Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Because it's not relevant. Either the strike ballot has been legally performed or it has not. It is not in the judge's gift to determine what may or may not have been the outcome had the irregularities been discounted.
If it has been illegally performed, then it must be set aside. Anything else is a red herring.
|
Hang on Hang on,
You seem to be moving the goalposts from your earlier post Chris
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34929581-post87.html
It's not black and white in employment law as you alluded to in that post . The judge can, and indeed should, take into account whether any irregularities would have had an affect on the overall outcome of a ballot.
As I've already said there will be always be irregularities because of the way things are. That is why it is reasonable in such instances for everything to be considered.
Assuming you agree with the expert you earlier quoted, it is reasonable for me to say that the judge in this instance has been unreasonable.
Bear in mind Chris the majority of workplaces could have ballots with less than 100 people taking part. In many places where there is a high turnover of staff it isn't that uncommon for a union, using the most up to date figures it has, to issue ballot paper to a far higher percentage of non-compliant individuals than there was in this action. That is why, imho, the judgement is wrong, undemocratic and a dangerous precedent.
---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
It's not that I have no sympathy for the workers, I just view the ploy of having a strike in the travel industry at Christmas as cynical and manipulative in the extreme. 
I'd have supported such strikes at other times and in shorter timescale and spaced out more but this was the union really being uncharitable to the people whose support they really require in the future of BA if BA is to survive.  |
I think, after years of management bullying and refusing to negotiate, the tactic was to get management talking to them. They have been trying very hard to talk, but Walsh sticks by his mantra of "negotiation doesn't get you anywhere".
We are not talking about left wing militants trying to bring the country to it's knees, we're talking about middle Engladn people with a genuine, unselfish, grievance.
I suspect that the reason there was such a high turnout and such an overwhelming vote for the strike was that they fully expected Walsh to come to his sense and enter some dialogue with Unite - without the precondition that his position isn't changing. Nobody really expected the strike to go ahead because it would have been so crippling to BA.
I think the high court decision is actually detrimental to BA because we now face a further period of uncertainty which will affect ticket sales while the numpty Walsh perceives this as a victory.