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?