According to The Sun newspaper one of the BA crew behind the "Santas Crew" collection for sacked/suspended staff has themselves been suspended following allegations of bullying/harassment.

Santas Crew

Not only Santa's crew, but angels too. :rolleyes:

Interesting that their own article is calling for a truce during the Xmas period, then why only a month ago were they asking for a strike ballot for exactly the samre period?

If the Christmas Tree donation barometer is correct, they have received to date less than £1 per claimed striker (or less than £2 if one accepts BA's figures) - that's hardly a breathtaking level of shoulder to shoulder support !

Well, its a potentially risky job, collecting money for children. You could loose your job.

These people really just don't want to and thus will never get it.

It is their Union-agreed procedure that BA is following. Nothing more and nothing less. If BA did not follow the procedure then it would be culpable for failing to do so and I'm sure that the individual complainant (and probably some in the Union too!) would be even more aggrieved than others in the Union are now that BA chose to not respond to a legitimate employee complaint.

Before accusing BA of raging a war over Xmas don't they stop to realise that BA has no choice in this matter?

Don't they realise that as soon as one of their (CC) colleagues files a complaint that BA has no choice in suspending pending investigation?

Don't they remember they were a party to writing the rules for the entire process?

The Union is being completely and utterly two-faced. When it suits them they want the process to be ignored. When it suits them they want the process to be rigorously followed.

Sorry BASSA but you can't have it both ways and as for threatening strike action to disrupt everyone's Xmas then appealing for a truce on behalf of the children and the angels ....... give me strength!

I presume that includes the "innocent children" dragged to Bedfont and made to hawk around devil images of WW or posters claiming their Mummy had been sacked by the evil Brutish Airways.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. :mad:

The interpretation of "unfairly" is clearly widely drawn, and presumably is only based on BASSA's perspective.

Worth mentioning also that BA offered ACAS arbitration for the sacked/suspended, but BASSA/CC89 rejected the offer.

Maybe so. However a dismissal solely for those reasons would be deemed unfair if taken to an Industrial Tribunal. BASSA would certainly shout it from the rooftops had BA been judged to have dismissed any of their members unfairly, so I take it from their silence on the subject they have not.

The job would still be lost though.

True, but think of the "invaluable" anti-BA propaganda available to BASSA were it to happen. The fact that BASSA cannot point to a single unfair dismissal judgement through the course of this dispute speaks volumes.

In my view, BASSA's claims of unfair dismissals for trivial reasons does not stand up to scrutiny.

The point that Litebulbs makes is very important. An ET does not have the ability to enforce a re-engagement order. So the bottom line is that a lost job would not be regained.

It is a brave man or woman that is willing to risk a well paid job with good T&Cs at the moment. The economy is hardly buoyant and jobs are difficult to come by at the moment, with the knock on effects of the Irish economy and subsequent jitters over Portugal and Spain, this is not the time to be so stupid as to risk your employment over some esoteric point. Paying the mortgage should be more important than making some petty industrial point to your employer.

Quite so JT.

From the other thread: It is about time that BASSA members realised that BA's Board and Management control the Company, not BASSA.

I would guess that it is because the process followed is lawfully fair and that the employer believed that it conducted itself in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately for the individuals concerned, us unionists are not very good at separating a fair process (legal) and whether a decision is seen as fair by the membership (industrial).

Fair point Litebulbs ;)

In the circumstances were jobs are apparently at risk, BASSA should be spelling out your point in the clearest terms to their members.

It is a difficult situation for Unite. No doubt the membership are not happy, but suspension pending investigation is common practice and is not an indication of any wrong doing. However, how would a comment like that be perceived?

Possibly along the lines of "It's ALL unfair"?

Any sense of balance, or common-sense, seems to have escaped long ago. That is the great sadness, IMO ... innocent people are being led to [whatever] with rhetoric and distortions instead of honest facts.

I have experienced "suspension pending investigation" and it's not nice. Eventually, fairness and justice won through ... but the damage had already been done.

MPN11
 

I am sorry to hear that and can only imagine the distress caused.

MPN11: I second Litebulbs thoughts. That could not have been a good place to be.

I note that we have a new poster at the Cabin Crew forum attempting to re-write history.

The yellow pens are now about support for those dimissed. If the rest of Cabin Crew stopped to think about it they would realize that the best defense if for ALL of them to bring yellow pens to work.

Would rather negate the effect of the childish behavior.

Diplome, your comment about a new poster trying to re-write history rings true. But I suggest that his/her belief in what they write is genuine. How else could they write something like:
IIRC the very first offer from the company ensured that the existing T&C's in place at the time were to remain untouched, the only change being that a crew member would be taken off certain flights in an attempt to save on costs. If wiser heads had prevailed at BASSA, their members would undoubtedly be much better off now than they will be in the future. As it is, who else has the knowledge that pay increases are written into the future?

It is my view that BA's intention, after the blank refusal of BASSA to engage in dialogue, to irradicate the "Spanish Practices" was enhanced.