Why do we hate Unions? Look at BA...

vivatifosi

The_White_Horse wrote: »

put BA into administration and sack them all NOW.

these people are greedy grasping scum. If you don't like BA go and work for someone else.

Yep, lets do that. And then the taxpayer will have to fund all of their pension shortfunds because there probably won't be enough in the PPF and all of their unemployment and other benefits. Oh, and possibly their statutory redundancy for good measure.

lostinrates

Because noone else has updated: strike off.

Cleaver

lostinrates wrote: »

Because noone else has updated: strike [STRIKE]off[/STRIKE] postponed.

..............

Geeves1980

I just hope they don't postpone it for 2nd week in Feb, that's when I'm off for the Geeves/Nash 30th birthday extravaganza! I'll be most upset if I can't go (not so upset if I get 'stranded' out there)!

Treadmill

Employers are our masters, we must tug our forelocks and grovel in gratitude that they offer employment to wretchs such as ourselves.

Gawd bless em

Sheesh

abaxas

Treadmill wrote: »

Employers are our masters, we must tug our forelocks and grovel in gratitude that they offer employment to wretchs such as ourselves.

Gawd bless em

Sheesh

LOL!

Employment law is stacked in favour of the employee.

StevieJ

The court decision looks a little odd as all the legal eagles I saw seemed to think the key was would the invalid votes have effected to voting outcome? with a 92.5% yes vote that would be inlikely, the only other thing was did the union send the invalid ballot papers out on purpose. It reads like one of those practical Denning decisions, of course not being an expert I have probably totally misread the situation.
Anyone got a link to the details behind the legal point that enabled the court to order the injunction?

treliac

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Is your language really neccessary? The English language is full of colourful descriptive words.

In fairness, this was Afriend quoting someone else's nasty use of the word towards him and, I'm sure, not his word of choice.

I agree with your comment but it should be directed towards that someone else.

baileysbattlebus

StevieJ wrote: »

The court decision looks a little odd as all the legal eagles I saw seemed to think the key was would the invalid votes have effected to voting outcome? with a 92.5% yes vote that would be inlikely, the only other thing was did the union send the invalid ballot papers out on purpose. It reads like one of those practical Denning decisions, of course not being an expert I have probably totally misread the situation.
Anyone got a link to the details behind the legal point that enabled the court to order the injunction?

Can't post a link - sorry - but here is the judgement.

There are 2 reasons given - the 2nd one is interesting -

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.

Jake'sGran

nearlynew wrote: »

Everyone should have the freedom to withdraw their labour if they think they are being treated unfairly by their employers.

Must agree with this! I was a member of APEX in the 70s and was employed in the chemical industry. Can't remember all the details but the government decided that workers could have an increase of only £6. Our management said that we would not be getting it. After a very bitter discussion between the CEO and a senior union rep they changed their minds. We were all very grateful and knew how hard it must have been to negotiate. The company was owned by RTZ. The Union also presented a (succesful) case for equal rights on my behalf. I am therefore glad to have been a member. In my opinion the average pay for Virgin cabin staff is very low. It is the same as I was paid in the year 2000.