Shouldn’t BASSA be ultimately governed by the Unite Rule Book?

Is that available publicly?

There are actually a few legal issues which could scupper this ballot:

1a. Are the records used for the ballot accurate to a reasonable level?

I believe the Electoral Reform Service (who administered the ballot on behalf of Unite) had concerns on this front from the start, evidenced by the fact that in the most recent ballot, ERS never actually released a statement on their notepaper setting out the results of the ballot; if you notice, the thrid ballot announcement was on ERS notepaper, the latest (fourth) ballot result was published on Unite notepaper:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BA_ballot_result_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf

The latest confirmation was communicated by Unite directly to its membership:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BAllot_..._21jan2011.pdf

It will be telling on what notepaper the ballot result is publicised this time round (which I think shall be known as the “fourth” ballot).

Last time round there was anecdotal evidence that non-members were balloted, and that multiple ballots were sent to a number of people, certainly including those who were no longer union members and possibly permitting duplicate votes by those who were current members. This would have skewed the results materially.

Though BA passed on the evidence for these breaches to ERS (classed as a “legal blitz” by Unite) it was ERS which refused to support the ballot, not BA’s legal activities, as BA never took this issue to court. There was no recourse to the courts/legal challenge as has been implied in several Unite Press Releases.

It has been alleged that the BASSA rep responsible for the recordkeeping (and, apparently, paid to do so through membership subscriptions) had “outsourced” that function to another person. It is enough for BASSA to demonstrate they have a robust methodology for keeping accurate records, there is no compulsion for 100% accuracy.

“Reasonableness” is the only benchmark they have to satisfy. Far from the law being pitched against successful ballots, many other unions have held successful ballots in recent times (RMT for Tube Drivers, I think the Post Office had a strike recently, though no-one noticed) and BASSA was not able to manage this very fundamental task. This is a shocking indictment of their abilities to administrate their own records (which is a legal requirement under Chapter 3 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992), and would justify a motion of censure from the Certification Officer, should a BASSA member choose to take this up with that CO.

It appears from posts here that Unite itself has now taken over the administration of BASSA records, with letters having been sent to confirm BASSA membership which arrived between 18th-22nd February. That exercise would probably be enough to demonstrate a robust process, but as to the actual outcome especially with BA’s peripatetic employee lifestyle, it will still be a challenge to properly ensure accuracy, especially if members are away on longer trips over the next few days. I personally do not believe the objectives of this mailshot will be realisable to the extent required prior to the commencement of the ballot on March 1st.

This is further complicated by Holley’s statement on 23 January telling the 6,500 Union members who did not vote for Industrial Action to leave Unite/BASSA/Amicus, which will no doubt have created a moving target for BASSA’s own membership records:



www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html

So while I believe Unite should be in a position to demonstrate it has “taken in hand” BASSA’s recordkeeping, I do not believe there is reason to believe those records will be in any better state by 1 March than they were last time round, principally due to the moving target created by DH himself.

1.b. Failure to Administrate the Branch Properly

The keeping of accurate membership records is a legal responsibility of the Branch and Union, similar to the requirement to keep audited accounts and grant access to members to such records:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

BASSAwitch has recently had a formal request for visibility of the accounts denied (see the previous page of the forum for BASSA’s response). I think the deadline is 15 March 2011; I hope BASSAwitch has by now copied the derisory response to BASSA’s auditors (does anyone know who they are? It’s possibly Northover Bennett & Co in Eastleigh Hants, as they set up the “BASSA Ltd” entity in January this year as the holding company for BASSA subscriptions?), Unite’s auditors, The Certification Officer and the TUC so that any censure will happen at the earliest opportunity once the 28 day deadline has passed; let’s hope BASSA are in a position to release its historical accounts to its own membership and demonstrates both its administrative effectiveness and its transparency.

While this is not a reason to stop action, any concern about the effectiveness of the branch administration ( accounting, membership AND related to the election of officials, which hasn’t really been challenged to date) could adversely affect a range of serious issues which would harm BASSA’s credibility.

2. That the Reason for Industrial action was “unclear”

Simple really, BASSA needs to give one, clear reason to ballot; any more than that is a problem as it opens up multiple areas for potential challenge.

In the most recent ballot, DH set out four reasons, with an extra fifth tagged on by Unite. The fifth reason (introduction of Mixed Fleet) was an attempt to make this ballot unconnected to previous ballots. But it wasn’t unconnected, and did not succeed in that endeavour. I think as that ballot was declared invalid (not *illegal*, as Unite would have you believe!) they could possibly used the Mixed Fleet (MF) argument again, and this would be their strongest suit – even that could easily be defeated. HOWEVER, BA has already won the right to introduce changes in its workforce, here is the court report setting that out:

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010)

and it is similarly clear that BA did indeed consult BASSA on MF several years ago, and it was offered a solution which avoided MF but declined, so it should be quite easy to gain an injunction if that is the reason on which they ballot.

3. That the Reason for the Ballot Continues Previous Action

It is my understanding that Unions are permitted 12 weeks within which to conclude their dispute; they must demonstrate they have made proactive effort to negotiate. If they fail to reach a negotiated settlement, the dispute is effectively over and the Union has failed in its attempt to change the employer’s stance.

No further withdrawal of labour may occur for reasons connected with the initial dispute, and while a strike is possible it remains outside the “protection” of the Trade and Industrial Relations Act 1992, which means BASSA members are exposed to having their employment terminated with minimal compensation if they choose to withdraw their labour. You can read more about this here:

www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_179248

It's important to emphasise that the criterion for unprotected action IS NOT that the reason for the strike is "the same as previous ballots". The evidential tests for unprotected action are set out below:

BASSA has never set out to its membership the risks of unprotected action; it has a moral obligation, especially if it believes it is covered, to set out these risks to its membership.

As an aside, BA has already sent a detailed repudiation on the issues around both Disciplinaries and Sick Pay while Striking to Unite in December 2011:

http://freepdfhosting.com/7a5b9147a5.pdf

AND

http://freepdfhosting.com/3382e93952.pdf

So it’s unlikely Unite could use those reasons for industrial action with any certainty of success.

4. Incitement to Secondary Action

There is possibly something in LM’s recent plea for other Unite members to join in the action:

This is unclear to me, and I am not certain it represents “incitement to secondary action”. The plea begged other Unite members to join the action; I would assume this would be at LHR, but it is not clear to me that you can strike if you haven’t actually taken part in a ballot, unless it is their intention to ballot all Unite members within British Airways, and not just BASSA/Amicus Cabin Crew; given the strength of the VCC response, I wouldn’t imagine they’d get much traction. The issues of unprotected action would still remain for any others who chose to withdraw their labour.

5. Previous Industrial Action was illegal and that Unite may therefore be compelled to compensate BA for losses

I understand there is a court case scheduled for 15 March in which the further appeal will be heard as to whether the injunction against BA’s attempt to stop the first strike was legal; if it is found in BA’s favour then Unite would be in significant financial difficulty, with a “profit” of under £500k last year and assets of around £80m and a potential claim in the £100s of millions. The only evidence I have for such an action is somewhat tentative:

www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?task=download&option=com_flexicontent&cid=6917&id= 948&fid=22&Itemid=92

DH has already clearly stated that he has no intention of actually calling a strike, rather using ballots to serially frustrate the airline, and that they are actually rather hoping BA challenges every aspect in the courts as this will allow them to portray themselves as victims of big, bad capitalists.

It should also be remembered that BA has not:

1. Made any of its cabin crew compulsorily redundant throughout this dispute

2. Resorted to change of contract, which can be imposed with three months’ notice;

3. Invoked dismissal for Some Other Significant Reason (SOSR)

All of which are options BA could pursue at this stage, with most serious repercussions for vary many hard working, if poorly informed, cabin crew.

BASSA has continually misrepresented to its workforce that BA is potentially offering the Mixed Fleet contract to existing crew; this is absolutely not the case: this is the offer which has in the past been made available to those cabin crew not in the union, including a 2.9% pay rise this year, 3% in 2012 and assurances that current T&Cs will remain:

http://www.uniteba.com/ESW/Files/151...llectivev6.doc

BASSA has a history of causing a fuss over silly issues, such as the infamous Hot TowelGate:

LGW/LHR - 29/01/09 Hot Towels in WT+

I had a good deal of sympathy for Cabin Crew when this negotiation first kicked off; it’s important in cyclical lower paid industries such as aviation that employees have effective representation; that representation should be pragmatic and business-minded. After all the Union Branch cannot exist without the employer, while the reverse is not true.

And most large firms need a single entity with which it can negotiate; I am not certain if that single entity may no longer be relevant now we have significantly better communication methods and it may well be that BA could be a model for a new way of conducting industrial relations, after all many large multinational firms exist without a significantly unionised workforce, with the workforce incentivised to excel and go the extra mile to do their part to deliver profits with financial incentives if those targets are achieved, rather than the rather negative “lowest common denominator” approach espoused by some Unions of the 1970s persuasion.

There cannot be any truth in the allegation of “union-busting” as BA continues to have positive engagement with its other Unions, even including Unite, most recently having come to agreement on the Pensions Deficit, averted a Ground Crew strike, not to mention the Settlement Unite agreed with Willie Walsh on this very dispute, then reneged on, last year.

My regular experience as a passenger is that most BA crew are superb; they go the extra miles (one anecdote: I left my watch in the lounge after boarding the aircraft, and he scooted off to retrieve it for me as I was not permitted to re-enter the terminal myself) and for the generally good humour and peculiarly British mix of informality and professionalism which is not matched by many other international airlines out there.

Having said that, it is clear to me that the enormous amount of stress BASSA has inflicted on its membership and non-members with the vitriol and personalised way it has run this dispute is affecting morale, and I have noticed a significant upturn in the number of grumpy crew in my longhaul flights over the past few months (less so on shorthaul, for some reason).

However, I am equally certain that the ability to exhibit those traits is not directly correlated to the amount of money paid, nor to the length of service, nor membership or non-membership of a Union.

On that qualified basis, I now have very little sympathy for cabin crew who remain within BASSA (they can still leave BASSA and re-join TU membership with Unite directly if they prefer); BASSA is plainly a dysfunctional organisation, led largely by people who no longer work for BA, selfishly motivated to protect only their own interests and not that of the wider membership, intent on anarchic anti-capitalist style revenge on British Airways.

Having failed in its industrial action it is now hoping to tie up BA in the courts for decades as it’s only remaining weapon, yet legal engagement is a double edge sword, and as history has proven, BA has a repeatedly runs rings around the Unite legal team, and with BA’s HR dept. now part of the Legal Dept. there should be little opportunity for BASSA to attack.

Symptomatic of its bankrupt arguments, BASSA has a history of deploying frankly abhorrent Nazi imagery to ram its perverse message home:

http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/0d...ndabg/610x.jpg

And again a BASSA propaganda sheet littered with references paralleling this "struggle" to the Holocaust:

http://bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/N...DFFile-785.pdf

They also have a penchant for using children to make their point, which is deeply unpleasant, reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s “Human Shield”:

www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/94c16cff08.jpg

BASSA is impotent to affect BA’s operations, and those heading off for weddings, honeymoon and funerals as well as businesspeople know that BA will better its previous capacity to deliver a normal operation during a “strike” if indeed there is a next time, by operating all but a handful of exLHR shorthaul flights.

Whatever your thoughts on Unions are, they are democratic organisations. It is time the majority of BASSA membership asserted their voice, demanded access to accounts, demanded access to membership records, demanded an explanation of the reasons why no elections for BASSA officials have taken place for some considerable time, and were made aware of how they can extricate themselves, and the company that pays their wages (and their ex-colleagues’ pensions) from this mess into which their Union Branch has led them. BA is not going to relent, and continued dispute is harming cabin crew both professionally and personally, as well as damaging the reputation of Unionism in general.

Enough is enough.

--------

I should make it entirely clear that I (and anyone connected with me) do not, nor ever have had, any professional connection with any aspect of the travel industry, or (for the avoidance of any doubt any entity similar to the Burke Group) and what I set out here is my personal understanding from a close reading of the available public sources, and occasional discussions with BA employees in my capacity as a regular passenger.

I am more than more than happy to have any of the statements I have made critically challenged; please do challenge my posts, but don’t criticise me personally, as it does nothing to add to the debate!

...and if anyone can identify the single (deliberate!) misuse of the word "it's" in there, I'd be pleased to hear of it.....over to you BettyGirl ;) (and thanks for going the extra mile to make me happy :ok:)

VintageKrug, I have read that once, and will do so several times more.

Thank you sincerely for the effort you have put in to providing that [long] summary.



One small favour ... would you edit out all those font instructions? It's a bit confusing! ;)

LM?
 

VintageKrug

Small point re number 4. Wasn't it Len M rather than Liz M that made that call to arms?

I could be wrong though!

VintageKrug has turned up trumps
 

Thank you so much VintageKrug._ A very thorough and worthwhile analysis.
It may seem trivial to focus on one part of your analysis which is
This possibility has intrigued and confused me for some time._ Can I ask a member of cabin crew to respond?
Have you actually done this - left BASSA but stayed within Unite?_ I am happy to widen this to "Has your spouse left BASSA but stayed with Unite?"._ But no friends please - because we are then into the unreliability of here-say.

. . because if ex-BASSA members are within Unite, then why is the no vote so low?

VK,
I can't see it!

Notlangley,
Don't know if you can join without joining Bassa or Amicus.

The Unite website does let you but they may well allocate you into one of those branches, if you did join.

Without trying I could not tell you and I would expect all of us that left, would not have wanted to rejoin Unite, not just yet anyway. Most of us have signed the individual offer and that is only possible if you are not a member of Unite.

Not much help I am afraid.

VintageKrug
 

Possibly the best summary of the whole situation that I have seen, written extremely well and very readable - it was almost like a good book.:D


I think I found your deliberate mistake.....do I win anything ??:ok:
""Having failed in its industrial action it is now hoping to tie up BA in the courts for decades as it’s only remaining weapon,""

Interesting post VintageKrug. The next ballot will be interesting. However, I don't think anyone is any doubt that there will be a sizeable Yes vote.

On past form, another legal challenge is inevitable. I just wonder when the "tipping point" will be when the membership give up on BASSA and its credibility amongst even the strongest hardliners is lost, or will a substantial minority of members still "keep the faith".

Another question for Cabin Crew
 

It seems to me that it is possible for 41% of cabin crew to belong to PCCC while at the same time 76% of cabin crew to belong to BASSA._ This is because cabin crew can belong to both PCCC and BASSA.

However because PCCC have passed the 40% threshold, PCCC could then apply to British Airways for "recognition"._ As I understand it, British Airways has no option - it must recognise PCCC.
(This is the question) Then what happens? - I don’t know.

Maybe it is automatic for Unite to welcome PCCC into the fold._ Then Betty girl and others would have the option to rejoin Unite by means of the PCCC intermediary.

notlangley
 

I think that the PCCC will have to be recognised as an independent trade union first.

Funnily enough, I was looking into this today for a course I am on. I think this might be relevant to the discussions -

Finance

While it is exceptional to find evidence of a direct subsidy from employer sources, a union with weak finances and inadequate reserves is obviously more likely to be vulnerable to employer interference than one whose financial position is strong.

Particular attention is therefore paid to such questions as the main sources of the unions income, whether this matches its expenditure, the level of its subscription rate and the state of its reserves.

This is taken from the Certification Officers website.

Hi LB
 

Particular attention is therefore paid to such questions as the main sources of the unions income, whether this matches its expenditure, the level of its subscription rate and the state of its reserves.

I know its slightly away from your original direction, but I can't help wondering how this criteria will stack up with the Bassa situation at the end of the month, if figures/accounts are found to be wanting. Who/what official organisation could/would be responsible for investigating, and how fast could/would they react - outside of Unite, as they could be held to be too close to the problem to be impartial.

NotLangley - Why on earth would PCCC want to join Unite with Len Mcluck in charge with his declared STAND PROUD backing for BASSA, and can you imagine Len Mcluck's response to PCCC. In any event it would wreck any attempt by PCCC and BA to possibly usher in a new stance in union/employer relationships, to find ways of working for the benefit of both parties - 21st Century style - not 1970's style.

Response to Entaxei
 

The answer is pragmatism

Brendan Gold writes

Quote:

---

The items of dispute are as follow.

1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken.
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 the company in relation to this.
5. The immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including; victimisation, intimidation and exclusion.
6. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union.
7. The discrimination applied to union members in the allocation of part time contracts and transfers in breach of the Op’s and Choice framework.
8. The company’s continued and specific disregard for necessary union agreement in advance of any application of the disruption agreement.
9. The continued use of volunteer and/or temporary crew from outside the recognised NSP on both the Eurofleet and worldwide fleets and their employment on terms and arrangements outside of existing agreements between BA and the union.
10. The company’s offer of a separate pay settlement and variations to terms and conditions for those willing to accept non-negotiated changes to their contracts

---

I think BASSAwitch requested the accounts info on 15 February; the accounts must therefore be produced by 15 March 2011, right in the middle of the ballot.

I hope BASSAwitch has already alerted The Certification Officer to BASSA's shocking refusal to produce such accounts, which goes against the Trade and Labour Relations Act:

The Latest Issues from Bassa -
http://freepdfhosting.com/9a2aad3f14.pdf

Many of those reasons are connected to previous ballots (some are, indeed, exactly the same) so this action is certain to be "unprotected" and further could be illegal given that BA has already won a case for its right to impose a the "one less crewmember" the parallels with the imposition of Mixed Fleet after BASSA refused to negotiate on the issue are very similar indeed.

Intention to Ballot -
http://freepdfhosting.com/287a681774.pdf

Looks like Unite have at last attempted to get to grips with the BASSA recordkeeping.

Quite shocking that in the previous ballot 10,220 were balloted, having obviously gone to some effort to get the membership records under control, the number which will now be balloted is just 9,824.

That means 396 fewer or around 4% of the total, and certainly a material number.

It is likely that this is already out of date as many will have resigned from BASSA having being told to do so by Duncan Holley himself in his blog of 23 January 2011:

www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html

As Unite has used data sourced from BA on 27 January, it is likely these records will not reflect any who resigned from BASSA following that outburst.

And, as a little bonus, proof, if proof were needed, that BASSA is stuck in the 1970s, a screenshot posted on another site of the BASSA forum after they wiped it clean to stop dissenting posts:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3184/bassa.jpg

I would agree with JT's post below that the latest membership record methodology does seem to be "reasonable", which should satisfy the ERS.

I think that the law requires that all reasonable measures to establish membership numbers are made. I think that this latest does meet this requirement. The DH rant is a red herring in the sense that there will always be changes to the union membership numbers form month to month. There has to be a snapshot date on which union membership numbers are taken to be correct for the purposes of a ballot. UNITE seem to have done this, the DH variation can be discounted as post the snapshot date, which is only a month old. This meets the reasonableness test.

The penny hasn't dropped yet has it?

Just in the same way many of the previous grievances wouldn't have arisen had negotiated and there hadn't been a strike, the additional new grievances wouldn't have arisen had BASSA reached an agreement with the company.

The original call to strike was to "send a message" to BA. And BA has duly sent one back to BASSA that it will carry on without you.

In other news: Brent crude hit $119 a barrel this morning.

If the oil price carries on increasing, there may be more "impositions" for BASSA to wail about.

Workgroup being balloted
 

I find it interesting that Brendan Gold's letter to BA states that they will be balloting all Unite members employed as CC within BA, to include LGW, and MF.

This would seem to be in contradiction to the BASSA strategy to restrict to LHR "legacy" only, and does the inclusion of MF provide a further legal objection to the validity of the ballot, in that the MF work group is not involved in the dispute ?

Don't put the line "related to the original dispute." in a ballot which must not be related to the previous dispute to be protected...

Muppets.

It seems clear to me that Unite are trying to hold an "unchallengeable' ballot by providing those membership numbers. I think it's a perfectly valid attempt to get things right this time, and most reasonable people would accept that it's impossible to get it 100% correct when the Union's membership is constantly changing [both up and down, although probably more of the latter].

As to the inclusion of MF crew, I think again this is a fair move. The fact that IA has not been an issue there should not be a reason for excluding BASSA/Unite members on MF from participating in the ballot. How would people comment if ballot papers were only sent to those who had already supported IA? IMO this has to be a 'global' ballot if it is to have any credibility.


The crunch point is surely the list of "Items of Dispute". Doesn't that list represent a list of previous demands, and thus create a 'continuation dispute'? However, I can only assume that Unite and their legal people have considered that aspect ... and determined it is safe to go ahead with what may well be, for striking CC, 'unprotected IA'.

My money would be on the BA Legal Team being more competent when the inevitable Court case ensues.

Will the result of the ballot be announced on April Fool's Day...? :ugh::hmm:

You couldn't make it up.....:rolleyes:

MPN11,
Those M/F crew are probably main crew that moved over to take up new jobs on Mixed Fleet.

As I have posted previously, some main crew striked and supported Bassa but went for promotion at Mixed Fleet to take up the CSM position and almost double their basic pay.
Also some of the Temps from last year moved over to Mixed Fleet and a lot of them were Bassa members.

However Bassa does not have bargaining rights, at present, for Mixed Fleet crew (or previously the Temps) although separate bargaining for Mixed Fleet was offered in the negotiations .

I guess they feel they have no choice but to include Mixed Fleet crew, firstly to keep their number high and secondly because if they are members, they should get a vote. I do feel however it must upset Bassa because I very much doubt Mixed Fleet crew would vote to Strike!!! Even if some did vote to strike, I doubt any would actually feel able to strike.

These are my views and not those of my employer BA.

Genuine question:

Can any Union member of a workgroup which currently does not have any Union recognition with the employer, participate in legally protected strike action, or is this considered secondary action ?

The e-mail from Brendan Gold about numbers uncovers an uncomfortable fact.._I look at the Heathrow (Worldwide Fleet) - and my sole reason is that the numbers are bigger here

Cabin Services Director__94
Main Crew _____- _____345
Purser_______________187
Grand total_____-_____ 906


So for every purser there are fewer than 2 main crew._ How astonishing!_ All aircraft I have flown on have a higher ratio of main staff._ Can it be that the rank and file of Cabin Crew are deserting Unite?_ I see that within the 45 members (Heathrow Worldwide Fleet) who have recently left, there are 7 main crew to 1 purser.


Are Amicus and BASSA becoming more elitist?_ Maybe they should rename themselves BAESSA. How about the main crew, words like plebeian and comrade come to mind._ How about
Plebeian Cabin Crew Comrades

Thanks, Betty ... another complicated dimension to the whole thing!!

Notlangley ... interesting indeed, although perhaps not surprising. Is it not the case that the militancy is centered on the more senior legacy crews, who are being cruelly asked to do a bit of work for a change?

BA loses again
 

Eliza Mak wins legal appeal

notlanley,

the numbers you refer to are those who pay subsciptions directly to Unite, and are therefore more likely to be CC89/Amicus. This tallies with the total of non-check off members of 906, which is rumoured to be something around the numbers of CC89 members in total. It could go some way to explaining the recent hard-line adopted by CC89, including them harping back to the original reason for the dispute - ie WW CSDs having to participate in the service.

It would be interesting though to know the total numbers of CSDs, pursers and main-crew by fleet and compare with the Unite membership breakdown, but I don't think that can be compiled from any currently available info.

In the legal case about HKG employees, a Superior Court of the UK has held that it has jurisdiction to hear their cases. - "The decision was based principally on the ground that they did their work partly in Great Britain"

" There was no error of law in the ET's ruling that Ms Mak did "her work partly" in Great Britain"

I look forward to the Inland Revenue chasing Ms Mak and her colleagues for their taxes and NI for all their years of employment. Getting some Chinese folk to pay UK taxes might save some UK public sector jobs.

I wonder how much of this is due to superannuated judges thinking that although the UK no longer rules HKG, it bl**dy well ought to. If I were the Chinese Government, i would be livid about this Colonial interference with my Country's laws.

Also, for that part of their work that British CC do in HKG, they must be subject to HKG and Chinese laws.

How do BA CC feel about being subject to Chinese law for that part of their time spent on HKG flights and layovers? Getting sozzled in the New World Harbour View (or wherever) is unlawful..................

All this stuff is just work for lawyers.

And for Unites pr department!

Thank you Hipennine, how right you are.
 

You are absolutely correct, I apologize for misleading readers of this thread._ I do now accept that all the numbers that I quoted are Amicus (AKA cc89)._ And of course what really matters is the larger numbers that would correspond to BASSA._What a pity!, I thought I had found something - but Amicus are only one tenth of the total._ Also the pattern may be totally different for BASSA.

a) Unite did a good job for most sectors and work groups within British Airways._ BASSA+Amicus is the exception.

b) Unite have had two invalid cabin crew strike ballots so far, and most observers blame BASSA+Amicus for this.

c) What the MAK case says to me is
1) Unions are necessary to prevent the exploitation of the labour force - this is not deliberate exploitation - but it just happens - standards slip with time - organisations become too large and an organisation loses its humanity.
2) Unite can win legal cases if the case is just.
3) Justice takes a long time, Eliza was dismissed in 2007.

Another example of "Creative Accounting" with the membership totals ?

BWAHAHAHA ... and almost well spotted.

Just one small/LARGE problem ... that Grand Total represents all the figures on that tabulation, which equals 906.


So, moving on ....

Creative accounting
 

Gobfa, what can I say?
I mean thank you Gobfa it is very good of you to point this out.

Why do I have this insane sense of humour?_ I was so keen on making a joke about Proletariat Cabin Crew Comrades that my critical faculties were beaten down into passive submission.

I must not make jokes._ I must not make jokes._ I must not make jokes.

Did this point ever get cleared up?

PS I think it's "hearsay" as in "I heard someone say", rather than here-say

From the "Strikebreakers rewarded" posting of 24th February on uniteba.com:

Quite breathtaking, considering Unite agreed a deal which cabin crew weren't then even given the opportunity to vote on.

Regarding the "strikebreakers rewarded" post by Unite, when is the penny going to drop that by prolonging this dispute Unite has only made matters worse for their members and BA is not going to put everything on hold for them (see part time offers for crew who've accepted the offer)?