A good solution, provided that:

Agreed 100%.

BASSA started spreading rumours (on the day the latest balloty launched!)that Mixed Fleet crew will now have dual bases, suggesting MF contracts are coming to Gatwick, in a desperate attempt at boosting their diminishing support from Gatwick.

It would be interesting to hear how BASSAwitch is getting on.

Just to lighten the mood, I'm pleased to report an excellent flight in J on 1 March BA2153 LGW-GND. One slight problem was a dicky seat mechanism but we were moved to a serviceable one. A BA guy on staff travel took the dicky one as J was full as was WT+. Oh, & the map display was programmed with Jamaica as destination! Fortunately the 2 winged master race found Grenada OK!

Not much sign of Bassa's tactics deterring the pax on this flight!

Oh yes, & as ever, great friendly service, even the quality of catering has improved.

I am a bit confussed about the meal service taking 3 hours in Club World. Between Mrs J and myself we do about 10 round trips a year between Boston and LHR, and although the service can vary between excellent and poor it has never taken more than 2 hours.
As a side note the company that Mrs J works for has just changed its prefered airline on trans atlantic to BA, so they must think its all over.

From what I understand, the MF basic is higher than the LGW basic anyway!


Yes I've had the LGW experience havinf travelled LGW - MBJ and return at the end of last month. Absolutely no problems, complaints or concerns on either flight

Vintage Krug
 

Perhaps BASSAwitch has decided not to broadcast what's happening and adopt a lower profile. Understandable if so; as an ex-member identity is a problem - why issue an invitation to be chased remorselessly by a braying pack of bitter logic twisters?

On the CC thread page 168 PC767 takes a compliment about MF service and smartness and attempts to subvert it by:

1. suggesting a conspiracy is promoting uniform availability to MF Crew at the expense of others.

2. questioning the credentials of the person who gave the praise.

3. appropriating the debate by claiming it is about the effect of 'imposition' on customer service when it hadn't been.

4. blaming imposition as the reason for the strike and MF as the reason for its continuation confusing cause with effect as only the faithful seem able to.


So it goes.

Agreed. I fly around 6-8 roundtrips a year in J and have never had a service go as badly wrong or be so drawn out as is apparently the norm if you believe what is being posted on the other thread.

Maybe it's different on the upper deck (my main route is JFK and I try to avoid the 777)...

VintageKrug
 

Probably doing the decent thing and waiting the 28 days. Therefore having nothing much to report.

Injunctions due to TU incompetence
 

Injunctions due to TU incompetence

One for the anoraks........

(Courtesy of Eversheds)

04 March 2011
Key strike law decision from Court of Appeal

The law relating to industrial action is complicated and many aspects are unclear, mainly because of conflicting court decisions, complex statutory rules or because of the absence of judicial interpretation. In particular, uncertainty exists over the degree to which trade union failures in the strike ballot process will invalidate any strike that follows. Today's decision from the Court of Appeal departs from recent High Court decisions and will be welcomed by trade unions but not employers.
Background

For a trade union to organise lawful industrial action, it must comply with a number of specific statutory requirements. These include conducting a ballot and notifying the employer in accordance with detailed rules set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
A breach of these ballot and notice rules can result in industrial action being stopped by a court injunction, usually obtained by the employer. This has been illustrated in recent times by injunctions involving, for example, British Airways and Network Rail. However, trade union criticism has been mounting against the TULRCA rules and the way the courts have interpreted them. This includes union criticism that the rules are too strict and inflexible, thereby allowing employers to obtain injunctions. Today's case considers some of these criticisms, in particular:
· the extent to which accidental failures in the balloting process can be ignored
· the extent of the obligation on trade unions to maintain accurate membership records in order to comply with employer strike and ballot notices, and
· the nature and detail of the explanation that the trade union must provide to explain how it arrived at the information provided in the notices to the employer (about the numbers of employees involved in the action, their categories and workplaces).
Decision

The case involves two separate transport strikes, involving London Midland Railway and London Docklands Railway, both of which were halted by employer injunctions granted by the High Court in December and January respectively this year. Aslef and RMT, the two unions involved, were successful in their appeals against the injunctions on the following grounds:
· whilst sending ballot papers to two members who were not entitled to vote (where over six hundred were balloted) breached TULRCA, the statute provided a defence (section 232). This defence permits small accidental failures in relation to entitlement to vote and the conduct of the ballot to be disregarded. The Court of Appeal held that to take advantage of this accidental failures defence, the failure must be unintentional, but it did not also have to be unavoidable. In other words, just because the union could have taken steps which avoided the error, like keeping better records, this did not mean by itself that it was deprived of the accidental failure defence because of human errors and failings
· in addition to the specific accidental failure defence (above) in TULRCA, the unions argued successfully that a general principle of law permits other "trifling" errors in the ballot and employer notifications to be ignored and should not form a basis for invalidating the whole process
· the Court departed from previous High Court case law by deciding that, when complying with TULRCA rules about notifying the employer about the numbers, categories and workplaces of the employees involved in the dispute (in the ballot notice), it must provide those figures which are as accurate as reasonably practicable in the light of information it possesses at the time. The Court stated that these were "important limiting words" which need to be given weight when considering a union's obligation. As such, the trade union had complied in the circumstances. Importantly, by focusing on the information actually in the hands of the union, the Court rejected the notion that trade unions have a duty to keep proper records, or collect further information, specifically in order to comply with the balloting and notice rules under TULRCA. However, this does not mean that trade unions escape any obligation in this respect; as the Court pointed out, it must still supply the employer with information as accurately as it reasonably can, for example, collate and obtain relevant documents from union officers and analyse the information
· the Court of Appeal decided that a trade union's duty to provide an explanation of the figures (about employee numbers, workplaces and categories) contained in the strike and ballot notices is not an onerous duty. Again, this runs contrary to recent High Court case law and means that the repeated use of a formulaic or generic explanation, as is often the case, can suffice. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeal approved the analysis of what is required under paragraph 16 of the Industrial Action Code of Practice.
Comment

This decision will be welcomed by trade unions, given the less prescriptive approach taken by the Court of Appeal to the standards they must reach in order to comply with the statutory ballot and notification process.
However, that inevitably leaves employers with less certainty when it comes to relying on the information supplied by the trade union, for example, identifying those employees involved in a potential strike. This, in turn, makes contingency planning that much harder.
While the case will reduce the number of employer injunctions granted on minor technicalities, it does not spell the end of all injunctions. The rules under TULRCA are there to be complied with, trifling and small errors to one side.
RMT v Serco Limited and ASLEF v London and Birmingham Railway Limited

@ Ancient Observer * = My emphasis.

That goes some way to explaining the detailed breakdown of membership provided by Unite to BA ... i.e. they have done all they can to get the number correct.

What it does in respect of the reasons for IA will, of course, be a different and more complex question.

I totally respect BASSAwitch's lower profile, though I disagree that a union can benefit from 28 days notice once it has clearly stated the records are not available.

I actually think today's ruling from the Appeal Court is positive; it is right that small technicalities should not be used to obstruct people wishing to conduct a legitimate strike.

But it really isn't that difficult to conduct a compliant ballot, and in BASSA's case the very stark "re-calculation" of the numbers post the censure by the Electoral reform Service does suggest there was considerable error beyond simply small administrative difficulties.

It seems Unite has brought in the big guns to get BASSA's membership records in order; so I don't anticipate any challenges on that fron this time round. HOWEVER, having said that, there will be several hundred people who will have resigned from BASSA following Duncan Holley edict to do so on 23 January 2011:

So while I think it will pass legal muster, I think it will still overestimate the current BASSA membership.

That still leaves the issue of connected strikes, which these clearly will be, and whether or not the action will be "protected" or not.

I think the three hours quoted is from doors closed to final collection, so that would align with the 2 hours from wheels up I typically experience when relegated to Club.

Either way, BASSA members should seek out the accounts and also challenge the basis upon which no election for the Branch officer positions have been held.

The vitriol which drawing attention to this issue attracts might suggest there is more to this than meets the eye.....

On "the other thread" pc767 is obviously disgruntled.

He now blames the passengers in J for all the ills engendered by the CW service and has the effrontery to tell all and sundry that Talk about cutting the branch on which he sits! :ugh:

Have just returned from a rather excellent soiree so will play the ball not the man.

But it is terribly funny to hear that the new crew on BA, this "MF" lot, who generally appear to be happy with their T&Cs, and also generally appear to be pleasing the pax that fly with them, are somewhat irritating the old guard.

And yet the same legacy/"first fleet" dinosaurs cannot for one minute see it from the punters point of view, and cannot understand that keeping the customers spending money is really the key to their employment and rewards.

Perhaps they should be working in an environment that does not require satisfying customers instead of themselves?

All it needs now is new/refurb'ed aircraft with decent IFE and I'll be back like a shot. Hopefully the money BA have saved, thanks to the BASSA junta's antics, will shortly be spent in that direction, ensuring the future of the airline and all of the people who actually want to work for both the company and their futures, instead of themselves and their vacuous venality.

My dream is that BASSA members understand the value of a good union and the damage of bad union leadership; and that they ensure the former by putting a firm kick up the backside of the latter (preferably out of the door, because if they could see it from the perspective of those out us outside, they would realise how empty and self serving is the rhetoric of people like Holley, Everard, Malone, et al).

@ CCC ... and hello!

I sometimes have to shake my head quite hard to try and get into the mind of some posters. So do I understand that Premium pax are not to disturb the Union-approved activities of the CC? Provided we have serviceable IFE [fingers always crossed] and that the food/wine has been loaded properly [as if] we are supposed to sit meekly?

Heaven forfend that we should ask for more coffee or wine, or the notional 30-munite juice round. For consistency, and the benefit of CC, we should accept what we have been given as our basic requirement, and then shut up.

Remind me, someone, why do I find these attitudes repugnant and self-serving?

I have read pc767's post and I did not take it the same way as some of you here.
How I understood it, he/she says that when pax have ad hoc requests it will be dealt with,but may slow the service whilst that crew member goes off.
If a pax asks for a wine that is running out the crew member will go to the galley,look for the wine,look for the corkscrew etc.
The same goes for if the IFE has to be reset.

While this is going on the other pax in the cabin are not being served and slows the service.
I suggest you read the whole post not just what has been quoted and see what you think.
I really didn't get the feeling that pc767 resented people asking for things.
I didn't feel any malice was intended.

Out of interest, what is the pax/CC ratio in the various cabins on long haul? You can tell I don't get out/far much.

There are 6 different configurations on the long haul fleet.These are 2 that are probably used the most.

747 high J
first 14 pax 3 crew
club 70 pax 6 crew
WT+/Wt 215 pax 5 crew


777-200 4 class
First 14 pax 3 crew
club 48 pax 4 crew
WT+/WT 160 pax 4 crew

I'm sure PC767 can speak for himself, but I think he reflects the views of many crew in that they:

a) want to deliver a good "product"/service to customers they can be proud of;

b) they do not want to have to continually apologise for failures elsewhere that are outside of their control (IFE problems) or less than brilliant ideas (ie wine lists that include wines not loaded on the aircraft); and

c) they want assurances that Mixed Fleet will not adversely affect their earnings

None of this is unreasonable. The problem is that no-one on the side of crew is providing any answers/solutions to c). BASSA's only response seems to be:

i) portray the company as the enemy that must be feared and resisted at all costs

ii) say no

iii) call further strike ballots

Crew need effective union representation, not least to keep management honest. All we have at the moment is BASSA being hell bent on pursuing a strategy that is doomed to fail and ostracising themselves from the rest of the company, and crew are passively giving BASSA a mandate to do this. And a better working relationship between crew and management may also help deal with a) and b).

Again, forgive my ignorance, but reading the 'other thread' (is that like 'the scottish play'?), the issue seems to be the time to do a full meal service in Club class. Have I got that right?

LD12986, and 617sqn,

Very informed and fair minded posts.

It is such a complicated situation and even those like me, that can understand why the company have made these changes, can't help but feel worried about the future.

It is all so mixed up and complicated even for those of us that did not strike.

On the one side we have Bassa making things far worse than necessary and scare mongering crew and making some of them believe that they are going to be forced onto an inferior contract within a year!!

But on the other side we have BA fawning over Mixed Fleet crew putting them in a hat and positioning their desks right in the middle of the report centre almost as though on purpose.

It's hard to make people on this site realise but the vast majority of crew are just hard working normal people whether they are Mixed Fleet, WW, E/F or SFG. There are over 14000 of us and there must be only about 20 or so that regularly post on here and those that do post have very polarised views in general, whatever side they are on.

What upsets me is when someone like PC767 tries to make a point, sometimes not that well, but then people take his words out of context and others join in and before you know it, ALL cabin crew are the devils incarnate, well except for Mixed Fleet crew, they are always the angels!!!!
When in reality we are mostly ALL, a good bunch of hard working people and the vast majority of us LOVE BA and love our job and are just a bit scared of all this change.