Taking the temperature of the response of yesterday's announcement, from a public perspective it seems to have been greeted with a collective yawn rather than panic over disrupted trips.

Part of me wonders whether TW knows full well that this ballot will not work. He is caught between the company and the branches clamouring for another strike ballot. He has delayed in order to prevent a strike at Christmas. If the mandate for a strike isn't sufficiently strong the membership can be blamed. If the company threatens to sue, he can blame BA and bleat about justice etc.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
:E

Looks as though BASSA could learn a thing or two from the Finnair unions:
How to call a strike and make it stick
How to force a CEO from office (Hienonen left in frustration at union intransigence)
How to drive a national carrier to the brink of extinction – and maybe over the brink, time will tell.

fl dutchman
 

Like all these things, it will be up to the courts to ultimately decide.

When you have evidence in minutes with meetings with Unite during the last IA, and recorded TV interviews, where the Union is saying the strikes can be stopped on certain terms, and then these same terms are called for the latest industrial action, it would be hard for the Union to say it is a new dispute.

remember, that when the union went to ballot last time (before it was called off) BA immediately wrote to the Union to say in their view it was unprotected. The ballot was then pulled.

All legal eyes will need to be on the precice reasons on the actual ballot paper, when it is issued, to see how creative the Union are.

in reality, of course, however you dress it up, this is a continuation of the previous dispute... and BA, as we know from experience, have better legal people than unite.... let the fun commence....

Workers of the world unite
 

You have nothing to lose but your ...

BA cabin crew dispute: union rejects latest offer | Workers' Liberty

That BASSA spokesperson clearly wasn't Holley - very low-key

HR person
 

The other thread says that the HR person at BA will soon be leaving. There are debates about pushed vs walked.

I suspect "being knackered" might be a better description.

No bonus would be big enough to deal with the (previously) monumentally incompetent managers and bassamentalist junta.

In the link posted by The SSK, reference is made to claims by BA CC staff who were allegedly sick during the strikes.

So, more than 1,000 off sick out of approx. 13,000. Is that a normal sickness rate amongst BA CC? Surely that is rather high and no wonder then that the sickness cases are being looked into.

If 1000+ CC reported sick during the strike days then maybe, just maybe, we have discovered the reason for the discrepancy between the Union's 7000+ strikers claiming strike pay and BA's 4963 who went on strike?

I can't begin to unravel the ramifications of who is being dishonest and how their dishonesty is benefitting them from which source (i.e. Union strike pay vs BA "genuinely sick" pay) but, if this report is true, there could well be a discrepancy of, say, 1500 which is in the right ball-park.

I could also believe that faced with a strike or work decision on the morning of a rostered/strike day a significant number of CC would take the "going genuinely sick" option as a way of putting their heads in the sand rather than face taking one side or the other with its associated potential repercussions.

As I understand it CC have historically had a habit of going sick rather than on strike, which is why it was well publicised in advance that being sick would be regarded as being on strike - unless one had a doctor's certificate to back it up.

Anyone who didn't get a doctor's certificate has no one else to blame, but if they did have one and are still waiting for their money they should get their rightful pay in the end without legal recourse.

The comments about 1000+ still waiting does not make it clear whether they are certificated or not. I find it difficult to believe that more than 1000 people went sick without getting a doctor's certificate, given the advance warnings, but also BA would be very inefficient if they have still not paid people who supplied a certificate.

This article links the sick pay cases to legal action. Are they suggesting that there are over 1000 pending Tribunal or breach of contract civil claims outstanding ? - I haven't personnaly heard of any such volume of outstanding cases (which would I assume be common knowledge as it would be very exceptional), or is it just falsely linking some internal grievance procedure cases with "legal action"? Given that it is now well over 3 months since the sick-pay would have been paid, it's now too late to commence an industrial tribunal claim, and I think a civil claim would fall into the same bracket, this would seem to be yet more disinformation.

I'm sure that if you produce a valid sick note during the days on the strike the airline would not take disciplinary action.

Airline crews have a higher sick rate than most professions, because anything effecting ear/nose/throat means that they cant fly.

As I recall there was a warning prior to the strike regarding calling in sick, but as I said I am sure that any reasonable employer would, if presented with the evidence take a view that it was a genuine sick day.

the "other" thread...
 

Interesting to note that several, er, "robust" posters here and on the other thread are trying to divert it [the CC thread] away from the "industrial action..." and more onto Mixed Fleet Ts&Cs :rolleyes:

I guess a M-F Ts&Cs thread wouldn't generate as many readers ;)

:ugh:

Hi Rustle,
The cabin crew thread is now called 'BA CC Industrial Relations' and I think that Mixed Fleet terms and conditions comes under that heading.

The whole dispute is completely linked with the introduction of Mixed Fleet, although Bassa called a strike about imposition it was to do with the introduction of crew on lower terms and conditions that they were really fighting about.

Even those of us who did not strike are concerned about Mixed Fleets introduction firstly because of the affect it could have on us in the future and secondly because some of us are actually concerned about the terms and conditions these new crew will be working to.

From BG obviously one of your ""robust"" posters!!

Before the planned strike in 2007 (which was called off) it was reported that cabin crew had called in sick in their hundreds even before the planned day of the strike.

I would not be surprised if many had called in sick (but the quoted numbers seem high to me). Partly for historical reasons and also because it is an easy way out. Though, I don't feel particularly sympathetic towards any members that had voted for industrial action themselves. If they weren't prepared to walk out they should have voted in the first place.

I suspect there may be a high volume of cases because BA procedure requires the formal lodging of a grievance.

Does a doctor have to give you a fit note, if you are off work for a cold? Can you insist if the sickness is in the self certification time?

As I understand it you may have to pay for a sick(fit) note if within the first 7 days.
Of course the chances of getting an appointment within the first 7 days could be an issue

Hi BG :ouch:

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I can concede the thread title, but I don't agree (having read everything here over the year(s)) that the two things are linked other than by, er, "convenience" or December 2010-expedience ;)


The "sick-note" diversion is an interesting twist as well -- is this more bullying by BA or what?? :p


It is obvious [to everyone outside your union] that MF wouldn't have even existed, possibly ever, if some changes were made to archaic working practises: To now try and claim the moral high ground
is not only "a bit rich" (understatement of 2010 contender), but undermines any valid points you may have made... IMO.

So for those reasons, you could be seen as a striker?

I do not believe it is "for those reasons" you would be "seen" as a striker .

I believe that if you pull a sickie on a strike day you should be seen as a [less than effective] striker.

I believe that if you are given fair warning that if you pull a sickie on a strike day, fail to cover yourself by obtaining a 'sicknote', then you're a [even less effective] striker.

I also believe that if you're genuinely ill and unfortunately that illness affects you on a strike day otherwise you would have been at work, you won't have a problem.

If it happens that every time there's a strike called you happen to have been in that unfortunate position and, for whatever reason, you haven't noticed and therefore got yourself a 'sicknote' to cover, you're probably in the wrong job :8

Rustle

(a) If you had paid attention, you would know that Betty Girl is not in the union

(b) She is trying to help you understand what is really going on

(c) She is a genuinely nice person, who actually cares about colleagues

But, of course, you know more than her, don't you :ugh:She is only a BA EF CSD

Try this anagram, Rustle.

ida maick daeh