[flier74]

Yeo things need to change and certainly BASSA/ Unite will have to move on with it. I do hope for those BA Crew who did support the company, rather than this in my view “ridiculous” Industrial Action, that the new contracts (90 days notice) wont come their way.
This ongoing battle needs to be sorted once and for all, BASSA/Unite may not like this but times have changed and it is now time to “get a grip” and see the real world. A fresh start is what BA needs for their Crew, they have started it in countless other areas and departments so let them continue and make this business a success, and I hope will be a succesful business again.

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

In relation to the quotes from Holley about the CSD who expects BA to “stick by their agreement” – which agreement is she talking about? Clearly BA is not going to breach any existing, legally-binding agreement. So what is she talking about?

[CallMeIshmael]

The breaking of agreements by BA instigated the industrial action – initially it was an agreement on staffing levels.
CC contracts are similar to headers, underpinning the contracts are agreements. This is due to a wide variety of differing and changing circumstances pertaining to aircraft types, routes, destinations etc. As it would be impractical to amend each employee contract every time a new aircraft type or new route or configuaration was introduced/amended, agreements are used and have been the basis of the cabin crew – employer relationship since the start.

Courts upheld the imposition, allowing BA to break agreements.

BA leadership now appear to cherry pick which agreements they wish to honour (eg refusing to go binding independent arbitration for review of each suspensions and firing) others they ignore (eg arbitrarily invoking the disruption agreement thus aiding in applying their VCC agenda)

The foundation of the employer – employee relationship has therefore fractured. Trust has been lost – apparently BASSA membership is now on the increase as Cabin Crew seek protection. BA have resorted to legal technicalities, spending millions on legal counsel/advisors, to nullify industrial action as opposed to focussing their intellectual talents on resolving the source of the issue.

I think the BA leadership will win the war but lose the peace. If the IA does occur I believe it is likely to be somewhat ineffectual, the grievance will fester and the myriad of legal actions by Unite and individual cabin crew (200+ I believe) will continue. Morale will be poor throughout the company, cabin crew will be demotivated, there will be an increase in stress related absence, and willingness to go that extra mile above and beyond will be in the past.

The support for BA leadership within BA appears to be dissipating since WW’s invocation of a crisis was subsequently proven to be disingenuous and employees have witnessed the bullying and intimidatory tactics employed by the leadership team.
BA’s recent attempts to marginalise BASSA by excluding them from staff discussions has resulted in all unions including BALPA refusing engage unless BASSA is included.

I am of the opinion that “Mixed Fleet” was mooted long before dispute started and indeed was a catalyst. However prevailing advice was IA against a future event would be illegal.

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

Ishmael – if you’re talking about the reduction in crewing on 747 aircraft, then I don’t believe that was ever part of any legally-binding continuing contract or industrial agreement (which is what I mean when I use the term “agreement”).

As I understand it, BA is simply bringing the crew numbers on 747s ex LHR to the same level as has existed for some time on 747s ex LGW. Why they were not always the same astounds me – it’s obvious (to me) that the same aircraft should have the same number of crew on it, irrespective of which airport it flies into or out of ……

[AdrianHenryAsia]

BA have no 747’s based at LGW

[HonestCrew]

Just a quickie.
In a nutshell, the crew are happy to sign a new contract if the items contained in it are solid and binding. In layman’s terms the contract currently being offered allows for the carpet to pulled from underneath and in the future allowing us to be well and truely…. ‘shafted’.
If only certain departments on the ground knew how much we are covering for their cock-ups every flight, maybe they would show us a little more respect. It’s not just chicken or beef.
(Oh, sorry, we’re out of beef!)

[VintageKrug]

Here is the current offer, which is not exactly punitive:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/151010_Revised_Offer_Collectivev6.doc

And a clear statement that current T&Cs will be maintained:

“Terms and conditions for current crew – A fundamental principle of this offer is that crew will have a firm commitment from British Airways in respect to their terms of employment. Current crew are assured that their existing contractual terms will be maintained for the future, unless amended through negotiation.”

No ifs, no ands, no buts.

[HonestCrew]

Again. To outsiders it all looks fine and dandy.
The ‘assurances’ are there but the wording of the contract we are being offered to sign allows for things to be swept away at the company’s discrection. We are being asked to change the way we are being paid now (which is contractual) to a new system which is based on assurances only and can be changed/removed at any time.
Is that fair?
The company refuses to use words within the contract which give us peace of mind that our careers aren’t going to be destroyed.
BA insist changing the way we are paid will not save them money, this has been stated from the start, so why do they want to do it without offering us a solid contract?
Bend over and brace everyone!

(please note, I am not a militant union lefty. My politics have always been right-of centre. We live in a capitalist business economy. But in a business such as this, the frontline folk, face of the company derserve at least some peace of mind and understanding)

[CallMeIshmael]

Fair point honest crew. BA are good at word smithing. BA’s leadership have shown they cannot be trusted. In an unethical culture, operating principles count for nought. CC must get it watertight else BA will be able to exploit the loopholes it has placed within the offer.

Example – within the offer document Krug kindly posted – note how the phrase “current arrangements” is used instead of agreements. This to me is likely to mean those agreements which BA has arbitrarily broken stay broken.

Note that Acas arbitration is not binding on BA – BA will give “full and fair consideration” to ACAS recommendations, yet it is not binding.

Is there any commitment to distribute lucrative routes fairly in future? This will not have an impact on CC salary but significantly impacts their paypackets.

In periods when BA is over resourced with Cabin Crew, is there any protection against mainly legacy crew not being rostered work?

It is a sad situation when an employee cannot trust an employer. But hey even the OFT had “anticipated BA would cooperate”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8210581/Office-of-Fair-Trading-admits-it-made-mistakes-in-collapsed-British-Airways-price-fixing-trial.html

It is the honouring of agreements which will be core to building trust. Will BA contractually honour agreements?

[Hippocampus]

There has been no allegation that BA “duped” the OFT in the price-fixing investigation.

Unless you are prepared to defend that suggestion in court, I suggest that it’s in your interests to withdraw it.

[CallMeIshmael]

Please read the telegraph article and provide your take on it.

[Hippocampus]

The article refers to the failure of the OFT to gather the evidence it required to make a criminal prosecution. It does not say that BA deliberately “duped” the OFT. The point I made still stands.

This also has no relevance to the cabin crew dispute, but I suppose helps those who need to feed the false narrative of this dispute.

[CallMeIshmael]

Noted and amended

Hippo – the theme, the essence is Trust – can the BA leadership be trusted? Was the expectation of the OFT a form of trust?

Is there any airline that has incurred more fines for corrupt practices on a global basis than BA – I would be interested to know?

[Hippocampus]

HonestCrew – I can empathise with your concerns and it is good to see a contributor engaging in debate without attacking other posters, engaging in side-show arguments or rehashing mistruths etc

The harsh reality of life in the private sector (not least an industry as brutal as aviation) is that no-one can expect cast iron guarantees as to future earnings. I have no guarantees beyond my notice period.

If BASSA had originally negotiated sensibly with the company (like other departments) Mixed Fleet could have been avoided altogether, or at least implemented with the agreement of the unions. Unfortunately that is now history and we are where we are.

It is disappointing that BASSA seems intent on pursuing further confrontation with the company (it is somewhat ironic that Duncan Holley gives this dispute a narrative of the company waging “war” on its workforce, when it BASSA that is waging the war) when this is only going to put you in a worse position that at present.

The case of staff travel highlights BASSA’s lack of commercial and negotiating acumen. BA handed back staff travel to strikers albeit without seniority, after doing a deal with TW that you could vote on the current offer (an infinitely better alternative than pursuing expensive, time-consuming and uncertain litigation to get it back). Anyone with any experience of negotiation knows that BA would never just hand back ST with full seniority without the prospect of a settlement, but with further negotiation there would be little difficulty in getting back ST with full seniority. What did BASSA do? Throw the lot back in the company’s face and renege on the deal to vote on the offer. Is that the sign of a union that wants an agreed settlement? And we know have an original list of four demands to settle this dispute, that has now become only a starting point for negotiation, with a further 10 demands to settle!

You desperately need capable, intelligent, business focussed negotiation with the company. It seems that nothing will ever satisfy BASSA. Whatever is agreed by the company, it seems that there will always be something else to prolong this dispute.

I’m sorry to say it but I do not currently see the prospect of an agreed settlement and it is genuinely tragic that all of this could have been avoided.

[Hooter2009]

Why does the document in post 13/1/11 at 22.00 refer in part, to “crew” and in other parts to “employees”. Is there any difference in the definitions?

[Author]

Posts