Welcome decision.But what if they go on strike?What can the court do,?utmost it will advise the Government to take action.The Government ,depending on vote bank politics, may decide to overlook the recommendation.Ultimately the passengers will suffer.Why this sham of a court injunction?
These court jokes are order of the day in India.
A strike by British Airways cabin crew planned for Christmas has been declared illegal in a High Court ruling.
The court agreed with BA that the cabin crew’s union, Unite, had not correctly balloted its members on the strike action.
The injunction means that the 12-day strike cannot now go ahead.
Unite called it “a disgraceful day for democracy” and vowed to hold a fresh ballot of cabin crew if the dispute with BA was not resolved.
British Airways said the decision would be welcomed by “hundreds of thousands of families in the UK and around the world”.
“There was never any need for a strike and we hope that Unite will take this opportunity to reflect before deciding its next steps,” a statement from the company said.
“In recent days, we believe Unite has formed a better understanding of our position and of the ways in which we could move forward.
“It has also become very clear that our customers do not believe that old-style trade union militancy is relevant to our efforts to move British Airways back toward profitability.”
Unite’s joint general secretaries, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley said the dispute was “far from settled”.
“While we have never wanted this dispute, it is a disgraceful day for democracy when a court can overrule such an overwhelming decision by employees taken in a secret ballot,” they said.
“The fact remains that this dispute is not settled.
“BA must accept that there can be no resolution except through negotiation, failing which there will inevitably be a further ballot for industrial action.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8418805.stm
Tag: injunctions
-
British Airways cabin crew strike illegal, court rules.
-
Free speech in parliament is precious.
Pertinent observation.Most of the injunctions are sought for by crooks and fraudsters and corporates, and not by ordinary law abiding citizens.Because of their connections to powers that be and money power they gag every authority.
Yes,contempt proceedings shall be in order even if the comments are made on judicial pronouncements through internet social networks. Client and lawyer, both should be hauled up.
At the same time judiciary should alsoi ensure the parliamentarians do not use their privileges to make irresponsible,unsubstantiated statements.
Story.
‘Britain’s most senior judge has warned his fellow judges that he cannot envisage any circumstances in which it would be “constitutionally possible or proper” for a court to make an order that gagged debate in parliament. His warning follows the Guardian’s free speech victory last week when lawyers for the oil trading company Trafigura gave up their attempt to gag parliament over its dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.Lord Judge’s remarks – which included a warning against the free use of “super-injunctions – come before a Commons debate on the affair tomorrow moved by the Liberal Democrat Evan Harris at which MPs are expected to voice continuing concerns at attempts by lawyers Carter-Ruck to use the courts to gag parliament.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/free-speech-in-parliament-precious
You must be logged in to post a comment.