The words that ChicoG put in his quote areThe actual works used by Glamgirl werewhich was in support of jetset lady who said

And in case one wishes to know what jetset lady stands for, she says

. LGW - 27/07/09 - Fisher - Failure to Agree

Which doesn't change the fact that BASSA has had a far wider reaching influence on the operation, tends to start from the standpoint of saying "no" rather than "yes" and rarely proposes smarter ways of working which actually help crew make the service better for passengers, and, indirectly, better for those delivering it.

Hopefully Mixed Fleet, and indeed the advent of management actually flying as crew in the VCC programme, will ensure such issues are fed back properly and changes made for the benefit of all, and without BASSA interference.

It still doesn't change the fact that BASSA is leading its membership into an unprotected strike and specifically exposing strikers to being fired, without recourse to unfair dismissal.

But not at LGW and certainly not on the LCY-JFK route. As I have already said, more than once, the Union became irrelevant in the planning of this route thanks to their refusal to negotiate for reasons I have already mentioned.

But regardless of all that, once again, it was BA that dropped the a la carte dining idea. Unite had nothing to do with it and merely reported the results of the trials to it's members. Why can you not accept that VintageKrug? Is it so hard to admit that maybe you shouldn't have included that link? I'm no BASSA supporter as I think most know but at the same time, I refuse to try to make the facts fit my theories when, in this case, they plainly don't!

In another place MissM poses the question:
Not the P45 rumour again, please. Even before the first strike in March last year there were rumours that anyone going on strike would be issued their P45.
If BA would have any intention of actually going ahead with it surely they would have issued them earlier when they had the chance? Why have they gone to court on several occassions for an injuction when they instead could have allowed us to go on strike and issue our P45?

I think the answers may be:

1. BA has to act to minimise IA-related losses for shareholders' benefit.

2. BA owes a duty of care to all its employees - something it wouldn't have been doing if it had ignored the ballots' shortcomings.

Unless anyone has any other or better ideas?

mrpony
 

Quote .......... If you read the relevant clauses highlighted by VK in an earlier post as follows........the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.......Etc.....

I agree with what you and VK say - but - I have never said that what BASSA appears to have done and are doing, was in any sense legal or illegal, but it is a matter of some curiosity.

As we all know, you cannot make accusations without proof of such possible malpractices and, without copies of BASSA'a own Rules & Regulations and minutes prior to and after the linkup with Unite, and ideally a copy of the Agreement when they "joined" Unite it would seem that any evidence either way would be difficult to find.

However, thinking as an aside, figures for any income/disbursements by BASSA as a standalone entity prior to becoming part of Unite and, any such for BASSA following their becoming a "Branch" or whatever with Unite would be useful, including any political payments to the Labour party, SWP, etc., or Unite, or within BASSA, in determining the amounts of possible income/surplus - that might make interesting reading, if anybody can find any information!!.

A thought, I wonder if Reps were ever given a standard income/payment by BASSA at any time in the last 5 years - does anybody know (for certain, not as an 'I think' or rumour) and I know that it would be unusual, but curiosity calls, in fact is there any form of up to date Reps list?, as in theory Bassa cannot elect any reps at present, and they are supposed to have lost a fair few in the past 18 months for various reasons.

At least it beats Sunday TV and Ice Dancing!!. ;)

Interesting that Miss M has faith that her evil employer that sacks BASSA members for trivial reasons, and is out to union bust, will not sack her or her fellow BASSA members on the next, unprotected strike.

@ Mariner9
 

Agree completely.

MissM has supreme confidence in the rights of her cause, which is fine.
The downside is her slight failure to grasp the realities as seen from different perspectives.

If MissM really exists as BA CC, I suspect the future holds a few pitfalls for her and some of her colleagues.

There will inevitably come a point when BA will take whatever legal action is necessary to end this farrago. The "P45 Option" is certainly one of those, especially as BASSA seems determined to lead CC into unprotected IA.

I agree this latest strike would be the first launched in this country, let alone for UNite, without "protection" for some considerable time.

All employers have the right to sack strikers, without any recourse to be re-instated, even under a "protected" strike; it's only the amount of compensation for "unfair dismissal" which might vary.

Under unprotected action, no compensation for unfair dismissal is due.

More likely than issuing P45 will be a SOSR compulsion to sign, individually and within 90 days, the deal agreed by Unite last year (including protecting their current T&Cs and a pay rise) or be dismissed, without recourse to unfair dismissal compensation.

Hopefully by that time Unite will have its troublesome branch in order, or have formed another "branch" to develop a more productive framework for future industrial relations within BA, or it will have left its members sorely unrepresented.

Now, where are those accounts! 9 days to go!

Which would seem to be a very sensible way forward, and could have been achieved a long time ago ... if it wasn't for some individuals determinedly perpetuating the situation.

There is a mind-set amongst some of the CC that signing up to an agreement that preserves their existing T&C represents capitulation. They should really consider the options, instead of simply posturing.

However, "You can lead a horse to water ..."

Juan Tripp
 

Juan, with apologies for the delay in responding to your question, out & about ..........

"what do you mean by ' A Union Pension'. Surely they don't get one of those, as they are only running the branch. Happy to be put right".

As I understand it, the union pensions for the BASSA officers, were probably agreed to, by a change in the BASSA rules prior to joining Unite, possibly proposed/voted into being by the BASSA officers of the time. Of course, at that time they were running a complete union rather than just a 'Branch', with of course the resulting responsibilities and, working for BA. I presume that Malone was already living in LA then, so must have been very busy on Atlantic crossings.

Could I ask that if you can add anything to this or my earlier post today, please PM me. Many thanks and again, apologies for delay in response.

Cheers ;)

I genuinely do not believe BA will sack strikers (not least because I don't think there will be any more strikes). Everything BA has done has followed a clear warning as to its intentions and sacking strikers would deny BA any claim to the moral high ground.

If Unite was sufficiently concerned to call off the last strike ballot, then I doubt it will call an unprotected strike.

I imagine if BA does threaten to sue Unite and Unite then calls off the strike, then I'm sure it will claim that this was a complete surprise by BA, even though BA first intimated that any future strike would be a contiuation of the first strike 9 months ago!

As for the ballot result, I don't think anyone is expecting anything else than a yes vote, but it will be interesting to see how the Yes vote moves from the last amount of ~5,700 and whether we get below the 4,000 mark.

A question
 

According to Wikipedia BASSA were part of The Transport and General Workers' Union which in 2007 merged with Amicus to form Unite.____link1
It a constant cause of confusion in my mind that the other aircrew branch of Unite - cc89 uses the name Amicus (instead of cc89) - and even the Courts refer to the two branches as BASSA & Amicus.

Wikipedia lists the dates and names of Unions that merged into The Transport and General Workers' Union during the years 1922 to 2006._ However BASSA is not on this list.____link2
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that BALPA is an independent Trade Union (i.e. not a branch) and therefore has more rights and more legal obligations than BASSA or cc89.

My question is - when did BASSA cease to be an independent Trade Union and become instead a branch of T&GWU?

I agree with this. BA will not go to the ultimate sanction against strikers, but they may sue Unite. Unite know this, hence the 'wierd and wonderful' alternates to strikes postulated by McCluskey.

VintageKrug
 

Can you show me the legal view that the potential industrial action that is being balloted for by Unite, is unprotected, or is it just rhetoric?

Follow the many links and quotes of the legislation I hav posted ESP. On p29 of this thread.

VK
 

I have a basic understanding of the law and I cannot find any legislation that states that the potential action will be unprotected. It may, but that will be a matter for the courts.

Just because some think that it will, does not mean it will be.

GrahamO
 

That would be correct if this was a continuation of an existing dispute; in this case the crewing level issues.

Unite believe and I would hope have sought legal opinion, that the issues being balloted are new and not connected to the previous strikes. Many on here do not agree with that.