[ComeFlyWithMe]

From what I have read – the union only want 4 things changed to the proposal that will cost BA nothing. Staff travel, ACAS for the dismissals and….something else I cannot recall. Seemed perfectly reasonable to me when I read it.

Surely BA would be best placed to give the union these 4 things & move on?

The union would think they have won some ground – BA would still have the major components of the new agreement and we can all move on.

Sadly I do not think this will happy, and it seems this dispute will continue well into the New Year.

What a shame.

[VintageKrug]

The bottom line here is that BA Management runs BA, not BASSA.

To the two points you mentioned Come Fly With Me:

1. BA offered return of staff travel in the latest offer.

2. BA offered binding ACAS arbitration to those in disciplinaries/dismissed.

Both were rejected, without a vote by cabin crew, by Duncan Holley/BASSA.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the offer with the above points outlined:

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

Here were Duncan Holley’s four demands (mostly self-serving as a sacked employee), and they were not all that was required to end the dispute:

————

“1. Firstly, there must be a complete return of staff travel with all its seniority. To accept a company have the right to punish people who legally withdraw their labour is to accept the end for trade unionism…end off. This punishment has already been in place 7 months now and, for people like Brendan Barber of the TUC to sit back and not address this fundamental attack on rights also undermines his position. (Also there must be a complete removal of any threats to remove staff travel in the future “at their sole discretion”).

2. Secondly, and I think this is one issue where we are nearly there – a binding and independent ACAS arbitration of all disciplinaries connected to the dispute. I’ll say no more on this for now.

3. Thirdly, either BA accepting those sick during strike action were genuine and redressing deduction from wages issues or accepting the matter be allowed to progress to the courts.

4. The removal of threats if a new negotiated facilities agreement cannot be reached within 8 weeks.”

———————

[Hippocampus]

ComeFlyWithMe – That is not correct. Duncan Holley said those 4 issues would merely be a starting point for negotiations, and not a resolution.

CC89 also have separate demands and insist that the changes to crewing levels must be reversed.

How can negotiations take place when the two branches cannot agree on their demands and they keep changing the goal posts?

[pussycat]

VK

This is where I find the offer “wanting”.

1. I have stated before that if the reinstatement of the travel concession has no cost base, then it will allow Mr Malsh to regain the moral upperhand and remove this whiff of vindictiveness which is quite unseemly in our national airline.

2. the offer states that BA will have the right to choose and veto the arbitrator. This right is not extended to Unite.

3. There is a clause that they were asking the cabin crew to agree to, which at that time was not fully stated and awaiting legal changes.

Those are my main problems with the offer, although I suspect that some of the financial aspects may not meet with the approval of the cabin crew. In this area I am obviously not an expert as I don’t really understand what the figures mean.

The third point you quote from Duncan Holley also alarms me. If a cabin crew member was sick, then no money should be deducted for striking. I assume that these cabin crew members had legal sick notes from their GP. I feel that by disputing the integrity of these GPs Mr Walsh is on very dodgy ground.

I obviously am not aware of the situation with regards to “facilities” and am unable to comment.

[VintageKrug]

Could you clarify what you mean by this collection of words, as I don’t understand any of it:

“1. I have stated before that if the reinstatement of the travel concession has no cost base, then it will allow Mr Malsh to regain the moral upperhand and remove this whiff of vindictiveness which is quite unseemly in our national airline.”

[pussycat]

VK

This is an open forum, not a test of our grammar. So please keep don’t be so condescending. There is no spell or grammar check facility on this site, so dyslexics will always struggle.

I often go back and reread your previous posts if I am unsure of their meaning, and have always treated you with respect. Please afford others the same respect.

I posted at 11.59 on the 22nd of October.

If you re-read it that post will hopefully understand my “collection of words”

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

pussycat

The management of BA is exercising its legitimate authority.

It has made its best and final offer.

The union and its branches are dysfunctional and shambolic.

If the union and its branches had negotiated in early 2009, they would have had a better deal than is on the table now, with mixed fleet probably not even yet introduced.

The whole company, bar the cabin crew, made sacrifices to protect the business and very few people have sympathy for the cabin crew.

My only criticism of BA management is that they are allowing this dispute to fester and the loyal cabin crew are suffering.

Time to SOSR the heritage crew, IMHO and to hell with the politics.

[VintageKrug]

Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR)
The fifth category of dismissal reasons that capture those scenarios that cannot fall within misconduct, performance, ill-health or redundancy. The most common of which are either a fundamental breakdown in the working relationship or third party pressure that can’t be linked to the employee’s misconduct.
 

[MJPGeneva]

As a newcomer to the forum – and to businesstraveller.com – and previously a fairly regular user of BA, this made for interesting reading.

I have just read the agreement tabled by BA and would be interested in hearing a reaction from someone in the know to the points raised by Pussycat in the message posted at 17:51 on 25th November, all of which, I would just add, were perfectly comprehensible to me. I am particularly interested in point 3: how can an agreement be signed if the legality of a clause contained therein is in doubt? Although I expect that’s a minor matter. I also share the view that the removal of staff travel was fairly petty and am curious as to why a resolution of the matter is not spelled out in the agreement – how is it to be made binding on either party in that case?

Thanks in advance for any insight.

[VintageKrug]

Very clear statement from BA that the current offer is the best available to cabin crew:

——————

British Airways rejects Unite’s ‘culture of fear’ claim

British Airways defended its determination to tackle bullying and harassment in the workplace today (November 25) after the Unite trade union accused the airline of operating a ‘culture of fear’.

The airline rejected claims of a campaign to bully union representatives and cabin crew who went on strike.

In a statement, BA said: “As a responsible company we do not tolerate the bullying or harassment of any of our colleagues. We have an established bullying and harassment policy that is consistent across the airline. Our established disciplinary process has been in place for many years and has been agreed with all our recognised trade unions, including Unite.

“We have conducted a number of disciplinary investigations into allegations of bullying and harassment relating to the ongoing industrial dispute. These involve a tiny minority of our employees.

“The vast majority of these investigations were into complaints that employees tried to intimidate or threaten colleagues who wanted to work during cabin crew strikes, or who wished to volunteer to work as cabin crew during strike periods, into not doing so.”

The airline said these had resulted in a range of outcomes from no case to answer, to dismissal for gross misconduct.

“All these investigations have been conducted in response to incidents of alleged bullying, harassment or other intimidating behaviour,” it said.

Commenting on remarks by the newly appointed Unite general secretary on the possibility of further strike action by cabin crew, the airline reassured customers that it would keep the flag flying. In the event of further strikes, the airline aims to operate 100 per cent of our Heathrow longhaul operation and the majority of our shorthaul flights at Heathrow.

A spokesperson for the airline said: “Unite said last month that the proposals we put forward after prolonged discussions, assisted by the TUC and ACAS, would be recommended as the best available through negotiation.

“We continue to believe that these proposals address all cabin crew’s concerns and represent a fair resolution of this dispute.”
—————————–

[CharlesJones]

Well,if  BA say that’s the case the crew should definately say yes to it shouldn’t they?

 
I’d laugh at all this if it wasn’t so serious.

 
The same BA management who have just reinstated Andrea Molton who they say had a serious case to answer. And that quote came from the head of Inflight Services. Seeing as he said he knew about this case and there was more to it than met the eye,why on earth has she been immediately reinstated?

 
Unfortunately this has now opened a bigger can of worms for BA. Any trust  that non-strikers and strikers,and for that matter any BA employee had up until today will no doubt be somewhat lost due to backfooting on it’s diciplinary process. Why so quick to reinstate one member of crew who had,supposedly with proof from the top,a serious ‘bullying and harassment’ crime to answer to, and yet we have many others who still not had a hearing as of yet?

 
I wonder if it had anything to do with the bad press and public outcry we have seen in many articles and comments over the last couple of days? Surely not.

 
One rule for some and another rule for others it would seem.
 
I for one am glad Andrea has been reinstated and BA are starting to see sense.
 
All of this, to be fair, beggars belief.
 

[CharlesJones]

It’s gone quite quiet on here hasn’t it?

I wonder why?

[craigwatson]

um, because it’s Saturday??

[CharlesJones]

Ha! Craigwatson….not for some on here. Funny though!

[Author]

Posts