just an ob'
 

I'd assumed it wasn't a sacking offence but if it is then forget my speculation.

That sort of idiocy would indeed require a bolt-gun cure

...the point at which I stopped accepting any of the details of this chaps departure as fact.

Meanwhile, over on "the other side of the fence", things are suspiciously quiet.

No one has posted a single message on the crew-only thread since last evening.

Ho hum.

Suspension/sacking, etc
 

Many "model" disciplinary procedures based on ACAS advice will include the following as a guideline of the sorts of thing that constitutes Gross Misconduct (ie something that may result in summary dismissal:)

"Refusal to carry out a reasonable management instruction" or "failure to follow a management instruction" and bla, bla.

So if its true that a Captain instructed said martyr to comply with Uniform Standards and said Martyr refused, it's a fairly direct correlation with a dismissal for Gross Misconduct.

Looks like it's going down to the wire, with no resolution today.

I can't believe that BA is continuing to negotiate in good faith with Unite when BASSA has already telegraphed its bad faith intention to scupper. Particularly after what happened between WW & TW last time when Unite reneged after BA had actually made good faith partial staff travel return and other concessions.

Either,

BA is continuing in order to place on record its over-archingly reasonable behaviour should any of its future actions against the Union bring it in front of the Courts;

or,

Unite has indicated to BA that it will deal with its renegade Branch(es) in forcing any agreed offer to be presented to all of Unite's members in a postal vote.

Nothing else makes any sense as BA would just be making itself look weak and stupid which, in its current position, it has no reason to allow.

BOLT guns do save on vet's fees .......
 

Apart from the above, don't forget one thing - the BASSA rule book was modified at some stage, possibly 2007, which made the equivalant change as follows ;

In the event of a dispute the following shall come into force -
No branch meetings will be held nor decisions be made;
No elections for any branch position will be held;
These changes shall hold good until such dispute is concluded and agreed by the Branch GS.

This means that DH is in charge until he alone says 'Agreed'.
Also, what do the branch officials now consist of - any reps who have been dismissed or removed for any reason, cannot be replaced, as they cannot be elected. So any influence from reps, if it still exists, can only be very minimal, if at all.

I would expect the result to be DH saying NO - for any 5 reasons.
CC89 saying NO - for any 10 reasons.
Len Mckluck left spluttering and trying to explain why he agrees with them and why two branches can over rule the main Union. (Democracy?).

DH has got a throttle hold on BASSA and I can't see any way that it can be removed, other than by complete closure of the branch and a new entity created to replace it.

I hope that I'm wrong, for the sake of all the BA CC, who jobs are being placed in danger through the spite of one individual. Although they do of course, have the solution in their own hands, by leaving BASSA.

As no one actually knows what the branch meetings will bring forth (whatever we may suspect), BA can't really do anything other than continue to negotiate in good faith.

If BASSA/CC89 agree the proposals, nothing lost, if they don't, BA may well have handed the two branches enough rope to hang themselves.

Unite didn't renege last time, it just couldn't control it's branches.

WW and TW had also agreed a deal pre the first strike, which I suspect will still prove to be better than anything on the table this time, BASSA and McLusky scuppered that by announcing strike dates unnecessarily. I wonder how many CC will appreciate that irony? Those who resigned and/or went into work during the strike and/or voted no to further strikes presumably do. To my mind BASSA/CC89 members were completely sold down the river last March, it amazes me how many can't see it.

McLusky is now in TW's place, which is fascinating from an onlookers point of view.

This highlights perfectly the madness of the entire situation. If BA keeps striking deals with Unite for which its Branches then continually scupper and Unite is not deemed to have reneged then this is tantamount to saying that Unite is not the responsible party with whom BA should be negotiating in the first place!

If Unite cannot agree a deal that it cannot persuade its Branches to accept then it has no business negotiating with BA and any such negotiations are by definition in bad faith as they are a complete and utter waste of BA's time. BA will continually, as it is right now, be drawn into negotiating against itself and being asked to give more and more and more.....

Lord knows how BA has ever allowed itself to get into such an impossibly ludicrous position as this. If I were BA I'd be looking to sort out this stupidity with the Union and its Branches very quickly, and by some hard-ball negotiations if necessary, particularly as BA holds all the cards.

If BA is ever going to move forwards as a competitive fighting unit in the airline industry it needs to sort out internal legacy messes like this and now is the time. When the dust settles things need to be a lot simpler with less organisations involved and more streamlined processes in place with BA running its IFCE operations while listening-out with a good ear to constructive feedback and practical comments from its frontline staff who provide regular service to its customers.

AV F, I don't disagree with you, this is why I said BA, by continuing to negotiate, may have handed BASSA enough rope to hang themselves. BA seem happy to play a long game, which would presumably be on legally safer ground, if it came to law in the end.

If bookings were being affected, BA might want to speed the 'game' up, but they don't seem to be.

The long game also reduces their 'bad guy' image with crew, who BA still have to work with in the long run. It's a 'hearts and minds' thing, at the start, BASSA had the advantage, but it's losing credibility, it's better in the long run for CC to lose faith in BASSA because of BASSA's own actions, rather than BA making a martyr of BASSA.

I would agree with you Just an Observer about BA winning hearts being important and I feel crew were comming round to see that BA was not so bad and that Bassa had let them down....

However in the space of just a few weeks BA has started to lose it's credibility and the trust of many, because the transfer of work between the fleets is not being done at all well and many WW and E/F crew are not picking up full rosters and this is scaring even the most faithful crew.

It really is important that BA does this in the way they promised, ie. only transfer work as the fleets shrink as otherwise it is just allowing Bassa to say' I told you so'.

What seems to be the problem is that not enough part time has either been given or taken up but if this is something that they cannot correct, they need to pause and slow down their plans or else they will find that people will rush back to Bassa.

Lets hope that whatever they have been talking about is good for all and we can finally move on. Fingers crossed!!

Betty Girl, I gathered from other posts that BA have overestimated the extent of part time take up, and in any event, probably are not averse to being overstaffed in the short term while the threat of IA still exists.

I daresay it will correct itself once the dispute is over, although perhaps over a good few months, even if BA were really the villain BASSA paints it, it would not want to pay staff it does not need, not even at MF rates. What they do need to do, is to continue to keep CC in the picture re route transfers and so on. This is very different to asking BASSA's permission, before anybody jumps on me for that comment.

During the IA, BA have been very careful to do only what they have said they will do, and do nothing that has not been announced beforehand, it's just really a question of keeping that up.

Yes, I agree but is important that they slow down the recruitment of new entrants if they are having problems with reducing our community.

I am sitting at home having been non op'd ( not operationally required ) and I should be working today. It is a waste of current crew and will just add to the feelings of worry many already have about this new fleet.
I have got 5 unfilled work days on my roster this month and many other Pursers and CSDs have up to eight. On WW there are many with weeks of 24 hour availability on their rosters too.

We are at our busiest period of the schedual and it would normally be unheard of to have crew not used at this time of year and 120 new crew are joining each month on M/F.
I do understand what you are saying and I hope it does settle down but it really important that BA keeps the faith of thoes that were loyal to them and leaving us sitting at home with no work when we rely on our work to trigger allowances is not good. It was also happening on M/F too, although I think it has improved for them this month due to gaining the Amsterdam and Manchester routes.

I am just saying that it would be silly of them to get the numbers wrong for a long period because it is scaring many, including myself, and it could be got right so easily by only growing M/F as the current fleets shrink by whatever means part time, VR, etc etc.

JAO & BG
 

JAO - Your comments make complete sense - I never was known much for my patience!

BG - It is wonderful reading your exchange with flyeruk69 on the "other thread" and I think that this approach between CC on both sides of the IA will be instrumental in bringing life back to normality when this is all over - which will be very soon now.

However, please forgive me but I cannot stop myself from commenting on the causes of this dispute particulary when you suggest BA have been heavy handed, BASSA somewhat instransigent and flyeruk69 suggests that with an agreement reviewing crewing levels the outcome could have been different.

This entire matter was unavoidable, it was destined to happen because of weak BA managment over the years not standing-up to an over-zealous union executive. The consequence was that all the power lay with the union such that at the slightest suggestion of a change by management the union would snap its fingers call a strike and bring BA to its knees.

BA simply had to do something to restore the balance. It could not go on. If BA settled on the union's terms yet again it would have been back in dispute time and time again at every slight issue - e.g. hot towels, window blinds, working one down, etc. BA's response was to slowy build both internal staff and external contract resources to effectively counter and neutralise any such union action and then to lock-horns over proposing a much overdue and vital cost savings program even though in the short-term it meant carrying a large CC staff overhead - which you are currently experiencing.

This was the point where the power struggle began in earnest between a controlling union executive (DH/LM) and BA management (WW). When a power struggle ensues there can be no compromise, it is an all-out war and can only end with the defeat of one of the parties - in this case BA made sure it would not be them. DH and the union executive will never willingly surrender the power that BASSA has established. If you read the ten points in the strike ballot they are all specious and DH has said himself that once these are conceded by BA there would be even more to follow. What he is really saying is until full power and control over BA's IFCE operations is handed back to him he personally will not settle irrespective of the wishes of his CC members.

CC have unfortunately been somewhat unwitting pawns in this struggle and in many ways have been oblivious to the reality of what is happening at the top as the union executive has been extremely economical with the truth and even openly deceptive over all reporting matters. This is before we get into matters of potential accounting irregularities, etc. One would hope that CC will have learned a valuable lesson here in the dangers of only listening to their union and will take a more balanced view of information released by both union and employer in the future.

We will possibly see in the next few days the end of the war with the defeat of the current BASSA executive. There really can be no other outcome.

If any of this makes sense to you and you are able to understand the above reality and pass it on to all CC who wish this dispute to end then your first challenge will be in persuading the BASSA executive to give its members a truly democratic postal ballot. Until now the only way to vote, as you found, was with your feet leaving the current BASSA executive in place but weakened only slightly with each departure.

It is also time to begin planning what comes next after the current BASSA (& CC89) executives depart. Is it one new Branch? Does it include MF? Is it still to be affilated with Unite? Will PCCC play any part? One thing for sure is that BA wants a mature, intelligent, informed and constructive union executive with whom it can negotiate collective agreements for CC moving forwards as, contrary to BASSA's rantings, it was never out to bust the union but to restore a more equal balance of power. What BA doesn't want is a multi-factional, in-fighting, deliberately obfuscating, intransigent and immature power-wielding mob whose only method of negotiation is to say "NO" then call IA at the drop of a (MF?)(:)) hat.

Going back to the rhetoric from BASSA before the strike ballots kicked off, I doubt reviewing crewing changes would have made any difference. Remember BASSA sought a mandate of "no negotiation" to permanent change and a mandate to ballot for industrial action in the event of any imposed changes. It was telling that the joint statement from BA and Unite delaying strike action included a reference to the need for crew to accept permanent change.

A very succinct summary.

It is essential Unite launches a strategy to clear out the dead wood, and lays the foundation for successful BA Union/Branch structure beyond the next BASSA Elections (which, assuming the strike is resolved by then will, I seem to recall, be in October 2001).

If a Branch Official remains unopposed it is technically possible for him to be re-elected, which could mean another few years of Holley (though I would imagine no longer working for BA would be a barrier to that happening, but sticking to the Rules and Constitution are not extactly this lot's strong point...)

Lost already then? Just when they thought it was all over.

Looks like a deal has been agreed between BA and Unite:

BBC News - BA strike: Hopes rise for end to cabin crew dispute

Reuters
 

In a statement, the Unite union said McCluskey would address a mass meeting of cabin crew members and hold a press conference straight afterwards.

link

Where: Bedfont FC, The Orchard, Hatton Road, Bedfont, Middlesex TW14 8QT
When: Thursday 12 May 2011, 12.00pm