BA Strike

[Russethouse]

 Two opposing views from Blog land :

http://www.littlemissbrightside.com/?p=361

http://www.lettersfromatory.com/2009/12/15/british-airways-cabin-crew-are-committing-employment-suicide/

[NormanH]

The Judge's decision looks incredible seen from France.

A clear attempt to deny the right to strike.

[Stefan]

NormanH

Fine in theory, but the Union has got to ensure the balloting procedure is carried out correctly.

I think when/if you see full details of what came out in Court, copied below, you might understand why the judge made the decision to grant the injunction. In a nutshell the judge was of the opinion that despite being warned by BA the Union knowingly allowed people to vote who would have left the Company by the time of the strike, made no efforts to warn such individuals not to vote and in at least one case actively encouraged such people to vote via comments on their website.

------------------------------------------------

Quote:

British Airways Plc v Unite the Union

Queen's Bench Division

17 December 2009

Case Digest

Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience

Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.

BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.

Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .

According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike. Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.

Held:

(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite. Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.

Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.

Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.

Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.

(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and the a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.

Application granted.

[woolybanana]

So, Normie, a clear attempt by the judge to validate the right to strike!

[Benjamin]

I've kept out of this thus far but here are two bits of information.

The daughter of a friend dates a BA long haul pilot. In the last three months she's visited Thailand and Rio with him at no personal expense to either of them. OK, so it's not cabin staff but it illustates the range of perks available.

The second was an interview reported on BBC news with an ex-employee who admited that although she'd taken volountary redundancy at 30 November she'd been encouraged to vote in the balot. She then went on to say that BA cabin crew were in a privledged position as regards the perks they get.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

 

[Stefan]

Benjamin

Um, the "no personal expense to either of them" comment sounds a bit like the stuff the papers were putting out....I really, really, really doubt that is correct. I'm not going to go into to much detail about these "perks" but few if any staff tickets are "freebies" and in any case somebody will have paid at the very least Airport Passenger Duty on tickets. FWIW even on short haul around Europe the "perk" of flying as staff with BA often costs more than buying a ticket on a LoCo !!!!!!

I would however agree there's a lot of of fiddling whilst Rome burns going on...

[Cendrillon]

I'll second that Stefan.

[Benjamin]

Stefan

What daughter tells Mother which then gets repeated to us is probably short of the whole story but still serves to illustrate there are enormous perks that some of the staff get.

[Stefan]

Honestly Benjamin, there's no "probably" about it.....

I guess in the days when long haul travel was rare it was quite a "tremendous perk", but now that every major tour operator sends passengers by their tens of thousands to four corners of the globe it's become a pretty run of the mill thing to do. I know many airline crew with familes avoid staff travel and book packages anyway, because of the uncertainty involved with standby travel.

[Russethouse]

 It certainly used to be that Pilots got perks such as X number of free flights and Y number at a discount and I suspect that they retain some of these perks even when retired....

[Cendrillon]

They still have to pay the taxes so a flight will never be completely FOC and many of those perks will be for "standby" seats only and those allocated at the last minute at the gate and in order of seniority i.e. that is number of years of service.

[NormanH]

"The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction

sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and the a

strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to

BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other

time of the year.

"

Clearly a political rather than legal argument..

It still doesn't answer my point that this was (from a French perspective) a serious attack on the right to strike.

Obviously any Union would use that at the most effective moment.

All this decision seems to say is that they don't have the right to do that

[woolybanana]

Stop your nonsense Normie! That you were ever in education is a shame;

The right to strike is a trust and a contract; the bunch of mindless idiots who are attempting to head this strike are not worthy of that trust and should be laughed off the planet. Their members are insulted by allowing themselves to be led by this bunch of donkeys.

Of course there has to be change, which means bringing their inflated contracts into line with the industry norm. Anybody who doesnt like that can go work elsewhere!

[AnOther]

[quote user="NormanH"]It still doesn't answer my point that this was (from a French perspective) a serious attack on the right to strike.[/quote]Do you know, for a moment there I though I had been transported to another thread [Www]

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1/1931286/ShowPost.aspx#1931286

[Stefan]

Norman

Yes, the judge commented about timing, but you've got to look at the full findings and take those comments in context.

Firstly and most importantly: IMHO if the Union (BASSA) had run their ballot properly and in accordance with UK legislation their beloved "right to strike" would have been upheld by the judge and BA's injunction would have been thrown out, Christmas or no Christmas.

However:

1. BASSA sent ballot papers out to people who would no longer be employed by BA at the time of any strike - a breach of the legislation.

2. Despite being warned of this by BA, BASSA made no attempt to stop inelligible people casting their votes (they could have printed a warning on the ballot paper, sent out a mass text message to their members, e-mailed their members..but they chose not to).

3. It was alledged that the BASSA chairperson used the Union website to positively encourage someone who was retiring and had queried this very matter to go ahead and vote anyway, despite being inelligible...

Not suprisingly the judge decided BASSA had run a flawed ballot. She now had to consider the "balance of convenience": Either she could have decided to give BASSA the benefit of the doubt, and rule that the errors in the balloting didn't effect the final outcome, or she could be mindful that the law in the UK is supposed to consider the interests of everybody, not just the unions, and contemplate the effect of a Christmas strike on the traveling public and BA.

As we know the judge ended up deciding that the "balance of convenience" for the majority of people was best served by allowing BA's injunction.

Of course I suspect the French perspective would be somewhat different and would probably be: never mind the fact we ran a slipshod ballot, our right to strike is paramount and the fact that over 500,000 people's Christmas holiday plans are in tatters isn't our fault.

Just to emphasise the point again : If BASSA had run their ballot properly they would almost certainly have had their "right to strike" upheld, regardless of the dates.

(By the way, if you search out the judge's profile ( Mrs Justice Cox) you'll see she has a very strong background in Human Rights and Humanitarian issues..she's certainly not a Right Wing hanging judge or a lacky of the Cameronian-Borisite faction).

[NormanH]

"Of course I suspect the French perspective would be somewhat different and would probably be: never mind the fact we ran a

slipshod ballot, our right to strike is paramount and the fact that

over 500,000 people's Christmas holiday plans are in tatters isn't our

fault."

I certainly think that it is inconceivable that people who had voted by such an overwhelming majority for strike action would be forced to work.

I will try to find the relevant part of the 'Code de travail' which I suspect is so much French gibberish to many people here, who have never worked in France , and just consider the country as a sort of picturesque countryside, a background against which they can just continue their British mindset.

Holiday plans are the last thing to worry about for people who are trying to struggle to make ends meet, being exploited by businesses such as BA.

[Russethouse]

 Give us a break Norman, BA cabin staff are better paid than nearly all other UK based airlines.......they are certainly not on, or anywhere near what most people would consider the breadline

[woolybanana]

Their wages suggest they are doing as well as any other Joe, Normie. And they are not owed a living by a company struggling to stave off bankruptcy.

[Stefan]

Norman.....

Ok, at the risk of pushing this topic back to the top, I'll put in my final eurocents worth:

You say: "I certainly think that it is inconceivable that people who had voted by such an overwhelming majority for strike action would be forced to work."

So Norman, can I ask: Do you think it is acceptable for a Union to knowingly run a flawed ballot for or against Industrial Action? "Yes" or "No" will do for an answer, then we can understand where you're coming from.

Also can I ask if you have you taken time read and understand the the complete findings of the Court Case? I know at lot of it may seem like "gibberish" but it really was quite simple. The Union had either by accident or by design run a flawed ballot. Why should it escape sanction? It still has the right, even under the nasty repressive UK law, to run another ballot....and if it's done legally no judge will stand in the way of their right to strike.

As for implying BA Cabin crew are some sort of downtrodden workforce living on the breadline....no, they are not - and I know more than a few - do you? They are generally on T&Cs comparable with, and many cases better than other major European airlines, and nobody, absolutely nobody, is forced to work for BA..it's not slavery.

That really is all from me. I must fly, I'm off to be exploited, as you put it, and part of my income which will be going to my Union (yes, I'm in one)!