during the 'film of the dispute'. (Title: IMPOSITION). I find this renders the words funnier. Though still, of course, tragic.

As far as I understand it, after all passengers have disembarked the outgoing crew are obliged to carry out a chck of the aircraft which involves visiting every seat.
So the instruction(?) to close the blinds is not a great imposition as they will be close to them anyway.

Personally I tend to look at such minor things with the view of "If it's not illegal or dangerous" my employer has every right to request me to do it during work/duty times.

Er, and this...
 

..from LD12986 in the CC thread:

DH:

LD:

It's a good spot. And significant I think, coming as it does in a demi-official communication from BASSA. Although I'm sure BA will pursue all avenues, I don't think BA would have to mount a legal challenge to capitalise on this particular issue. I think BA will warn potential strikers that they aren't protected, sack any that do strike anyway and fight off any unfair dismissal cases arising. Perhaps?? Based on the way they went about the ST and sicky issues. :hmm:

I agree, when you have a normal industrial relationship, but that is probably not the case at this time.

BA's position vs Unite
 

For a while, some Unite Officials saw the BA issue as a way of getting publicity. In a TU of that size, most of the members do not know the candidates for election to Gen Sec., so any publicity is good publicity.
(Bill Morris's election to the T & G GenSec job was a good example..............he needed publicity, and his agent, Fred Higgs, got him that publicity. However, in the process, Fred got to know too much, so Bill "fired" Fred in to a job in Brussels)

That motivation appears to have reduced. Unite now appear to be in a risk/damage limitation mode. I suspect that this mode will last for a few weeks until the Unite GenSec election is closer - then it might be back to "any publicity is good publicity".

However, looking at it from the Unite National Officials perspective - the "cuts" which the UK coalition Government wish to put in place will overshadow the BA dispute for many months to come.....................so maybe the top brass will leave the BA dispute for a while?? ............in which case, bassa might get their desire for a marathon??

Anybody else think Duncan’s employment prospects with Unite have taken a bit of a hit lately?

Therein lies an interesting scenario. First there is Unite who have just bought BASSA and Holley to heel and who once again demonstrated, if ever a demonstration was needed, that he can and does stupidly step over the line. It is little wonder that in Simpson's view he and the leadership are "clowns." Then this week we see that Holley demanded that the cc should not deal with the cabin blinds. What happened? Unite then issued a stern warning to ignore the order saying that Unite's Executive Committee had not approved such a course of action, which clearly breached the rules and would be illegal. Further stating in an immediate 'command' that no such action should be undertaken. Making the gaffe prone Holley once again looking the fool he is.

Second, Holley has decided, apparently on his own, to have a meeting on 6th September at Kempton Park to discuss current questions and with a distinct reference to "holding a ballot" with a view to hold further IA over the Christmas period. Without doubt to teach BA who is boss.

This man is a rebel. Out of control and a thorn in Unite's side. With Woodley and Simpson leaving at the end of the year and with the distinct possibility that McCluskey will be taking the reins of Gen.Sec. it begs the question - who can control Holley? He is persona non grata as BASSA's rep to BA - they fired him. He appears to control the rest of the reps and still calls the tune of BASSA's latest Abba hit.

That begs another question. Why are Unite allowing this clown so much rope? Could it be that they want him to hang himself? Where is Malone? Where is Stott and I can imagine that 'window' Everard gets his oar in too.

How can BASSA continue? It has its own constitution and has to abide by Unite's rules, as we have just witnessed, and yet there must be an election of its officers soon, at which point Holley MUST stand down, along with Everard and perhaps others.

Since Holley has always had the reins he must soon relinquish them but - is he cheating? That is a question for Unite and one can hope that it is under review.

Of course, in the other corner is BA..........what they will do is pure guesswork. They are at the moment ignoring BASSA and dealing with Unite only. You could take a bet that Woodley and Simpson have had enough. Unite cannot have this embarrassing union on board for much longer. With there being no hope of resolving anything with BASSA it must be clear to even the most ardent union supporter that BASSA is a rogue union.

The elections must be due soon. I believe the last elections did not happen because of the "war" with BA.

Duncan has been Branch Secretary since 1997 and having been able to wield significant power over that time, letting go of that power is not easy and evidently not pretty to watch.

BA now hold absolutely all the cards and simply have to sit back and wait for BASSA to make the next move. If BASSA does nothing while making pathetic and ineffectual flutters e.g. "Window BlindsGate" then UNITE will slap them down thus doing BA's work for them. If BASSA capitulate and agree to BA's current offer then fine. If BASSA ballots for a further strike then BA's lawyers are poised and ready on all fronts. BA will first caution CC that striking may not be protected. We have already seen 4900 first time strikers diminish to 4200 second time around and further diminish to 3500 rejecting BA's current offer. BA will easily cover the further diminished hardliners who do strike by VCCs and even MF if the strike does not happen until Xmas 2010 assuming their lawyers fail to halt the strike through the courts. DH really needs a friend to take him to one side and suggest he does the honest thing before his megalomania leads him to endager his livelihood further or even his personal safety. Finally BA is clearly in discussions with PCCC to potentially replace BASSA moving forwards.

If there is a card that BA does not hold then I cannot think of it......

I don't know Phil,

BASSA's best move would be to do nothing, in my opinion. Unite wouldn't act against that, but the membership might. There is the current terms and conditions and through custom and practice, the requirement to work. If you are limited to 900 flight hours and 2500? working hours, then you could have an implied unlawful deduction from wages.

Just a thought, with no basis in case law to back it up.

Interesting point LB but if BASSA does nothing (other than its ineffectual and thus completely ignorable grumblings) isn't that just fine with BA as their CC are currently working to BA's "imposed" new terms and conditions anyway? If BA have not spoken directly to BASSA since 2009 then that situation is just fine with BA as its operations are all under BA's control and any feeble attempts to obstruct unreasonably will be snuffed out by UNITE for fear of being accused of unoffical IA. OK, so WW doesn't have a Union to negotiate with for the forseeable future but BA has nothing it requires of its CC union for the immediate future and PCCC is in the wings should things change.

Are you suggesting that UNITE/BASSA could launch a legal action against BA the potential liabilities for which could exceed its war chest thus forcing it to have to settle to BASSA's terms again?

I am not suggesting one way or another. One example to add weight to my point would be the current case at the ECJ between BA and BALPA, with regard to holiday pay and where both flight and cabin crew on leave believe that they should be paid full pay (allowances etc), rather than their basic salary. If you were to go from flying, to not flying, when other employees were flying in place of you, then I imagine their may be a case to argue.

In not doing anything, then BA would be paying staff not flying and also new crew flying too. It all goes back to the dismissal/re engage SOSR defence, if BA was to act.

How does the pilots claim to payment of allowances etc while on holiday compare/match with ground based shift workers at BA who don't get shift pay as part of their holiday pay? Shift pay is normally paid as an average monthly, not based on what shifts happen to fall in any particular month, but my OH's pay drops when on leave, which I understand to be lost shift pay.

JaO
 

What is OH? I never lost shift pay when I took leave at BA.

Other Half or Partner :)

Regards,

G-BPED

Are BA adding 15 minutes to duty time for the crew to close window blinds? If not then why should the crew perform that role? Sorry but if I am off duty then thats my time not the company's.
e
I believe BA allow 30 minutes after gate arrival to allow for disembarkation, security checks and clearing passport control. This is the same as my airline here in Oz and generally it can take 20 minutes to get the PAX off so you are soon into your 'own time'. This has been done for years and the crew say nothing but to be asked to perform another duty would definately be a no from me. Its not a reasonable request to be asked to work and not be compensated.

Also, have BA done a risk assessment on this practise?

Somewhereat1l,

Crew won't have to be paid an extra 15 minutes. Why? Because on a B777, it will be an average of 8 blinds per crew member (max) to shut, whilst doing the security check. It will take an extra 90 seconds (on average) to do, so why want pay for 15mins? (By the way, I'm BA CC)

As for the risk assessment - don't even go there. Crew close (or insist on closing) blinds during the flight with passengers seated, whereas this new thing about closing the blinds will be easier due to no passengers being in the seats during the procedure. No risk assessment needed, as far as I'm concerned.

Phil Rigg

There is another scenario, in which nobody does anything, the ill feelings fester, colleague v colleague friction (the strikers feel badly treated, those who worked feel let down by management not achieving a definitivie settlement) , service deterioates due to reducing morale and the airline's reputation suffers further.

I have seen this happen at other corporations following industrial action and remember that some very unpleasant things have been said between different groups of people in this action, so it may take a long time, if ever, to return to normal.

Whilst I am a great believer in the right of management to manage and am not a lover of unions, I cannot help but think that the BA management could have done better in this instance, even given the very difficult people they were dealing with.

Lotpax,

It so easy to throw out accusations such as this, but how about specific examples of actions BA have taken where an alternative would have been better for all (or the majority of) stakeholders, within the constraints of course of containing horrendous losses?