Again, hair-splitting. BA warned of the consequences of strike action. Depending on which side of the fence one sits, it could be seen as consequential action or punishment.

The fact that staff travel had routinely been withdrawn prior to any previous IA suggests that the company had established a precedent for such action which the union had accepted as fair and equitable (otherwise they would have complained about it before) The difference this time around is that BA are not proposing to return it with seniority. There is nothing to compel BA to return it with seniority. The very fact that the company has offered to return it in the first place indicates that the removal was not punishment. In his original talks on the matter Willie Walsh was pretty unequivocal that anyone who went on strike would lose staff travel totally. That meant not just whilst they were employed by BA but also on retirement. I'd suggest hat he has moved considerably from that position in negotiations.

Why should cabin crew have felt that they would get staff travel back with full seniority ? Just because your granny has always knitted a pair of socks for you for a Christmas present doesn't mean that you will always get a hand knitted pair of socks every year. At some point the good lady will shuffle off this mortal coil and unless you are able to persuade another member of the family to take up the role, the socks will become a thing of the past.

While googling for other IA/punishment/legal position info, I accidentally found this Independent article from 1997. Interesting paralells.

Punishment, fear and humiliation - the bully's way - Opinion - The Independent

In this instance, did CC get travel back immediately on settlement or 3 years later as threatened, can anyone answer? If immediately, and with seniority, it would underline why CC would have expected to get travel back this time whatever the prior warnings. It puts BA in the position of 'the boy who cried wolf'.

My experience of previous IA was all staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years for all strikers, but returned with full seniority.

As JAO says, ST has been removed plenty of times before, during industrial action, but for all of the group in dispute and that is speaking from experience at BA.

Just because an employer warned an employee group about sanctions, does not make it lawful. It is not splitting hairs, it is simply an opposing point of view. You either accept or ignore it, that is your choice.

Feel free to ignore my posts. That is your right.

A few points about the 1997 dispute. Bob Ayling was a lawyer, so would have had a reasonable view of the legal ins and outs. The points laid out then were a combination of direct possibilities (dismissal for breach of contract, liability for damages) consequential actions (removal of staff travel) plus punitive measures (no promotion, removed from any options for early retirement or severance available under various re-structuring schemes).

BA has had two changes in CEO since Ayling, neither of whom have opted to resurrect the global tailfins, so it is not guaranteed that when the current incumbent said that staff travel would be withdrawn, it mean that it would be returned with full seniority. The point I'm making is just because one CEO acts in a particular way is no guarantee that others will follow suit. Moreover, my understanding is that previously staff travel was not universally withdrawn, but only applied to those who went on strike.

If the unions had considered BA's actions to be aimed at preventing staff from exercising their right to strike, why did they not pursue this in 1997 ? There has been no change in the TULRCA.

Litebulbs
 

And the answer is yes they do - until or unless the courts decide otherwise. That's how it operates, you can do whatever you like until the legal system (or Parliament) decides otherwise. In all honesty, continuing to go on about it is pretty pointless, they can and have done it. At some point in the future it may be decided they couldn't, but as of right now, they can.

Given that the courts found BA's actions in removing one crew member to be reasonable, this implies that BASSA's industrial action was unreasonable; in fact I wondered why BA aren't suing BASSA for the damage inflicted on their business.

So before the issue of ST is dealt with, let this one be concluded.

It is my humble opinion that since one was a direct result of the other, they should not be dealt with by the courts as as separate issue, but as connected events.

However, Litebulbs would have us believe that it is legitimate for a union to inflict serious financial damage on a company even when it is not reasonable to do so, and that they cannot face any sanction for doing so. This may be true, but it is wrong in my opinion.

Litebulbs has it that BA's actions in removing ST were also wrong.

Since two wrongs don't make a right, I'd suggest the courts adjust accordingly.

Then you have the possible scenario of (a) BA taking GBP150 million off BASSA to make up the losses unreasonably inflicted upon them, and then (b) BA giving strikers back ST and giving them the tickets they would have used when they were unavailable (which can easily be calculated based on previous use).

(Should each party win their respective cases, I would accept punitive damages to be equal and therefore cancelled out).

I believe this would be fair.

I agree and said as much a few posts ago. I have been hoping that somebody would have produced a case where a benefit was removed, due to industrial action. As nobody has, this case will be ground breaking and as some have said, may stir the current Government into legislation changes.

I believe that's because (from my vague reading of the matter) it isn't a problem under English law, but it might (perhaps, maybe, possibly) be something that European law has a view on.Therefore it's not surprising that there hasn't been a test case, because it's only very recently there's been anything to even remotely suggest a case.

(Not a lawyer caveats etc etc)

Making offers that are worse than their predecessors is not punishment but financial necessity.If a union has called a strike there will be an immediate hit on bookings.when the strike takes place there is also the potential loss in revenue. If the company is expected to magically conjure up more cash,it has to come from somewhere. Sadly in this case the procrastination by cabin crew means they are the last group to settle.

I see the latest rumour from BASSA is that BA has appointed Savils to sell Waterside!

Sorry to disappoint the BASSA acolytes, but WW is staying in the UK and IAG will have its own offices in the UK.

I think from the below that BA would be perfectly entitled to ask the court to adjourn this hearing until after the October case is finished.

How about 6,700 as a better estimate of the number of cabin crew who have lost their travel concessions?
______Reference:- _______Guardian

Reply to Bengerman (the other thread)
 

Wikipedia says
The quotation in posting 2143 is possibly more reliable since it does not use the word "appeal".

Loss of ST
 

Whilst I have sympathy for Litebulbs' position, - crudely put that strikers should not be punished for going on strike - we have to examine the law to decide what protection strikers actually have.

The starting point is the contract between an individual (CC) and the employer (BA).
1. Protected from breach.
If a CC withdraws their labour, they are in breach of their contract. The protection from a "protected" dispute is simple - BA can only dismiss them unfairly. - They can still be dismissed, but it will be automatically unfair if the dispute is protected. If the dispute is not protected, BA can dismiss them with no fear of an ET, if they follow a reasonable (not "fair" ) process.
There is a debate to be had about UK law, and whether or not it meets EU requirements, but we are years away from debating this. The EU can only enforce its law directly opposite a State - the UK Government.

The point that really concerns the TUs is the second point.
2. Protected from inciting a breach.
If the dispute is a protected dispute, the TU is protected from civil litigation by the employer when it incites a person to act in breach of their contract. If the dispute is not protected, ANY action by an Official of a TU which might be seen as inciting an individual to breach their contract leaves the TU open for civil litigation for unlimited damages, (and for injunctions).
You'll remember the speed of Unite in rushing out a denial of the window blinds instruction from the junta. You'll also note the Unite rules - only the Exec can authorise ANY action. This is an attempt to protect the TUs assets, which BA could attack if unofficial action takes place in any way authorised by any Official.

So, it all turns on the contract. Was ST in the contract or not? If it was not, then BA can withdraw it whenever/however they decide. If it was in the contract, they can't.

End of. Simples.

The law might be "wrong", but that's how it is.

Faced with bassa's behaviour, (read the court case), BA probably felt they had no option but to do what they did.

It's going to be extremely interesting to see how many BASSA can actually prove, rather than the number in Duncan Donut and Mark Eversohard's pot luck DBase II (remember that?) database.

BA state that they have removed ST from c4920 cabin crew. BASSA claim they have processed c6700 claims for strike pay. Given BASSA's track record on precise admin I suspect that their numbers will not bear as close a scrutiny as those of BA.

Huh! it looks as though I'll be commenting on here for a while. I've just tried to book in online for my flight.
To cut a long story short, the lady from BA customer services has told me that I can't - apparently I have a "booking", but according to BA I do not have a "ticket"

Partly in reply to JSL and others, I thought I'd come back to BA for L/H, and I made a booking MONTHS ago.

Now, they will not guarantee me a flight, and I have to go to the airport to get a ticket - I can't pay over the phone.

Clearly, BA either do not want or do not deserve customers.

I and many others have questioned this for many years. Where does all the money go, where are the audited figures for the membership to see, how much exactly goes to Unite, who is on the payroll of Bassa ( I recently found out that 2 of Bassa's biggest crew supporters ( CSD's)) were in fact auditors for Bassa. How much are they paid etc? It only came to light in the last 6 months that the reps were paid £100/day for 'office' duties, because DH tried to explain where his money was earnt from after an expose from the Daily Mail.. There are SO many unanswered questions still to this day. All I have ever wanted is a professional union run by professional people and Bassa have for years falied on both counts. With £1.8 million/year one could have EXPECTED better but alas no.


On a lighter note I was in my local supermarket yesterday selecting some tomatoes ( Oh my, how my days just fly by!! ) There were some grown in Hants, Sussex and Kent. Thought I'd better not take a chance on the Hants variety. Just 2 mins later a call was put out for a Mr. Holley to come to the desk!!. I kid you not. I was half expecting Mr Tomorite to be seen carrying his best cherry variety to the veg dept.

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.