Originally Posted by
KARFA
Ok well let me lay this out for you so we can end this since you don't seem to want to let it go. The law I mentioned earlier clearly says part of the notice from the union must include "a list of the workplaces at which the affected employees work." The workplace if you are striking downroute may arguably be the downroute destination as that is where you are refusing to work.
The law also obliges the union to provide figures and information which "...must be as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies with subsection (1)." Clearly planning to strike downroute but not saying anything to the employer and instead simply surprising the employer doesn't really fit that.
Now
- bearing the above in mind which at the very least would provide some very good arguments for BA to take action against the union if crew without notice simply stopped working downroute even though the union had provided no indication this would happen, and
- that Unite's own guidelines state that in the notice of action "You must be clear about the action we are calling on members to take.", and
- that both cabin crew and flight crew who work for BA say that striking downroute has never been done and simply would not be done
can we perhaps drop this and move on?
Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on the legalities, it isn't going to happen.
...and nor do you.
Thanks for "laying this out for [me] so we can end this", but right away your argument has a big hole. Regarding a downroute place of work, the exact same section of of the legislation states (in 234A-5D):
"For the purposes of this section, the workplace at which an employee works is—
(a)in relation to an employee who works at or from a single set of premises, those premises, and
(b)in relation to any other employee,
the premises with which his employment has the closest connection."
On its face, it would seem to me that this is London for LHR-based cabin crew, and not wherever they happen to be, although there could be a court ruling or legal precedent that provides further clarity on this point.
At the end of the day:
You and I both agree that striking downroute is unlikely (or it may have already been done).
You and I also agree that strike action to-date has not produced the intended results. We may also agree that Unite has been rather ineffective and unimaginative in the management of the strike.
Where we disagree, however, is on
legality. I have
questions about legality of certain strike action, while you've stated
as fact that certain action is "illegal" but have been unable to back this up with legislation or rulings.
Your most recent post "laying it out for me" did little, to be honest, to lay out any facts - it laid out your opinion. We're all entitled to our opinions, but opinions don't create or change facts. And the fact is that questions regarding the legality of such action are still very much outstanding on this thread.
Happy to move on, and this is the last you'll hear from me on this subject (unless downroute withdrawal of labour happens, of course, in which case I won't be able to resist popping back in
).
Be well, and no, I don't believe that MF is operating Timbuktu services.
