This is good news, well done BASSAwitch for not being intimidated by the union bullies. I hope Bw reads through the posts here on this thread over the past few weeks, especially the links to relevant case law, which make it clear that the regulations do indeed apply to Branches:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ml#post6277970

I think the complaint can be lodged online:

Certification Officer - Complaints

It might be as well to post the complaint here prior to sending it off, and maybe other posters might be able to ensure it "hits the mark" or make other relevant suggestions to help its wording.

It's still a good idea to copy both BASSA's and Unite's auditors as well as Unite itself in order to get things moving faster.

Bon courage!

BASSAwitch
 

....might also like to read this re. complaining about financial irregularities :

http://www.certoffice.org/Certificat...f5e59d8799.pdf

I note that BASSAwitch is preparing for a barrage of abuse after complaining. The CO can protect identity as provided for in above.

P.S. binsleepen - litebulbs knows the score on tribunal result link

Mr P

A very interesting link. If DH's charge of misconduct is upheld at his appeal tribuneral could this be linked to here:

It also states in Para 37a

My bold in both cases

Regards

binsleepin
 

I imagine that it could be the case if the person in question had been disciplined by the branch or parent union. It is a trade union issue, not an employment one.

Thanks for the link mr pony.

It appears it's not just past or present Union members who can alert the Certification Officer of concerns about maladministration:

VK
 

We shall await your feedback then.

I think it's best we wait for the response from the Certification Officer to BASSAwitch's concerns.

I would hope that other members and former members of BASSA would expect transparency from their Union; that Holley is not prepared to make the accounts available, and apparently has quietly set up "BASSA Ltd." for an as yet undetermined purpose, does raise questions which most right minded people would want answering.

However, it is for the members of BASSA to direct their own Union branch, and members will always enjoy the leadership they deserve.

But surely your post 965 means that you can pursue the issue and as you have spent so much detailed time on it, why not use your research?

If your post means that you personally can approach the CO and you are clearly upset by what is going on at the branch in question, then I would have thought that legislation would allow you to get the information that you require.

Or you could trust to luck that the CO is a member of pprune.

BASSA's audited accounts
 

Who are all these self-important, non-airline employed, busybodies who apparently have nothing better than to poke their noses into the affairs of a trade union in which they do not, have not, and probably will not ever be subscription paying members?

Have they got nothing better to do than to display their self-importance and their propensity to stick their (uninvited) oars in?

Let BASSA members inquire about their branch's account for themselves if they so wish. It is absolutely nothing to do with potential passengers, probable passengers, past passengers - or anyone else, apart from the branch members themselves.

Chuchinchow,
when I first read your post I had a lot of sympathy for what you were saying. If I were a member of a private club which only did legal things legally then I would not want the outside world to be probing in to us.

However, bassa are not a private club. Further, they have expressed on a number of occasions their desire to muck up MY and other people's lives.

If I fly with BA, bassa's strike threats are a real pain. They want to ruin my passenger/customer experience.
They are probably unable to deliver on their threats, but they make it clear that they wish to negatively impact the passenger.
If I fly with BA I do not get hot towels in econ+, courtesy of bassa and weak BA managers.

I could go on with this, but it becomes boring.

By expressing their desire to muck up the lives of SLF, bassa have said that they want a public debate. They want to be with the big boys and girls.

A public debate includes Accounting for each and every penny that they have had over the last few years.

I hope that some bright QC picks up this case and gets all the dirty laundry - if there is any - out in the open.

How many holidays have BASSA ruined? How much disruption? How much militancy and arrogance to management and the paying public? So when Joe Public asks "Hey BASSA, are you sure the money you take from your members is spent wisely and within the rules?" suddenly that is unreasonable. Perhaps it's vile and bullying too?

Seems like a quietly put, reasonable request for transparency. Being so obviously reluctant to be open with members and former members leads one to conclude they are keen for people to remain in the dark. One rule for the rest of the world, another for the BASSA-mentalists?

Well thats three who could contact the CO and make a complaint, who, despite stirring things regally here, with no evidence, choose to do nothing when they have the opportunity.
If someone at BASSA has cooked the books then they will eventually get caught and dealt with as appropriate. To this date we have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Er, that was exactly the point I was making. Though obviously it passed you by.

Former BASSA members are now making the right moves to obtain the transparency which BASSA is legally required to provide. It seems prudent to await the CO's response before making any further waves.

No-one is alleging any "cooked books"; it is the lack of transparency itself which is against Trades Union legislation.

The legal position is that the general public have the right to raise concerns. As a BA shareholder, it is very much "my" business. Should further obfuscation be forthcoming from BASSA, it might be an option to become more involved.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the findings from DH's recent Employment Tribunal have already piqued the interest of the Certification Officer.

The bullying aggression shown in the rest of your post says a great deal more about what BASSA might have to hide, than I ever could.

chuchinchow
 

Your tirade is difficult for me to understand since you asked:

I - a private individual, unconnected with the civil aviation industry in any way except as an end-user - wish to obtain information about "a certain organisation" under the provisions of either the Data Protection Act or the Freedom of Information Act.
Is there anything in law that would prevent me paying that certain organisation the statutory fee and then demanding information on its financial situation?

...not so long ago.

The Certification Officer has made a deliberate attempt to open the door to outsiders.
What harm could be done by informing about missing records that are meant to be kept as a statutory necessity?

"As a BA shareholder it is very much [your] business" to interest yourself in the running of that company - to a certain degree, that is true, but after that you leave the day to day management of BA in the hands of its chairman, directors and the leadership team appointed by the BA board.

"As a BA shareholder" it is absolutely none of your business to poke your nose into the internal affairs of a trade union you do not belong to, have not belonged to and etc etc etc.

By your logic, because you may pay council tax in a town "it is very much [your] business" to investigate what that town's employees wear, eat for lunch and so forth.

Let BASSA members challenge their branch secretary to produce audited accounts; it is absolutely no business of anyone else - not even the self-appointed inquisitors of the PPRuNe SLF threads.

And for the avoidance of any possible doubt, and before the herd instinct kicks in with snide negative personal comments against me, I am not nor have I ever been a member of any trade union during the course of my entire life.

Sorry but what a lot of tosh...

BASSA is part of a trade union and comes under trade union law. If it is breaking that law and is discovered, the defence of "oh, but we were rumbled by a non-member" simply isn't going to cut it. The law is the law and if you can't run a trade union legally then you face the consequences.

If you came across someone you believed to be burgling a house, but it wasn't yours, do you somehow magically lose the right to call the police?

It does seem to me that the demand for legally mandated transparency has hit a particularly raw nerve with BASSA......

But Unite has history in this regard. Unite has been censured for denying access to the accounting records of branches of the Union itself:

1: on or around 3 May 2006
the Union breached section 30 of the 1992 Act by
failing to provide Mr G King & Mr M King with access to the accounting records of the 1/230 branch
of the union

2: on or around 6 December 2005 the
1/230 branch of the TGWU in breach of rule 10.4(a) of the rules of the union
failed to elect the members of the Cab Trade Advisory Committee

Chuchinchow
 

This works both ways Chuchinchow

If this is none of our business, then why does BASSA/Unite run full page adverts in our national newspapers?

This union is constantly trying to win public support for this Industrial Action, and as such, we have every right to respond to it. Perhaps you do not like hearing the reasoned arguments that appear here, and dont like the fact that you cannot control what is said, or our opinions?

We have every right to express these opinions, to debate the issues, and to raise any possible shortcomings in the running of the union.

There are people on your side of the fence who join in this discussion, and I welcome it. Please feel free to also enter the debate on this forum, but don't try and silence us.

VK
 

If Unite have a history, then I am sure the CO will be hearing from you.

Again, we await your feedback to support BASSAwitch's investigations.

Over on the CC thread...
 

Shaka Zulu has posted up a BASSA rant about sexism amongst the pilot/management community. It's a bit of a larf. This is the best sentence:

It would appear that cabin crew, and by de facto, predominantly women, had to be kept in their place at any cost.

I like the faulty use of Latin so much - no-one uses these little phrases in a public forum if they have any sense. It appears a bit conceited to start with, and it doesn't communicate to all who read it either. But when you get it wrong as well. Ha Ha.

Worse still is the logic - it goes like this:

Many CC are women, when one is persecuted on the basis of one's sex it is sexist, therefore if the mainly male BA/pilots/management/forum members etc do not accept our terms they are being sexist.

The Latin for this type of wonky thinking is cum hoc ergo propter hoc!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Very well said, Richard228 :D

Use of Latin
 

I thought it was "Post hoc ergo....." but you make a good point.:D

O tempora, o mores.

Next thing you know BASSA will be shouting "Adeste Comites" - but I suspect it will be much in the way of Gen. Custer

If you take the trouble to read my past messages you will see "on which side of the fence" I sit. But clearly you have not.

I don't think I'll need to get out my 50+ year old Virgil.

It is much more like "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it infamy"

Shaka Zulu, on "the other" thread, has told us:

I wonder what that person's take would be on the flight deck crew that operated my 777 JFK-LHR flight last week? All three pilots were women.

AO - loved it !!

We might continue the theme with XXX - "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy." (fill the XXX and change sex as appropriate!!)

The problem, Sir, is that you dissemble :cool:

Your views are clearly expressed. You do, however, sit on two fences :eek:

Regards ;)

Whilst on my recent trip to the beautiful island of Grenada I met a fellow holiday maker whilst having my morning exercise on the lovely, sandy beach. We eventually started conversing about air travel & in particular BA, which we both had used from LGW. She then launched into a vicious attack on WW & told me in great detail what she would like to do to him!

I was somewhat taken aback until she revealed that her daughter is LHR based CC. I soon gave up attempting to reason with her as it became very apparent that her daughter is an ardent Bassa supporter! It was quite a shock to hear at first hand some of the Bassa tripe which has been published on PPrune!:cool:

As an aside, both our flights were absolutely packed & the service was, as ever, both friendly & efficient. We landed at LGW yesterday morning, 40 minutes early!:ok:

It's worth taking a look at the offer which was sent out most recently to BA cabin crew not in the Union:

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

It does seem very reasonable to me; BA is restricted due to collective bargaining agreements from offering this directly to Unite members, but there's nothing to stop people leaving Unite, signing the deal when it (or one like it) is next offered and then rejoining their Union after.

VK
 

Have you approached the CO yet?

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some days ago.

I wonder how many have followed Holley's order on 23 January for non-strikers and no-voters to resign from BASSA and accept the above offer?

VK
 

So why post so much information and especially the info that says you can personally seek what you appear to desire, if you want others to carry out the work for you? What have you got to loose or hide?

Rather the question should be what has Duncan Holley got to lose (not loose) or hide from breaking the law and not making the BASSA accounts available to his members and former members.

You are, as is ever the BASSA way, personalising the discussion.

It's not a strategy which has worked, and nor will it.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with BA, BASSA, Unions, Union-bashing organisations such as the Burke Group, or the transport industry more generally and nor does anyone connected with me, if that's what you are implying.

In fact I believe very strongly that in lower paid cyclical industries such as BA, business-minded, pragmatic employee representation is essential. It would be good for BASSA to have the right leadership, though personally I think the "brand" is too damaged to ever recover.

This BASSA shower of a leadership team has woefully misrepresented its membership, but it is for its (ever diminishing) membership to realise this and take action itself.

Threads like this set that out, and provide the evidence required for people to make up their own minds, unlike other sites where dissention is censored and adult discussion stymied.

The transparency of the BASSA accounts are a matter for BASSA members/former members in the first instance, as the accounts themselves can only be made available to BASSA members or former members and not members of the general public.

VK
 

You have to personalise the issue, because you are representing your own position. You found some information which you posted on this thread to say that anyone could approach the CO. You are obviously interested in the result, so why not find out for yourself and report back?

VK/Litebulbs
 

I don't believe that the Certification Officer would be responsive to a suspicion aired by a member of the public anyway, unless there was evidence to suggest that there was good reason to intervene. Otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harriet could ring in a suspicion and the whole system would degenerate into turmoil.

Quite right.

There is no evidence or suggestion of fraud on the part of BASSA, but it is now in violation of the law for not permitting access for members and former members to its accounts within 28 days of being asked to do so.

This is being addressed by Bw who has made representations to the Certification Officer, setting out concerns, in response to BASSA's contemptable response to the original enquiry:

Other BASSA members and former members can set out similar concerns here, simply using this online form:

Certification Officer - Complaints

I am sure all Union members would welcome the easy availability of a route of escalation, supporting the "little man" in the fight for transparency against large, powerful and well financed organisations with a reputation for bully-boy tactics.

VK
 

Do you know that Bw has done this?

Why would the CO not be interested? There are regulations that allow inquiry from informed and interested individuals, which it seems you are, so why not apply along with posting information for others to do so.

mrpony
 

I have looked at the decisions page and not seen anything yet, but I am sure that this sort of thing takes time.

The last decision with Unite involved, was from a Mr. Kruger in January.

I would hope so, Bw stated on the other thread on Saturday 12th March that they planned to contact the CO on Monday 14th March: