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)?