|
20
January 2010
It was reported to the
share market yesterday that British Airways CEO Willie Walsh,
has written to unqualified staff asking if they would be willing
to train as cabin crew in an effort to undermine those who
vote to go on strike in the next ballot. A second ballot is
needed after the first was rendered useless by a Judge on
17 December.
Len McCluskey for Unite
the Union said: "we have to honour the commitment
to give our members the voice they were denied by the courts".
Of this latest action by Willie Walsh, Tony Woodley makes
no bones that BA was attempting to break a walkout with "scab
labour who have had minimum training". This step
by BA is lawful under UK law, but passengers would surely
not feel safe.
It was described as a
'dangerous day for democracy' by Unite's General Secretaries,
when the court granted an injunction to BA to prevent workers
taking action to defend their conditions, which are under
attack by the employer.
The court judgment overturned
a clear mandate by BA cabin crew members who had voted with
a 90% majority on an 80% turnout. The dispute is over BA boss,
Willie Walsh's, plans to force down pay. Unite believes that
BA's unilateral cuts are an unlawful contractual change in
conditions.
In a separate case Unite
the union has taken BA to court for breaking cabin crew contracts
and the hearing is set for 1 February. That is what this dispute
is all about - workers throughout the airline trying to avoid
savage cuts to their pay and conditions. The very point of
strike action is to act as a last resort to force employers
back to the negotiating table. Seamus Milne writing on Comment
is Free in the Guardian said "Those who deride BA's
workforce for trying to defend itself are in reality simply
cheerleaders for a race to the bottom in pay and conditions"
Before Christmas, despite
a number of attempts to avoid industrial action, Assistant
General Secretary Len McCluskey said the strike action was
to go ahead but that the union hoped "the company
could still avoid it". Instead BA pressed ahead with
measures to obtain a court injunction against the planned
strike action on the grounds of "serious irregularities"
in the balloting process.
The High Court judgment
declared the ballot void after BA produced details of 900
members - not quite 7% of the total number of BA's cabin crew
- who were included in the vote after seeking voluntary redundancy.
Their vote couldn't have dropped the vote in favour of action
much below 90%. Without them the turnout and the percentage
who voted 'yes' for action would probably have been higher.
But those who succeeded
in being made redundant should not have been balloted as they
could not be expected to take part in the strike, BA argued.
However during the ruling at the High Court John Hendy QC
who represented Unite said "We did our level best
to discover who these members were who were to be made redundant.
In the absence of discovering them, BA [was] completely unhelpful
and uncooperative, and in that regard we had no option but
to include them in the [ballot] notices."
It came as no surprise
to labour lawyers to hear the Courts had found another novel
way to stop industrial action by applying the anti-union laws.
The divisive nature of the anti-union laws works to benefit
employers and damage internal union relations as some union
members blamed the union.
This ruling follows the
Metrobus judgment in August where the High Court granted an
injunction against industrial action by Unite workers on a
number of grounds. The Court ruled Unite had not informed
Metrobus of the results of a strike ballot within a 'reasonable
period of time' and that the union had not provided an 'adequate
explanation' about how many drivers would be striking from
each depot. The case raised this novel approach by employers
applying for injunctions as UK law only needs the employer
to establish there is a 'serious issue' involved. The implication
of the Metrobus judgment was that the argument used to secure
the injunction under the anti-trade union laws could be used
by a raft of employers in attempts to prevent legitimate strike
action and sue unions for millions.
How can BA, Metrobus and
the rest get away with this? The United Campaign has consistently
maintained that existing UK law breaches international human
rights obligations in relation to trade union rights.
BA argues that Virgin
Atlantic cabin crew are on half the money of BA workers. They
are looking to use UK law to cut the wage of their workers
to £15,000 a year - what anti-union Branson pays his
people. Similarly, the Metrobus case was brought to defeat
the union's attempt to achieve equal pay for bus drivers in
London in the face of the various employers undercutting each
other in tenders by the only means at their disposal - reducing
the pay of the drivers and other staff. Let us be in no doubt
we are fighting against a race to the bottom.
It will definitely be
the case that every time an organisation like BA gets away
with this, it'll encourage other employers to attempt to get
away with it. The unions must challenge these laws wherever
they can, including in the human rights arena, potentially
in the European Court of Human Rights, but that route will
take years. Meanwhile, we have to get the message across that
there's a clear breach of the UK's human rights obligations
leading to exploitation by the employers and increased poverty
in the British Isles. We also have to avoid the laws being
used to divide the members from the efforts of the union.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More comment:
UC article 'Court
action against BA to be heard next year' 10 Nov 2009
UC article 'Unite
members resist BA's attempts to impose new contracts'
4 Nov 2009
Seumas Milne,
Comment is Free - 'BA
strike judgment is blatantly political'
Guardian - 'Right
to strike is being eroded, says BA union'
Morning Star
- 'Disgraceful
day for democracy'
World Socialist
Website - 'British
Airways strike ruling a major attack on workers' rights'
|
