Court of Appeal session, BA v BALPA - live broadcast on YouTube, 30 July 2019
Jul 30, 2019, 9:08 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,517
Jul 30, 2019, 9:11 am
#55
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lausanne Switzerland
Programs: BA Gold; Swiss Blue
Posts: 1,244
I think it could go BA's way too... For those that didn't follow it all hinges on the purpose of the sections in question, and the underlying reason for the information they require the union to give to the employer in the notification of a ballot.
My own view.... (not legally trained, so another bar-room lawyer) I would have been arguing that the actual certification (Classes of Aircraft) of the BALPA pilots, would have been the most useful information, and even while technically the Fleet is a department in BA, it could, by the nature of the job, be used to define their place of work, which is actually mandated in the relevant sections
My own view.... (not legally trained, so another bar-room lawyer) I would have been arguing that the actual certification (Classes of Aircraft) of the BALPA pilots, would have been the most useful information, and even while technically the Fleet is a department in BA, it could, by the nature of the job, be used to define their place of work, which is actually mandated in the relevant sections
Jul 30, 2019, 9:12 am
#56
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,422
Interesting, I am equally non-expert but I thought that BALPA's argument was stronger.
I actually found the process interesting (in contrast to the content which was predictably dull) having never seen in the inside of an appeal court before. I was surprised at the conversational nature of the arguments, having been in a few regular courts (including the SA Supreme Court) before where the lawyers and witnesses do all the talking.
I actually found the process interesting (in contrast to the content which was predictably dull) having never seen in the inside of an appeal court before. I was surprised at the conversational nature of the arguments, having been in a few regular courts (including the SA Supreme Court) before where the lawyers and witnesses do all the talking.
Jul 30, 2019, 9:19 am
#57
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,904
It was very interesting. I thought that Lord Justice Davis was very tenacious in the way he questioned counsel about extremes in terms of the information that BA expected to be provided.
I also got the impression that the law is open to interpretation. I guess it’s how you interpret it that’s the issue.
I genuinely think that this could go either either way although I am leaning towards BA just shading it.
It it reminds me that I am on jury service in a few weeks as well 🤪
I also got the impression that the law is open to interpretation. I guess it’s how you interpret it that’s the issue.
I genuinely think that this could go either either way although I am leaning towards BA just shading it.
It it reminds me that I am on jury service in a few weeks as well 🤪
Jul 30, 2019, 9:19 am
#58
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,676
I think it might go BA's way too. The argument felt logical. They weren't asking for unreasonable information - their man was specific to ask that it would only be information that the union already had which would be required. E.g. it would be unreasonable to ask for internal BA department classifications if the Union didn't hold them.
The argument being that you have to go to an appropriate level. "Technician" was used at one point to show that this is a pretty wide field and categorising like that would be useless. And then "Nurse" was again used to show that the category of nurse would be appropriate within a hospital (although I think it was the BALPA chap who brought that up as a counter argument saying "you wouldn't ask us to categorise nurses" which the BA chap said "I think you would")
But - like others - I detected scepticism from the judges on BA's arguments. He was trying to infer the reason for the law and that's always a tough one.
The argument being that you have to go to an appropriate level. "Technician" was used at one point to show that this is a pretty wide field and categorising like that would be useless. And then "Nurse" was again used to show that the category of nurse would be appropriate within a hospital (although I think it was the BALPA chap who brought that up as a counter argument saying "you wouldn't ask us to categorise nurses" which the BA chap said "I think you would")
But - like others - I detected scepticism from the judges on BA's arguments. He was trying to infer the reason for the law and that's always a tough one.
Jul 30, 2019, 9:31 am
#60
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Captain / First Officer are reasonable categories of employment IMHO. It's not like Unite that are balloting across the business - Cabin Crew / Check In / Baggage Handlers etc.
It is frustratingly a piece in legal trivia frankly because, at the rate of union membership and percentage support of the ballot, the extra fleet information that BA is arguing it needs would not make a single jot of difference to its contingency planning or lack thereof.
It is frustratingly a piece in legal trivia frankly because, at the rate of union membership and percentage support of the ballot, the extra fleet information that BA is arguing it needs would not make a single jot of difference to its contingency planning or lack thereof.