Litebulbs

Many apologies I just noticed a typo against your name. I assure you it was simply that, a typo!!

VK
 

Yes I do. The law on unfair dismissal is about process and balance of probabilities. If each case was examined and an ET could substitute it views over that of an employer, then I would be happy to accept their view.

Made my eyes open, but we all typo!

The porno site was not a good move, although it it hadn't had the BA links, then it would have been a different story.

We will see what the facts of the case are with regard to time off work for trade union duties.

I don't know the last one.

In fairness, there have been several "not a good moves", including the personal demonisation of WW, blatant lies and the alleged aggression to those disagreeing with the BASSA line.

However, we [or rather you] are where we/you are.

Where does it go from here?

• Yet more ballots to annoy people and [hopefully] damage forward bookings? So routes get dropped and fewer CC are needed?
• Or BA caves in to a revised set of irrational demands from DH [I say that deliberately, as this is HIS battle, not the rank & file]?
• Or BA achieves REAL profitability in the competitive marketplace, and can actually afford to buy all those new aircraft that are on order?

Isn't it honestly time to call it a day? Personally, I don't care one way or the other ... I fly BA from choice, and despite all the bluster and blather it has always delivered me, through 2 strike phases, on time at the right airport. You are fully entitled to take whatever actions you deem appropriate, but it broadly has no impact on BA or the SLF. Which suggests to me it's basically over ....

Even Safety Reps who are legally allowed time off work can only do this with mutual agreement, we were specifically warned on the union operated training course that we could not take time of without agreement.

A rough recommendation was about 1/2 hour per week in normal circumstances

MPN11
 

If the you you are referring to is me, then I need to explain that I am not an employee of BA, although I am SLF.

You are allowed reasonable time off for union duties. No doubt the ET will will clear this up soon enough.

@ Litebulbs ... my error. I had forgotten that. Sorry.

The general comment still stands, though.

MPN11
 

No doubt we will have to wait any see if a Bassa member replies.

Litebulbs

Sorry I added this as an edit

West Lakes
 

Now some are pursuing certain individuals and a particular branch for visibility of accounts. Now with a branch of 10000, would 1/2 hour per week, be enough time to reasonably carry out those duties?

That's where negotiation etc with the employer comes into force and as has been stated previously doing some duties in your own time etc,
Additional to this are of course joint meetings, safety inspections etc. with the employer.

Of course with a large number of members the number of reps would be increased to reduce the burden on the individual.

But thinking it through this time off was during a dispute with BA, so a question in return.
Is it reasonable for an employer to allow a rep paid time off to carry out union duties to the furtherance of an industrial dispute with that employer and when the facilities agreement (which often includes agreement on time off) has been suspended?

As I commented, last year I think, in many cases reps apply for and are granted unpaid leave during a dispute with the union compensating them for lost income (I understand unite has done this in the past)

I could be wrong but wasn't it the case that BASSA took the decision to withdraw from the facilities agreement with BA which allowed him time off for union activities...so he was basically taking time off when there wasn't an agreement in place with BA for him to do so because BASSA had torn it up.

It was Bassa that withdrew unilaterally from the facilities agreement.

Didn't the judge at the first injunction discover that neither of the main Bassa reps - DH and LM I believe - had actually flown with the new crew levels, and had only flown once between them in the last 6 months (from memory).

DH is alleged to have paid someone else from his own pocket to do Bassa admin.

Whilst I usually respect Litebulb's stoic defence of Bassa I can't help thinking that part of the problem is that not enough union members and socialist supporters have questioned their actions and strategy.

I'm not accusing Litebulbs of blind faith but there are certainly not many Bassa members who are brave enough or of sufficient independant intelligence to change the direction of this out of control , ego-driven and irrational rabble aka Bassa.

Litebulbs,

Even if it hadn't had the BA links, then the rep in question would probably still have been dismissed from BA, disrepute and all that?

The Blu Riband
 

Where have I stoically defended Bassa and I am certainly not a Socialist.

I don't see how it could be, unless porn is illegal, or the new union in question was linked to BA, which I believe it is NOT.

I don't think any respectable business with a disrepute clause in its contract would have any problem dismissing an employee for being a pornographer.