BA’s succeeded in their application in December on the basis that UNITE had breached the statutory balloting requirements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and therefore industrial action based on that ballot would have been be unlawful. The background to today’s trial goes back to June 2009 when as part of BA’s cost cutting exercise they filed a form HR1[1][1] with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, stating that it was seeking to reduce head count of cabin crew on a voluntary basis by c2,000.

UNITE subsequently issued proceedings in the High Court seeking an interim injunction to prevent BA from introducing the revised and reduced crew complements at Heathrow. At a hearing on 5th November, UNITE’s application for interim relief to prevent those reductions being introduced was refused. However, the judge did order a speedy trial of the serious issue requiring determination, namely the alleged breach of contract by BA in imposing those reductions.

Philip Henson is a Partner and Head of Employment Law at City law firm Bargate Murray solicitors said, “UNITE applied for, and were refused, an interim injunction in November last year to prevent BA from introducing the revised and reduced crew complements at Heathrow. The Judge did, however, deem that there was a serious issue to be determined and fixed the trial which starts today in the High Court, and is due to conclude at the end of the week. The public declaration by the High Court in December last year that UNITE breached statutory balloting requirements would no doubt have bruised the ego of the union; and many are viewing this trial as a means of fighting to restore its credibility, which may have been diminished with its members.

Let’s not forget that in the initial vote for industrial action a gargantuan 92.49% of those who turned out for the vote were in favour of strike action, and therefore many Unite members may be baying for retribution, rather than reconciliation.”

3 February 2010