Have I missed something?
Looks the same as was offered to non union crew awhile back.

617sqn
 

Top of page Six

Quote:

---

An Acas review of all dispute related disciplinary cases that have been dealt with under British Airways' disciplinary procedures will also be conducted. British Airways is committed to giving full and fair consideration to any Acas recommendation arising from that review. Nothing in this section will be taken or cited as a precedent for any past or future cases.

---

Well, an interesting read, but I can't help but think I've read that book before.

The cover letter is intruiging in its commentary regarding BASSA's communications.

Its obvious Duncan Holley is staying out of BA.

Unite and British Airways agree that if any employee who has been subject to disciplinary action (in connection with the current dispute) by British Airways and whose name appears in the confidential annex to this agreement (a 'Relevant Employee') decides to bring an Employment Tribunal claim for unfair dismissal, then as an alternative to Employment Tribunal litigation, that claim will ordinarily be dealt with under the Acas arbitration scheme for the resolution of unfair dismissal disputes.

British Airways and Unite agree that the Arbitrator's decision will be binding and before entering the Acas arbitration scheme they will enter into an agreement to this effect, to which the Relevant Employee will also be a party.

(My bold)

Does this mean?
If the Arbitrator decides a dismissed employee should be re-instated then BA are bound to comply?

I found this paragraph interesting, in that the branches are not involved!

Call 100
 

It doesn't make me any better, it's just an illustration of the totally useless stance taken by Bassa & it's members:ugh::ugh: throughout this dispute, one that hopefully will soon be over with common sense the obvious victor.:ok:

Shack37:

I believe it may...though the employee would be waiving their rights to further relief. A definite catch 22 though many companies prefer binding arbitration as it takes out the possibility of numerous appeals.

Wasn't there language in the agreement that BA had to agree to the selected arbitrator?

Westlakes:

Good catch. Its looking as if Duncan's wish to actually meet Mr. Walsh is going to remain unfulfilled. This situation must be tiring as can be for Unite, especially given todays serious news about job losses.

Wow! What a tremendously narrow-minded post!

I didn't go on strike, am politically engaged, and also made a 'potentially self-harming stand' for my beliefs.

Only, the harm I face isn't from BA in the (hugely unlikely) form of sacking or suspension, it's from the already-realised form of hate mail in my drop file, nasty messages on facebook and people writing my phone number on the wall of the "gay toilet" at Heathrow, resulting in my phone being particularly busy with texts and calls from gentlemen seemingly wanting to engage in some form of sexual intercourse.

I respect the decision most of my striking colleagues made, but there are others who would wouldn't enjoy the damping down benefits of my p*ss if they were on fire. I know who they are (CCTV and the cooperation of BAA are marvellous things) but my good nature prevents me from taking things further.

Eddy
 

I meant no disrespect to those who took the difficult decision to strike - it has lead to "self harm" in the sense that they lost ST and money and have, as yet, gained nothing for their beliefs.

I stand by my comments as to the likelihood of those who went on strike being more likely to vote in any ballot be it consultative or otherwise. The problem with any democratic system that allows a free vote is that only those that feel strongly about an issue tend to vote. This dispute is a classic example of that very tendency, with a particularly strong example being the last consultative ballot having a turn out of about 40%. The same is true of General Elections where there are many that just cannot be bothered, they seldom hold strong views.

Now i am lost, Juan. We seem to be making the same point but your previous post seemed to be arguing the contrary.

Forgive my misinterpretation.

Eddy:

I believe what Juan is trying to state (and he will not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong in my assessment) is that the more negative and militant core of BASSA are those who are most reliable to participate in any vote.

The numbers tell us that the majority will show up for work, will do their jobs and get on with their lives...and they may not feel compelled to answer BASSA's "calls to action".

Simply put, while still members they simply can't be bothered by BASSA's rhetoric and can't be bothered to make their voice heard.

For SLF this is an issue. Cabin Crew is more than some inane individual wandering around with a drink in her hand and wearing men's undergarments with Mr. Walsh's photo on her behind. Many of us wish the moderate members to be determined to have their say.

Re: the option for going to ACAS for those sacked staff. Few things to note.
1) it only covers 'any employee who has been subject to disciplinary action (in connection with the current dispute) by British Airways and whose name appears in the confidential annex' Now my reading of this is that Mr Holley is out of luck as his actions that led to his dismissal are wholly outside the dispute. Moreover, the list is confidential, so the only people who know who is on it are TW and WW. The wider BASSA membership will not be told.

2) ACAS are more about judging whether BA's response was commensurate to the actions of any crew sacked. It won't look at process (which a Tribunal would) and it won't provide for any damages in the event that the individual is held to have been unfairly dismissed. So not the greatest of options

3) Anyone who opts to appeal has to be damned certain that they want the grisly details of whatever they did put on public display. It may be that an arbitrator will determine that BA's actions were in fact very lenient.

4) Anyone who opts for this route is effectively writing off any chance of compensation from BA. The best they will get is possible reinstatement.

So much to read between the lines in terms of what has happened over the past week.

If the new offer is conditional on Unite, BASSA and CC89 recommending acceptance, does that mean, in theory, that one word from DH to push people to vote against it means it could be pulled in an instant?

One major point that I see with arbitration is -

They [the arbitrator] will not decide what they would have done and then say that the employer should have done the same.

It will be a discussion on process.

Suspect that if DH attempts to get people to vote against the offer, Unite will excommunicate him. I get the feeling that the Unite leadership have reached the end of their tether with regard to the mavericks in BASSA. TW would lose a huge amount of face with WW as he would then need to work damned hard to stop WW from summarily withdrawing staff travel again - note that this has been reinstated as a goodwill gesture, presumably as a sign that the dispute is at an end. BA would be able to say with huge justification that there was no point in further discussions with Unite as they are not able to deliver on any deal. This would leave a large chunk of staff in the position where they are members of a union but the union was powerless to cut a deal with management.

Thanks to Neptunus Rex for the following quote:
I wonder what will be contained in the "detailed analysis of the document" particularly if any of the BASSA committee have had a hand in its preparation?

Channex101 on the other thread seems to think only the crew involved should be interested in this dispute:
Not that it affects anyone else of course.............!

Making blanket statements hardly illustrates anything.....:ugh: Not all BASSA members voted for or took part in IA.
I don't think there will be any real 'Victor' from any of this...Both sides failed miserably. As you say, hopefully it will soon be over.

but BA have got the new Mixed Fleet introduced, have got the lower staffing levels implemented on longhaul, and some of the hardline BASSA members have got rid of themselves :ooh:, which should make life easier for all going forward.

It has come at a cost of course, but there have definately been some big wins for BA.

I am struggling to think of any wins for BASSA here, other than getting back ST, which had they negotiated properly in the first place, they should never have lost of course... but thats another story.

Sadly, I don't share your optimism. The Miss M's of this world appear able to whip the majority of their fellow CC's interested enough to vote into a sense of outrage at will.

BASSA want to strike. Let them. I think most on here (perhaps even Litebulbs?) would agree that BA would have to take decisive action should it come to that.