|
Another update from CC89:
At 09:35hrs on Friday 3rd December 2010, the AMICUS Cabin Crew Committee received (from Unite), a copy of a pre-ballot letter dated 30th November 2010 from the Unite national officers to British Airways. With it came a copy of the letter from the Unite JGS's to all cabin crew members of Unite (AMICUS and Bassa) dated 2nd December 2010. We had no knowledge of these letters of their content prior to this. Contained within these letters are the chosen items of our dispute. There are 4 of them. 1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA. 2. Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute. 3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates. 4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this. It cannot go without saying that the AMICUS Committee have had no say in these items. We are part of the negotiating/strike committee and yet we have not even been consulted about our own items for dispute upon which you shall now be balloted. However, these 4 items are same as those contained within the Bassa article dated 12th November 2010 "Duncan's Blog" and with which the AMICUS committee disagreed. We responded in detail to that position in our article dated 16th November 2010, and again in our article on 17th November 2010 (on the . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE website). We made it very clear that these 4 points were flimsy and dangerous, and by no means far reaching enough considering the levels of imposition to which we have already subjected, and the continuing breach of our existing agreements. We also made it very clear in our articles that to our knowledge, these 4 items were indeed the final Bassa position despite protestations from them and others to the contrary. As you will now see, these 4 items were not simply the starting position we had been assured of. We were absolutely right from the start - because they are now the 4 points upon which our entire dispute now hinges. They define it. They are it. On 29th November 2010, we wrote to you again when we had heard the intention to ballot had been announced. We can only assume this too has been ignored. We said: "we are not prepared to accept any offer to settle this dispute on the basis that British Airways ONLY agree to the "four no cost items". The current agreement in any guise is unacceptable to us and we believe to the community as a whole. Why, you might ask? Because it is built on quick sand and has no guarantees for our future. The offer does not adequately deal with the reasons why the dispute arose in the first place. To add insult to injury, it also seeks to restrict and deprive you of your statutory rights to litigation against an increasingly unreasonable employer. We do however believe that the four items form a good basis for discussions to commence with the involvement of the reps and will clear the decks of all the diversionary nonsense that British Airways has chosen to introduce into the dispute. So what does solving just these 4 items mean? As it stands, should Willie Walsh decide upon a magnanimous gesture to settle this dispute on his way out of the door in January 2011, he could do so just by addressing these 4 points. He could simply agree to these relatively no cost items now DEFINING our dispute. We will have foregone all the other aspects that have affected each and every one of us for the last 12 months and that will continue to impact upon our careers, earnings and job security from now onwards. It means that all the toxic elements of the latest deal which ultimately benefit the company will remain in place, including the litigation appendix. In short, all matters of litigation against BA are surrendered, including our appeal to the Supreme Court on the contractual issues of our flying agreement - and imposition - the original basis of our dispute and one which is gaining momentum. By implication this means we accept breach of our agreements - and this will continue. And it means serious restriction and undermining of your individual and collective legal rights. Surely, this cannot be what you want? We stand by our earlier position. With the company sustaining the cost of weather disruption, ash clouds, the cost of industrial action and a series of punitive fines for their conduct - and yet still making an operating profit, in our view, it is now our `fight for survival' that is at stake. In order to restore the relationship and for us all to recognise the merit of BA's intent to move forwards, as we understand it, the issues that they now need to resolve are very simple: (i) return to the collectively agreed crewing levels (BA has spent far more on this dispute than removing crew was ever going to save); (ii) acknowledgement that collective agreements will not be broken by BA and will only be varied by further negotiation and collective agreement; (iii) reinstatement of all lost staff travel benefits to strikers (including accrued seniority/status tickets etc); (iv) no victimisation (including full reinstatement of all those dismissed, and restoration to their former positions of all those otherwise penalised in this dispute - (the foregoing are now identified in the current offer documentation as "relevant employees" and "processed employees"); (v) in view of how the dispute came about and how negotiations since have been conducted, a recognition that AMICUS/Bassa are the elected representatives of the cabin crew with whom all future negotiations will be conducted (save where existing collective agreements or AMICUS/Bassa otherwise expressly agree in advance). This naturally includes recognition of our existing facilities agreement. In addition to these major items of our dispute, there are a number of other issues that would need to be satisfactorily addressed within any offer from British Airways in order to bring peace to the cabin crew community. These were outlined in the recent Bassa article dated 1st December 2010: 1. Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused. 2. Mixed fleet is here, it will grow, routes will transfer into it - this is your working life-blood. NO routes = NO work. There has to be an agreement on how this would happen. British Airways want to move routes to mixed fleet purely based on their "commercial needs". No consideration of the type of work being moved or its impact on current crew (length of trips, type of trips, days off, earnings) would be factored into this. These things must be taken into consideration; so far this has been refused. 3. Top up payment - we asked all along this to be classed as "lifetime" and/or "contractual", again thus far this has been refused. 4. Proposed changes to the employment policy must not simply be to allow British Airways to introduce changes that will be worse for you and make it easier for people to be sacked, a harsher sickness policy, a reduction to only one appeal (currently two) if subject to a disciplinary. These will only be the tip of the iceberg; there is also a whole raft of other proposed changes that could adversely affect you. No trade union should accept this. 5. Redeployment agreement - British Airways is trying to remove this cornerstone of security; if your area is closed or has no work, your historic pay protections and right to redeploy on protected conditions must be maintained. You will now have received your personal letter regarding the upcoming ballot. As the membership behind this union - your voice now has to carry. Make the sound. This is your dispute; these need to be your items. In our opinion, although subject to the `majority' view - the current items are simply not enough. |
So let me get this straight. CC89 are saying that the ballot reasons are insufficient. Am I right in thinking that they seem to be advising members to vote against the proposals ?? If so this is the most bizarre situation. We have a branch executive who wish to call the membership out on strike, yet they are telling the members not to support the call for strike action ????:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:You really, truly couldn't make this up.
At least the Unite proposal seems to have a faint glimmer of hope in avoiding 'same cause as previous' '1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA. ' OOoopps - own goal here - this was cited as cause for previous stoppages '2. Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.' Was offered in last two proposals - how come Unite didn't accept it then ? '3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates. ' Genuinely sick folk would have provided a sick note. Guess there are some who forgot or maybe weren't sick enough for their GP. '4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this. ' Hey, the last offers included a thing about agreeing facilities within 8 weeks of acceptance. What was wrong with that ?? So two of the four items were in previous offers mad, the sick pay is a red herring - all those who were genuinely sick are the ones who handed in sick notes. The only outstanding item is removal of seniority and that is linked to the previous dispute. Note that there is no talk about court cases or legal action |
Originally Posted by Colonel White
(Post 6102013)
the sick pay is a red herring - all those who were genuinely sick are the ones who handed in sick notes.
|
The absence of any concerns over withdrawing all current and future legal action over issues arising from this dispute does suggest that Unite & BASSA recognise this to be a fundamental necessity otherwise no such agreement could be reached. Not that AMICUS appear to have understood this however.
On the basis that BASSA still has sufficient vestiges of its old leadership intact to cause continuing trouble then I would guess that BA will not agree to these terms, however, it will have to attend the ACAS talks to appear to be continuing to act in good faith. BASSA will then have no choice but to go through with its threat and stumble on into an extremely misguided and ill-advised strike that anyone can see at the outset it cannot possibly win. I am surprised that Unite is allowing this to happen on its Executive Council's ticket. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel White http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/viewpost.gif the sick pay is a red herring - all those who were genuinely sick are the ones who handed in sick notes.[/quote] Litebulbs: I risk sounding repetitive, but how can you justify that comment? |
Well, I imagine in the first instance, there is a sickness reporting policy at BA (but I do not know the details, as I no longer work there). This will lay down the procedure for sickness reporting. I would imagine that if it follows the general accepted procedures (there is no specific law for this), then there will be a self certification procedure upto 7 days.
Is there a separate policy for sickness when in dispute? Is there a specific cabin crew policy? What happens to other employees who are sick when a strike is on? What happens to non union members, who cannot strike, who are sick? As one of the mods has stated, you may have to pay for a fit note too. If you have a cold, that may have passed by the time you get an appointment. A common cold has greater implications if you fly, than if you do not. |
Litebulbs
there is a well publicised sickness policy which caused industrial "difficulties" when it was introduced about 6 years ago. It is well known that it was specifically designed to reduce pattern sickness on 2 fronts. To reduce sickness amongst BA cabin crew during obvious times (like school holidays, Ascot , Wimbledon etc) , and to stop crew doing the mass "sick-out" in lieu of a strike , which is what has happened in the past. Furthermore crew were repeatedly warned that sickness during industrial action would require documentary evidence. BA doctors were on hand to offer free medical advice and certificates earlier this year during the strikes. If anyone went sick during the strikes they would have been very aware of the risks they were running. Even the Bassa massive were very vocal about discouraging colleagues from going sick; even if only to boost their direct support. |
The Blu Riband
A couple of things on contacts as I see them. The first is unlawful deduction from wages and the second is the implied term of confidence and trust. Firstly, there is a policy in place, which should be adhered to and the employer is expected to trust it's employees (although that is reciprocal).
|
3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates. Surely it is the responsibility of these crew to provide proof that they were genuinely ill at the time, isn't it? |
Originally Posted by nononsense frank
(Post 6102796)
I don't see any problem with this, and surely BA wouldn't see this as a problem. BASSA are asking for the restoration of docked wages NOT from ALL crew who went sick during the strikes but only from those who were GENUINELY sick during the strike.
Surely it is the responsibility of these crew to provide proof that they were genuinely ill at the time, isn't it? |
Lightbulbs,
I disagree. If an employer knows that that on specific occasions, be they social or industrial, that staff sickness levels rise far higher than the norm they are surely within their rights to demand a higher level of proof from their employees. In this case Blu Riband says BA supplied doctors at the workplace to sign off sickness. Surely common sense says if you do get a cold on a strike day and you know that by reporting sick you will be classified as a striker you would go into work and see the Doc for free (no sick note cost) to ensure that you were not penalised. If you were so sick that you couldn't get into work i.e. car crash, then other documentation would be easy to come by. Trust works both ways with regard to self certification. If the employees have continually shown themselves to be unworthy of that trust is it any surprise that the employer acts? Regards |
It is not the fault of the unions
On the other thread, I see a declaration from BASSA that during the build up to the decision on whether to put the latest BA offer to their members they were lobbied by members. They tell us that emails were received from members threatening resignations if they DID ballot the members and others saying that they SHOULD carry out a ballot.
Guess which ones they took note of...... either way it is now out of the committee's hands their members' lobbying saw to that. Of course we only have their word for this. With their record of lies and half truths should we believe them on this occasion? |
A quick look on the CC thread confirms exactly why BA cannot move one millimetre more on their current offer negotiated with TW nor will they settle on the so-called "four points" being mooted for resolution at ACAS. Indeed, having called for a strike ballot, and inflicted yet further damage, I am still very surprised that BA has not taken its current offer off the table. After all, why leave it there when BASSA has thumbed its nose at it so vehemently?
BASSA's leadership has now blatantly revealed its true colours in not wanting to settle until its power base over ICFE operations has been reinstated. As such, BA has no (and never realistically ever did have any) choice but to see this through to where BASSA's current leadership is gone. The interesting thing to watch will be how long will Unite's Executive Council stay with BASSA in allowing it to play the game to BASSA's wishes? When BA's lawyers start warning Unite of the substantial potential liabilities of unlawful IA, sending ballot papers to non Union CC, etc., the pressure will increase for Unite to make a very difficult call whereupon BASSA could find itself isolated and out on a limb. |
Baggersup:
Would somebody going sick to avoid striking be silly enough to document their own subterfuge by also claiming strike pay? That's a double paper trail. Were BASSA bright or devious enough to have some stooges who worked during strikes so as to report on who else turned up for work? |
baggersup - You are correct. The number of individual offers made by BA to BASSA on issues that BASSA claims it wants but were rejected in one form or another make it more than clear the only satisfactory resolution to BASSA is full reinstatement of their power base over IFCE's operations.
But this is not surprising as the whole matter was nothing short of a massive power struggle from the outset thus the only resolution will be when one side is crushed. The interesting thing is that BASSA's leadership still believes it has every chance of winning. Delusion at its ultimate supported by a weak Unite that is having to pick up the legal and strike support bills for BASSA's actions in the face of dwindling membership dues. I just can't see Unite staying the course especially as it has much bigger matters at hand in supporting the strife emerging in its public services branches. |
I'm confused now.
The latest missive contains this: - 1. Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused. |
Originally Posted by binsleepen
(Post 6102874)
Surely common sense says if you do get a cold on a strike day and you know that by reporting sick you will be classified as a striker you would go into work and see the Doc for free (no sick note cost) to ensure that you were not penalised.
|
Litebulbs
I Agree with you. As a board member of a company, I would not relish defending a company imposed requirement to exceed the law if cross examined by a capable lawyer. It is obviously unreasonable to expect sick people to travel to their place of work to be examined by a doctor. Had I been involved in this dispute, my tactic would have been to hire a number of doctors and let it be known that they would visit sick people at home to examine them. I believe that this threat would have achieved the same purpose, because a doubbt would have been created in the minds of those taking advantage. On the other hand and I speak from personal experience of a difficult employee, should someone really wish to play games, then back problems are very difficult to diagnoese effectively. |
Following the normal rules of negotiation, we were all led to believe that BASSA's "counter offer" was going to be four points to be negotiated with the help of ACAS which would all appear on the strike ballot if talks failed.
Now it seems to be ten different points that do not form a counter offer but sound more like a "set of demands" with no clear statement of what will be presented as agreeable for resolution at ACAS or what will appear on the strike ballot should these completely undefined negotiations fail. Given we have been hearing about a strike ballot since well before 10/10/10/10/10 .... , BASSA and its cohorts have completely lost the plot and any rational sense of direction or adherence to rules of engagement seems to have flown out of the window. Under these highly confused circumstances, BA would be ill-advised to enter into any negotiations with anyone or any party whatsoever, including attending at ACAS, until it had been: 1. Reassured of exactly what the respective authorities, responsibilities and bona-fide of any presented Union negotiators to this dispute are, 2. Received a clear statement of the Union's counter-offer that would lead to resolution should it be acceptable to BA, and, 3. Received a clear statement of the reasons that would appear on the elusive strike ballot should BA not agree to these terms. Short of this BA would be foolish to continue in good faith negotiations with this floundering body that is collectively called "the Union" particularly as BA currently holds all the cards and needs to do absolutely nothing. |
Just a thought concerning possible future strike action.
In the other thread,someone has mentioned how his wife received a letter from UNITE asking her to confirm address, etc, for an upcoming ballot despite her havingleft the union 6 months ago. Now, we all know this will not be an isolated case so my question is simple. Could BA go to the High Court to get a decree that the upcoming, and any future, ballot and possible strike is illegal, due to the failure of the union to keep tabs on who is actually a member so any ballot will be subject to the possibility of "fraud" due to the ineptitude of the union regarding who is a member and who isn't, and could this give BA the ammunition to move to derecognise BASSA as they clearly do not represent anything like the staff they claim? That sort of pressure, because of clear failings in the union's admin, etc, could do untold damage to BASSA/UNITE campaign and could force them to put everything on hold until they sorted their own mess out which could lead to more people leaving because of a fiasco created by themselves........... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.