Originally Posted by
Tupelo
From the BBC article:
"Unite hopes a court hearing will take place next week. It says if the court rules in its favour and the changes are prevented from coming into force, it will review the strike ballot which is under way."
But if the court rules against it, would that not also require a review of the strike ballot? I mean why vote on possible strike action over something the court would then have ruled BA is within its rights to do? Is the union merely seeking temporary relief at this point? Or is industrial action permitted in the UK for more things than just mid-term, unilateral changes to Ts & Cs?
Because you can strike over certain working practices (e.g. allocation of work or duties between staff) as well as the terms and conditions of employment (which "may include not only the contractual terms and conditions but those terms which are understood and applied by the parties in practice, or habitually, or by common consent, without ever being incorporated into the contract"). You wouldn't need a right to strike if the only thing you could strike about was something which the company was not legally entitled to do anyway.
Plus, as you say, they will be aiming for an interim injunction to prevent the changes pending a full hearing. And they have bugger all chance of success, I would have thought. What will be really embarassing for BASSA is if they lose on a no "serious issue to be tried" basis. Then they will look very, very silly.
On which note, it is time for the BASSA gem of the day:
Originally Posted by BASSA
BA are led by greedy bullies who will stop at nothing to get their way. This is not union rhetoric.