It’s April, and the BA cabin crew dispute continues.
Beyond what the parties are saying about how they REALLY want to settle the dispute, there are some clear factors that are keeping them in conflict mode.
It is evident that both BA and Unite are not really motivated in trying to settle the dispute.
How can I be certain of this?
The first glaring reason for this is the forum for trying to settle. The actual parties seem to be in permanent but broken negotiation. When the parties do negotiate, they are both engaged in leaking to the press – revealing their game plans. This is hardly supportive to achieving settlement.
The second reason is that there are some fairly compelling reasons for the strike to continue as far as the parties are concerned.
These include the fact that according to the BBC, British Airways suffered a loss before tax of £342m for the nine months to the end of December 2009.
By focussing on the strike, it takes attention away from the fact that the organisation may be poorly run.
Compare this to Ryanair – which has just raised its full-year profit forecast as passenger numbers continue to rise. Recently it said it expected full-year net profits of about 275m Euros, as it reported a 10.9m Euro ($15.3m or £9.5m) loss in the October-December period.
This loss was much narrower than the 101.5m Euro deficit recorded in the same period in 2008.
Ryanair may not being doing great, but it is doing better than BA.
According to the Times, internal politics at the union Unite have played a significant part in the latest industrial dispute to surround British Airways.
Len McCluskey, an Assistant General Secretary at Unite, is one of the leading contenders to become the union’s first sole General Secretary when the two joint holders of the post, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, step down later this year.
Mr Simpson and Mr Woodley were leaders of Amicus and the Transport & General Workers Union respectively – the unions that merged to create Unite – and both sections will be putting up candidates in the election.
As the Times observed prior to Christmas: "Victory against British Airways would hugely strengthen Mr. McCluskey’s credentials. Many in Unite fondly recall how, in 1997, the position of the BA Chief Executive Bob Ayling was undermined by his failure to tame the unions, and would love a repeat performance."
As a consequence, do not you think both parties have pretty good incentive to keep this dispute at boiling point?
And this is what we do know. There must be other reasons why the parties want to keep engaged in a dispute.
Against this background, what to do as a would-be mediator in trying to settle this dispute?
Justin Patten
Justin is a commercial mediator accredited by the Academy of Experts and has been a fully qualified solicitor since 1997. Justin founded Human Law Mediation in December 2002, providing mediation solutions and training together with expertise in employment law. His firm’s website is at www.human-law.co.uk
These include the fact that according to the BBC, British Airways suffered a loss before tax of £342m for the nine months to the end of December 2009.
By focussing on the strike, it takes attention away from the fact that the organisation may be poorly run.
Compare this to Ryanair – which has just raised its full-year profit forecast as passenger numbers continue to rise. Recently it said it expected full-year net profits of about 275m Euros, as it reported a 10.9m Euro ($15.3m or £9.5m) loss in the October-December period.
This loss was much narrower than the 101.5m Euro deficit recorded in the same period in 2008.
Ryanair may not being doing great, but it is doing better than BA.
According to the Times, internal politics at the union Unite have played a significant part in the latest industrial dispute to surround British Airways.
Len McCluskey, an Assistant General Secretary at Unite, is one of the leading contenders to become the union’s first sole General Secretary when the two joint holders of the post, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, step down later this year.
Mr Simpson and Mr Woodley were leaders of Amicus and the Transport & General Workers Union respectively – the unions that merged to create Unite – and both sections will be putting up candidates in the election.
As the Times observed prior to Christmas: "Victory against British Airways would hugely strengthen Mr. McCluskey’s credentials. Many in Unite fondly recall how, in 1997, the position of the BA Chief Executive Bob Ayling was undermined by his failure to tame the unions, and would love a repeat performance."
As a consequence, do not you think both parties have pretty good incentive to keep this dispute at boiling point?
And this is what we do know. There must be other reasons why the parties want to keep engaged in a dispute.
Against this background, what to do as a would-be mediator in trying to settle this dispute?
- Establish if the parties genuinely want a settlement. You find this out by asking the leading players: "Why are you interested in settling this dispute?” If the parties do not give a good answer, pull out. You are wasting your time unless you care exclusively about obtaining a good fee; in which case, take the instructions and make money from a mediation which is bound to fail. If they do give a good answer, move on to the next steps.
- Halt talks for 4 weeks. As mediator, I would encourage the parties to forget about negotiating and just let them experience a little bit more pain in the dispute. The purpose of this is to give the parties a taster of the consequences of their actions, and to let them know where this dispute is headed. The British Airways CEO Willie Walsh has already acknowledged last year that “our business is under threat”, and while promising that he “intends to do everything possible to ensure we don't become the next [General Motors]” (which filed for bankruptcy protection last year), he reiterated that "in order to survive we all need to take long-term action, and do it quickly”. The question is: how motivated are both parties to avoid this fate of bankruptcy?
- Propose a final, time-limited mediation. One of the dangers facing the parties is the ease with which they can negotiate. Make it a condition that the mediation will be two days, and a final one at that. It is important for the parties to be clear in their own minds that this is their final chance to negotiate. Consider the number of cases which settle on the steps of Court. The reason why cases settle in such circumstances is due to the motives of the parties and the finality of the impending Court hearing.
- Ensure confidentiality. I would make it a condition of mediating that if any leak was made to the press, I would pull out. The very fact that game plans and approaches to negotiations have been revealed makes the role of any mediator much more difficult. This needs to be stamped out.
- Work on preparation. Good mediators place importance on good preparation. Accumulate information on all the issues, start identifying strengths and weaknesses and start trying to see a way out of the mess.
- Halt any provocative steps. I would only mediate this case if the Unions stop calling any more strikes and management stop taking additional steps such as withdrawing travel perks. If the parties ignore the mediator in an issue like this, then the mediator will have no impact in a physical mediation. The mediator needs to take control.
- Carefully consider venue. Venue hunting is something that all parties tend to neglect. The atmosphere of the mediation can have a dramatic impact on the possible success of the mediation.
- Choose co-mediators carefully. I would think carefully about my co-mediators; I would be tempted to choose two co- mediators. I believe I would choose a QC as one mediator to have sufficient gravitas to handle BA Management, and on the other side I would be looking for a mediator that could establish empathy with the Trade Union’s side. This case would require a team approach in order to reach a settlement – and is ripe for three mediators.
Justin Patten
Justin is a commercial mediator accredited by the Academy of Experts and has been a fully qualified solicitor since 1997. Justin founded Human Law Mediation in December 2002, providing mediation solutions and training together with expertise in employment law. His firm’s website is at www.human-law.co.uk
Comments