This wasn't achieved through discussion with representatives of Unite or by capitulating to the demands of the disgruntled employees. It was achieved by persuading Lord Justice McCombe that the union had failed to meet its obligations under section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Union's transgression was a failure to inform its members that, in addition to the legitimate votes cast in last month's strike ballot, there were eleven spoiled ballot papers.
You don't have to be in favour of the proposed strike to recognise that this highly technical and utterly trivial oversight is being used by the judiciary to prevent legitimate industrial action which was favoured by an overwhelming number of those balloted.
In giving his judgement, McCombe said he was taking the "balance of convenience" into account. It's a strike. It's supposed to create inconvenience... that's how strikes achieve their goal. By admitting that potential inconvenience to travellers informed his thinking, McCombe is making it abundantly clear that this was a political decision.
And the judiciary has form in this area. When the first BA strike was ruled out on an equally spurious basis, Mrs Justice Cox told the court that, "a strike of this kind over the twelve days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year."
In each case, the presiding judge's candour has inadvertently lifted the lid on an establishment conspiracy to prevent cabin crew from striking. The obstacles now being put in the path of legitimate industrial action are an affront to democracy and it's staggering that more isn't being made of this in the mainstream press.
No comments:
Post a Comment