|
It can be quite interesting reading agreements (though I guess BA has so many, covering different work groups it would not be a good idea to publish them for all to see).
(We have one agreement covering all staff (there used to be three) that is freely available on the company intranet) You find that if the company and the lay reps can't reach agreement, full time officers automatically get involved. You find that the company is there to manage the business, the unions to intervene on behalf on the employees Obviously in this case there are 2 separate branches of the same union involved it would, possibly, make sense for the full time officers to be negotiating. |
West Lakes
That is an excellent procedure.
|
baggersup
I just reread the original decisions by Mr. Holland. The suit says that Malone et al are suing for themselves and on behalf of 5,337 cabin crew members. And that 6,100 at LHR are not included in the lawsuit. from Desertia 21 Nov 2009 #3501 (link at the bottom of this post) Following the legal proceedings initiated against BA regarding imposition of new terms and conditions the Court has ordered our lawyers OH Parsons to provide a list of members of cabin crew who want to pursue the claim against BA. That list has to be submitted to the Court no later than 7 December. We need the maximum to put their names forward as additional Claimants. All cabin crew are urged to put forward their names. Here is a link to the 21st November 2009 discussion: http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/379...ml#post5330468 |
Well, I think is interesting
What do you think?
BA and Unite dispute is stuck in 70s like Life on Mars, says union leadership candidate | Politics | The Guardian For even you non trade unionists, surely this is a step in the right (not politically!) direction? |
Litebulbs
I think that has been the point of many posters, that the tactics from the union side in this dispute were those of the 70's. What makes it worse is that it is obvious in other industries (and parts of BA) that times have moved on. Just why BASSA got support from above is the concern |
The answer is in the name of the union. It was a pretty big ask and as yet hasn't worked at anything below the top table.
|
BA 'will not back down' in cabin crew dispute 19.10.10 British Airways will not back down in the year-long cabin crew dispute and is ready to run a near-full service in the event of another strike, the airline's chief executive Willie Walsh said today. He said it was "entirely" the fault of the cabin crew's union Unite that the dispute had dragged on for 12 months. And he added that changes to working practices should have been tackled 10 years ago. Addressing the annual convention of travel organisation Abta in Malta, Mr Walsh said: "In the past I have seen managers and businesses ignore issues and back down in the face of industrial action. We are not going to do that." He said that should there be further industrial action BA hoped to be able to run a full service at Gatwick and London City airports and all its long-haul flights at Heathrow, with the only question being just how much of Heathrow's short-haul programme could operate. Asked if it was "entirely the union's fault" that no settlement had been reached in the dispute, Mr Walsh replied: "Entirely." Speaking about a possible Christmas strike, Mr Walsh said that Unite would have to go through a number of procedures before such a strike could be called. He went on: "I don't believe it's the intention of Unite to do that (go through the procedures). He said that while BA hoped to reach agreement, it was also planning "for all eventualities" and had a "very robust" contingency programme in place. Mr Walsh said he was not being critical of previous BA managers but added: "We should have faced up to these challenges 10 years ago." |
With all the bluster and finger pointing one thing is essential in getting this dispute ended.
The BASSA members MUST insist, knowing that Duncan Holley can have NO future in negotiations with BA, that he resigns and a new General Secretary is elected after a vote as per the constitution of BASSA. It is wrong that he is still their rep and yet but cannot negotiate with BA, and it is blatantly wrong that he can, if allowed, let Unite speak for him. In which case THAT MUST BE WRONG since he no longer represents the members and one by one the reps are disappearing. BASSA is a shambles! Unite need to pay credence to the problem. The starlings are restless and murmuring. |
Mr Walsh said he was not being critical of previous BA managers but added: "We should have faced up to these challenges 10 years ago." The French are now in the same playing field about national Pensions. (That probably ought to be in JB but it is related, I suggest.) |
Originally Posted by 617sqn
(Post 5999949)
Moleytt
Just out of interest were your cc "real"? Only asking as the volunteers are back on board in force to keep their aircraft recency.Most flights have about 3 on at the moment. moleytt |
Would that be the one who dropped the muffin?
There would possibly be one in every cabin apart from first. |
End in sight?
From the BBC
British Airways cabin crews are to be balloted on a new deal that could end their long-running industrial dispute. The new offer was reached in talks between BA chief executive Willie Walsh and Unite joint leader Tony Woodley. The union has been pressing for the restoration of travel concessions removed from members who went on strike earlier in the year. It has also been trying to reverse disciplinary sanctions imposed on union members during the dispute. "There will be a consultative ballot on the offer and we're working to get this underway as soon as practically possible," said a Unite spokeswoman. BA cabin crew have staged 22 days of strike action since March, costing the airline £150m. When the dispute began in November last year, it centred on changes to staffing levels, pay and working conditions. However, Unite has since said that the core issues are the removal of the travel concessions and the implementation of disciplinary sanctions against its members since March. |
Juan Tugoh
what yet remains to be seen is what UNITE/BASSA are willing to give up in order to "buy" full return of ST. And I thought I'd copy this in from the CC forum (one I prepared earlier) Although this has not been mentioned recently, just a thought (and relevant please note Mods) I saw a BBC Question Time programme recently and one of the hot subjects was Public Spending cuts. Near the end of the programme a London Firefighter (cannot remember the borough) stated that they had been given 90 days notice. Their job would no longer exist in its' present form after the 90 days. Obviously the new contract offered was less desirable than the current contract and saves the borough money. So fast forward to this current Cabin Crew dispute. Many prophesies of CC being given the 90 day notice have not arisen in fact. I put it to you though, that if it is accepted the company will not give the 90 day notice, on CC that struck, for accepting the MF contract (which I personally would find unfair to said crew) there is no reason why the company cannot invoke the 90 day notice for the striking BASSA crew to accept the contract that has been accepted by non striking, non union crew. This I would find as a fair solution to the dispute. And before you shoot me down in flames, this dispute is at an impasse. I am certain the company do not really want it to drag on much longer. As much as the striking crew have made their point it is time to put up or shut up and move out. If you are so venomous in your comments against the company then why are you still working for them? The answer I come up with is money for old rope! The easy life etc. etc. |
One wonders how many CC will vote on this proposal given the apparent disinterest shown on the last consultative ballot It is worthwhile remembering that this is not is not another strike ballot but rather a consultative ballot on whether or not to accept the latest deal. A strike ballot may follow but there remains the problem of which issue to choose for a strike ballot. As has been pointed out in this thread many times, it will have to be a new issue for there to be "protected" strike action. As I understand, and I may well be wrong, you cannot ballot over things that have not yet happened, so a ballot on MF cannot happen until after 1 Nov. A weeks notice of the ballot and a 3 week consultation process and then a weeks notice of IA to the company would still allow a Christmas strike. However, as there has been no formal grievance or failure to agree etc over MF then I think this could easily be blocked by BA at court for failure of due process. I doubt UNITE would risk another embarrassing injunction blocked strike because they have not done things by the book. Back to the original point though, turnout for this consultative ballot will be critical. Too small and the union position can be easily seen as very weak, BASSA need a good turn out. |
BASSA need a good turn out. |
Unwilling to read - may be a more fair statement Fin.
|
Originally Posted by fincastle84
(Post 6006746)
Let's hope that there are plenty of volunteers to explain the ballot to those Bassa members who are unable to read.
|
Every time there has been some kind of ballot, the consensus on here prior to the ballot has been that CC would finally see sense and vote BASSA down. Hasn't happened yet.
The language coming from BASSA is already along the lines that "we are only recommending this as WW made it one of the conditions of the offer" They are clearly itching for a strike ballot, and my money is upon them achieving it, and then getting a majority of those who can be bothered to vote opting for further (useless) strikes :mad: |
You are right, Mariner9:
From DH, on that other thread: Your ballot, when it arrives will also contain a detailed analysis of the document, to help you to make up your mind. If you wish to accept it the dispute will end on that basis, if you reject it, the union will issue an immediate ballot for strike action." |
It is worth downloading and printing off the Revised Offer and the covering letter.
Both can be obtained by clicking where indicated at the foot of link. |
Have I missed something?
Looks the same as was offered to non union crew awhile back. |
617sqn
Top of page Six
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? |
The union will re-engage with the existing facilities agreement. Negotiations will take place between the company and the cabin crew union national officers, with a view to reaching a mutually agreeable framework within 8 weeks of signing this agreement |
Call 100
Amazing how you think comments like that make you any better...... |
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. |
It is a truism that the people that vote are those that are politically engaged. I think it is also fair to say that the strikers are politically engaged - they were the ones who were prepared to make a potentially self-harming stand for their beliefs. It takes little imagination to work out that there will be a strong vote from the strikers. It remains to be seen whether the, usually, uninterested masses can be motivated enough to take part. 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. |
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? |
Thanks to Neptunus Rex for the following quote:
From DH, on that other thread: Quote: Your ballot, when it arrives will also contain a detailed analysis of the document, to help you to make up your mind. If you wish to accept it the dispute will end on that basis, if you reject it, the union will issue an immediate ballot for strike action." |
Channex101 on the other thread seems to think only the crew involved should be interested in this dispute:
I don't understand why so many people on here who have nothing to do with this dispute think they have the right to comment. |
Originally Posted by fincastle84
(Post 6007283)
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:
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. |
I don't think there will be any real 'Victor' from any of this...Both sides failed miserably 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. |
As you say, hopefully it will soon be over. 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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.