I suspect it depends on the branch more than anything.

It's now very clear to all.

Unite/BASSA didn't consult a Queen's Counsel last weekend because they wanted a legal opinion on their mandate to call a strike following their ballot result. Queen's Counsels cost serious money (especially over a weekend!) No, they consulted a Queen's Counsel (and heard the bad news they didn't want to hear) because BA filed an ex parte law suit for an injunction to stop them announcing strike dates following an allegedly flawed ballot (probably on last Friday). The case was heard yesterday (Thursday) in the High Court. So far both BA and the union have kept the matter very quiet. BA because they have never trumpeted their moves from the roof tops, Unite/BASSA through embarrassment at their incompetence and not knowing what to do next if asked.

A strike was voted for - when will it come?
 

Thank you AV Flyer. _A convincing, a well rounded and most plausible explanation that leaves no loose ends._ But eventually Unite have to explain - they can’t just say cricket is a sissy game, we prefer to play soccer - they are paid to play cricket.

Whilst agreeing with the above [and thanks from me to AV Flyer as well] I wonder whether errors made in balloting are of sufficient magnitude to "materially affect the outcome"?

Whilst personally having no truck with Unite/BASSA, I had a twinge of sympathy [which quickly passed] when McLuskey commented somewhere about BA's nit-picking. Whilst 100% accuracy on a postal ballot may realistically be unachievable, what degree of accuracy is actually acceptable/unacceptable in these cases?

If, of course, BA has been made aware of dozens/hundreds of misdirected ballots there may be a case for Unite/BASSA to answer.

My thoughts on it would be to test it using the whole workplace as the measure.

Lets use 10000 as the total staff in the department. You have a ballot and 5001 support it, then I think that an error of 1 paper would be reasonable and so on.

I am probably in the minority in the union movement, where I think the proposed legislation should be changed to workforce rather than membership. I believe that this will be a benefit to the union movement. There is no point delivering a weak mandate in the 60-70% area, let alone below 50%. As I have said before, make the right to strike and action short of a strike legal and protected, but only on a very high vote result, say 85% of the total workforce in the affected area.

This will force people to join unions and vote if they feel that there is a relevant issue, rather than sit on the backs of others.

Are we certain that the court hearing on Thursday was about the latest ballot? The reference number of the case was 2010 and it as a very short hearing.

Litebulbs
 

I will hold my hand up and say that on first reading, I was about to object to LB's post. Then I read it again - as, in my defence, I am wont to do - and realised that not only should I not protest his post, but should support it.

I guess there will be some who argue that this would infringe some right or other, but I can see exactly where LB would be going with this if he ruled the world. :) If you have an opinion, backed either by a union or you own wit, then you are obliged to express that opinion in a democratic process. Otherwise the 'answer' from any given ballot is largely bo11ocks, as I have hinted at in posts of my own.

Well said LB, my apologies for previous doubt.

Roger.

Democracy
 

Roger,

That rights infringement would be questioning democracy being 50%+1 and a mere majority. Can you be democratic with the requirement to have something more than +1?

LD12986 ... indeed, we are of course plaiting fog at the moment. ;)

Litebulbs ... I see where you're coming from. As with political elections, it's a bit difficult to determine a true measure of opinion when you have a <30% turnout and 53% voted for the successful candidate. However, one stumbling block [of many] would be forcing union membership, and thus union dues, on individuals. The ECHR might be working on that one for decades! Or, indeed, having non-Union personnel voting on a Union matter.

Sorry AVFlyer but I don't agree with your assessment. I don't see how it benefits BA to stop this strike from occurring now. At present, Unite stand to be sued and any strikers BA want off the payroll sacked if Unite go on strike under the current ballot. Why would BA want to let them off the hook?

BA have already lost revenue from advance bookings and preventing the current strike action now will allow Unite to reballot, get the same result and we'll all be in the same position in a few months time. Unite will have hit advance bookings over the summer and have a valid strike mandate.

It would make much more sense if this did relate to the 2010 dispute and BA were seeking advice \ contemplating suing for lost earnings. This would be very different from seeking the injunction to stop the strike (which ultimately they lost).

MPN11
 

The first stumbling block would be for me to raise it at a union meeting!

Forcing membership is here today, because of legislation. You want to collectively negotiate and vote, you need to be in a union. What I am suggesting will not change that, but will require a stronger mandate from the workforce. If 49.9% are happy with the situation, then why allow 50.1% have their way? It will be about concessions on both sides of work. A right to strike, or action short of against a bigger percentage in favour of.

Obviously it would be naive of me to think that it would be simple. Business would just be looking for it to be harder for unions to call action, without anything in return. But that isn't very coalition.

Unionism and votes are currently only pretending to be democratic anyway. If you don't like the vote, you leave. I might not like the current Government, but I still have to abide by the rules, regardless.

BetterByBoat
 

In other words, it's in BA's interest to have an unprotected strike and mass-produce P45s? Interesting hard-ball game.

Meanwhile, suing the pants off Unite for ... what exactly? Having a legal strike which cost BA a lot of money? I'm losing the plot here, somehow.

Litebulbs
 

Ahhh, but I don't want to 'collectively negotiate' ... because I'm semi-detached, unmotivated, broadly content or whatever other reason. Unless it's a closed shop, which I believe is now illegal, there will be a percentage of the workforce who, for whatever reason, don't wish to engage in the process [just like with Elections].

The challenge is to make membership of the Union[s] a more positive thing, involving staff and management in constructive discussions for the benefit of both sides. Sadly, there are still some Unions who are actively anti-management, anti-employer and rampantly political ... which unsurprisingly will alienate [on current figures] some 66% of the employees who may hold different political views ;)

A nice theory, but I don't somehow see it working at the moment.

MPN11
 

Can't disagree with any of your points. I would say that comments about the political nature of unions, is not unique to them. You have the TUC and you have the CBI.

As I said, legislation dictates that any collective bargaining has to be on the back of a recognition agreement and there is a huge difference between negotiation and consultation. You are correct that some do not want to be part of a collective arrangement, but as one of my colleagues has expressed in many union meetings, give anything that has been gained over and above the non unionised areas within the business, to charity. There wasn't too much take up on that scheme.

"In other words, it's in BA's interest to have an unprotected strike and mass-produce P45s? Interesting hard-ball game."

BA have lost a huge amount of revenue over the last 14 months. So yes, I think an unprotected strike is in BAs interest. They wouldn't have to sack everyone. Just those they wanted to. An ongoing strike over the summer that never ends and continues to hit bookings isn't in BAs interest. But ironically, the strongest suit Unite now have is over the threat to strike hitting advance bookings rather than any great ability to seriously hit actual schedules.

"Meanwhile, suing the pants off Unite for ... what exactly? Having a legal strike which cost BA a lot of money? I'm losing the plot here, somehow."

The strike was never ruled legal or illegal. An injunction to stop the strike failed (despite the union not meeting the requirements of the law) but that doesn't stop any future action, especially if new information has come to light. It would make a lot of sense to sue Unite for the £125 million that BA openly said they lost. It would also open the doors for "legimate" sackings of hard core cabin crew extremists.

An agreement now that allows BASSA to stay and fight another day is not in BAs interest.

BetterByBoat
 

Agree that last point completely. There is no way BA can function effectively with BASSA trying to cause disruption at every turn. I find it sad that it has come to that point, but I don't see BA having any option other than to completely emasculate a sub-Union which has signally failed its own membership.

Oh, well, interesting times ahead [as usual].

Perhaps I can turn the question around - how is it in BAs interest to stop an unprotected strike now which will lead to a reballot and a protected strike in a couple of months (which will hit summer bookings)?

This current ballot is almost certainly "invalid" - it is surely in BAs interest to have Unite and BASSA have an unprotected strike now rather than a protected one in a few months??

Or do you think that a reballot would bring a different result??

Note - I'm not saying I'm right. Happy to discuss and agree to disagree;)

BA have stated that they have NOT taken any legal action to prevent this proposed strike.

They have confirmed that they HAVE written to Unite and pointed out that some of the demands on the ballot are related to the previous strike and therefore would cause any more strikes to be unprotected.

They don't need to take legal action because if Unite's legal team agree, and it looks like they do, they would not want to risk BA suing Unite for the cost of the strike. It is not because BA want to sack crew, although that could happen if a strike went ahead under these circumstances, but it is about Unite not wanting to be sued by BA for the loses.

As usual Bassa have messed up and enabled BA to prevent this strike with very little effort. As time goes by more and more crew are seeing the light and realising they have been very badly led by Bassa and as a result their support is ebbing by the day.

DH and LM have caused permanent damage to both Bassa and Unite.

Quite frankly crew are all just fed up and want a settlement and if this offer was explained to crew properly by the union and not in the scaremonger fashion, it has been up to now, most crew would be happy to accept it and move on.

"It is not because BA want to sack crew" - disagree. I don't believe BA want to sack all striking crew. But if Unite handed them the opportunity to sack the "ring leaders" \ key extremists then I think they would take it.

As I asked above - why would BA want to stop "illegal" \ "unprotected" strike action now which only allows for protected strike action in a few months that hits summer bookings?

BBB,

Maybe they actually want a settlement!!

I don't believe BA want to sack anyone other than a few ring leaders. What they want is for this to be over and us to get back to business as usual.

I CAN see light at the end of the tunnel.

Things have changed at work and it is hard for both new Mixed Fleet crew and current WW and E/F crew but it will be possible for us to co-exist and in time all this will settle down, I truly hope.

If this strike dose not go ahead, I really don't think there will be any stomach from the majority of Bassa members, other than the die hards, for any further strike action. That's my view.

Though is it not fair to say that a lot of the ring leaders are/have handing BA excuses to dismiss them without any help from Unite.

I did hear a very little whisper that BA are investigating the branch chair over the posting of a MF roster on the internet a while back

I just don't believe that BA have gone through 14 months of this dispute to settle now with little result other than thousands of embittered cabin crew (who have lost staff travel entitlements and salaries) and, more importantly now, with BASSA still in place.

Even if BA want an immediate settlement, stopping this strike by warning BASSA \ Unite about the legality of the strike makes no sense to me.

BASSA and Unite will just reballot?? And we'll have another strike in the summer which just drags this dispute out even further (and into the summer schedules)?? Or do you believe that a reballot will produce a different result??

Note the pre-conditions that BASSA \ Unite have before they return to the negotiating table is all their toys back ...... do you really believe that BA will cave in to these demands now ........

BBB,

We will just have to agree to have different opinions.

Speaking as someone who is right in the middle of this and has lived through the last 2 years working along side strikers and listening to all their rhetoric and reading and listening to everything BA has said, I personally feel that the tide is changing. Strikers are starting to openly criticise Bassa in a way I have not seen before and BA have always said that they want to settle this, all be it on their terms.

BA originally wanted huge changes to our working practices but have accepted that, for now at least, we can keep our current terms and conditions and have instead decided to achieve saving through Mixed Fleet. To date BA have actually got ALL the savings they were after from cabin crew with the introduction of Mixed Fleet and the crew compliment changes which also reduced the number of in charge crew on longhaul flights and reduced it to just one on E/F flights. These savings are ongoing year on year and will increase further year on year as current WW and E/F crew leave and Mixed Fleet expands.

BA don't need to do anything because they have actually, thanks to Bassa, achieved MORE than they had hoped for. If Bassa do ballot again BA will just take it on the chin again because they have all the savings they wanted plus more and eventually Bassa will lose the will to carry on and as I have said, I am seeing that online already.

Just my opinion.

More than happy to agree to disagree ... that is what debate is all about. :ok:

One point - please don't think it is only cabin crew that have been at the center of this for the last 2 years. The whole of BA have been dragged through the mud by striking cabin crew and I think that you may be a little too optimistic about the way things will pan out for those who continue in their thousands (5751?) to vote for strike action.

To achieve a clean "win" to this dispute BA needs to have the existing BASSA leadership and its key militant reps ousted and replaced with more professional, constructive and mature minded people. Whether the CC's new form of union leadership continues under the name of BASSA or PCCC or anything else does not matter to BA. There is simply no other solution that could be acceptable to BA as without this BASSA would just keep acting up again and again spewing its entrenched vitriolic hatred of BA at every possible turn.

Frustratingly, BA can do very little to force this to happen as it can only be achieved by BASSA's members either voting in new leaders or voting with their feet and leaving thus permitting BA to derecognise what is left. Neither of which, until recently, have BASSA's members been very motivated to undertake. BA has had no choice but to sit by and watch as it is illegal for it to do anything, positive or negative, to encourage CC to leave BASSA.

As such it is very hard to say whether BA's strategy should be to attempt to block the currently threatened IA through either injunction or by warning BASSA of unprotected status (with or without implied consequences) and risk continued action later in the Summer or whether to sit back and quietly allow IA to go ahead and clinically sack any strikers or to pursue any other strategy for that matter.

As BA wishes to preserve its good public image by not taking the nuclear option, it really has no choice but to fight this battle as a war of attrition. As such, I believe its only option is to continue picking away at every opportunity with every weapon it has to hand at the time. This includes suspending misbehaving reps, calling injunctions to stop IA following flawed ballots, choosing not to negotiate on the reasoned basis that Unite/BASSA/CC89's proven dysfuntion makes this impossible, etc., while BASSA's current leadership slowly self-implodes.

A strategy that does appear to be working even though significant brand damage is being done and morale among CC is poor both of which I'm sure BA is already planning how to repair once this is over.

Diminishing support
 

BetterByBoat saidActually, unless Unite issues strike dates quite soon (the last day is next Friday) then the figure of 5751 will never again be achieved - probably less than 5000 if this vote to strike is unfulfilled.

BASSA will change or otherwise it will give way to PCCC - BASSA has an option to survive if it genuinely wishes to stay in business.

Sorry, just eaten and Rugby about to kick off ... ;)

Betty girl is right ... for those who can remember what this was all about:

BA reduce LHR CC by one to match the LGW manning level - done.
BA introduce Mixed Fleet to save paying inflated legacy wages - done.
BA agree no existing T&Cs will be changed - done.
BA say ST will be withdrawn for strikers - done, then reinstated with limitations.

And BASSA wants what, these days? Do they even know? :ugh:

Regarding sacking strikers, I genuinely don't believe would do this. It would be akin to pouring petrol on a fire that is about to go out. The reaction from the rest of the company, the union movement, the media and politicians and the public is a huge unknown.

If a strike is considered illegal, then the reps themselves could be exposed to gross misconduct charges, all dealt with under the company's disciplinary policy, rather than just being sacked.

LD12986
 

Agree again ... BA's primary objective is to be able to run BA efficiently, not to set off a series of sympathy actions [of whatever variety] from sackings.

I have no doubt that the embittered BASSA activists, spurred on by their SWP friends, will find their own way of achieving separation from the company that pays them with SLF money ;)


[off topic] Sorry ... it's half-time, Scotland v. France, and being reminded of what Rugby should be like instead of England's pathetic, stolid, set-piece travesty yesterday [/off topic]

In relation to last weeks court case BetterbyBoat posted:-

This would not have been possible if the offer, which Unite and BA had shook hands on, had been accepted by the members. Neither BA or Unite would have been able to take legal action for events which occurred during the dispute, due to the caveat contained within the offer.

The irony of course is that this very caveat was held up by BASSA and CC89 as one of the reasons that they couldn't recommend the offer to their members, and why a ballot was never held.

Own goal methinks....

How many BA cabin crew qualify for membership of BASSA?
 

The figure of 13,500 cabin crew that I have been using is evidently unreliable, since it relates to December 2009
I also see that http://bapress.custhelp.com no longer exists - which diminishes the trustworthness of this source of information._ So my question is how many BA cabin crew qualify for membership of BASSA?

All that we can be sure of is that in Dec 2010 - Jan 2011 Unite balloted 10,200 cabin crew._ The often quoted figure of 2,500 for non-members is maybe nothing more than a plausible guess.

Betty GirlNot to mention the Cabin Crew themselves. One of the most damaging disputes without meaning ever. If there was a case for putting two people in the stocks - it is they! Their utter selfishness and proven inability to guide BASSA is breathtaking. They have caused a massive let-down to all the CC whether some of them understand it or not. Indeed, if the TUC needed to disband a union for gross incompetence BASSA wins hands down.

I have this 21 January 2011 quote from a British Airways spokespersonHowever the coincidence of 13,500 over a twelve month period when no staff are being recruited to Heritage Cabin Crew is a coincidence that is not entirely convincing.

notlangley - Have you remembered to allow for all of the new Mixed Fleet recruits in your estimates of total BA cabin crew. I'm sure that BA will have included these in their 13,500 total cabin crew figure that they quoted on 21/01/11.

13,500 includes Mixed Fleet, WW Fleet, E/Fleet, SFGatwick and International cabin crew.

Bassa Reps ..........
 

Every few days or so, reference is made to BASSA reps, out of curiosity are there any lists of such, detailing -

a. How many existed around August 2009 when this all really blew up.
b. How many have since left BA or BASSA for various reasons.
c. Do any unpaid voluntary ones exist, responding to DH's call a few
months ago.
d. Any appointed formally by BASSA since August 2009.
e. All current existing formally appointed Reps.

Is it not a requirement on Unions to always have publicly available a list of formally appointed Reps?

In addition, there appears to be a large degree of current information unavailable from BASSA which is required by law, including public accounts and branch meeting minutes, although possibly I'm looking in the wrong place for this. I am assuming that it is not feasible to access any up to date membership register, as this aspect of BASSA administration appears presently to be in disarray, is there any previous data/date known which was published and regarded as firm, 2009 perhaps.

Having posed the above current/potential problems and given the amount of trolling effort expanded recently re the source of PCCC funds - with the number of offers floating around on both threads to donate £150 to the PCCC, the question of where they will have obtained this sum from, will only become relevant, if at all, when they eventually are required to pay it.

In case of temptation - don't forget - play the ball

Entaxie, it is worth remembering that BASSA is not a union. It is a branch of Unite the union.

A number, if not all, of the legal requirements placed on unions therefore do not apply to this mere section but only the main union.

Entaxie
 

As snas has said, the requirement is probably for executives of Unite, not lay reps: they represent fellow colleagues at a particular workplace.

It might not be palatable, but it is lawful.

And for the record, DH is a man that I respect, inasmuch as he was employed before the dispute, but now he is not. That is some sacrifice. It may not suit some, well, most on here, but fair play. Could I do what he has done?

BA and Mr Walsh have played a fantastic game. Bassa have tried to counter it. On the face of it and looking in as an independent, we are where we are.

Reps etc.......
 

Snas and LB -

Thank you for your information re Reps and Unites responsibilities versus a branch, I have to admit that I felt that it might be the case. However that then leads to a couple of follow on questions -

a) Presumably the questions that I posed in the previous post, now apply
to this information being required to be available from Unite - does
anyone know if it is?, would branch accounts be separate?.

b) I would assume that for its own branch members BASSA would still be
required, if only by custom & practice, to list Reps for the benefit of its
members, otherwise how else will they know who to look to with
problems.

c) BASSA, although only a branch, appears to have been able to
change its own rules and regulations in such a way, that branch
meetings and elections of officials are suspended until it declares
that the current dispute is over, also seems to be able to turn down
offers, independantly declare results of ballots, call for IA and declare
the dates on which IA will take place, behaving in fact as an
independant union. How is this? - does it mean that BASSA has
powers beyond that of a branch and therefore additional obligations.

It seems to be an nicely confusing labyrinth.

LB - Re DH, I have to admit that I do not share your view, but twould be
a grey place if all views were uniform. I would however note
that the 'sacrifice' does appear to be fully funded, both now and into
retirement at the end of the year.

There appears to be more twists available than a good murder plot!! ;)

Entaxie
 

With regard to DH, we will shortly see the process and justification on his dismissal, if it is not settled. If we do get to see the case, then no doubt we will discuss to content outside of the legal verdict.

edit - after some advice and re-reading, what the above means is that I understand that DH will be taking BA to tribunal soon, over his dismissal. The ET will come to a verdict on whether the dismissal was fair or not. The facts will be presented and the ET will make a decision on whether BA was right to act in the way it did; whether the dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses. We will then make our minds up based on the facts and also discuss whether it was a reasonable response, based on the facts presented.

We will see all of this if the case is not settled outside of court.