Thorny enough to get elected and re-elected by record margins. Feels very satisfying but you wouldn't understand that as you're firmly planted on the sidelines.Am I glad you hate to nit-pik. Imagine the thorn in the side you could be with a little ambition.
Now this may be really embarassing to you but the CRT says "named" not legal as is clearly posted by touchdown scoring Bubblehead in post 389. You quoted that post (and you call out my reading comprehension).Wanna bet the CRT says the same? Report back to me on that, would ya?
Come on man, there's lots of feck in my debate...Given your propensity to engage in ambiguity and feckless debate, I will forego further discussion of your keen observations concerning the Article 15 - Sec.1 and 4. I think that has been satisfactorily explained by another poster already anyway.
Your interpretation is only parroting of the party line. It will not stand the test of law. As a matter of fact, the entire posture of the union and the company on this issue reeks of collusion and stands as illogical and counterintuitive.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
My interpretation is based on how the process works and what would convince an arbitrator (likely never get that far) with an issue that's been written over 40 years ago. Not much chance of anyone who negotiated that language being able to testify, so then bargaining notes, available to the colluders, but not BC lawyers, are used.
But don't let those pesky facts get in your way Sandstorm, I'm sure you'll blow the house down.
Sorry Boss, I got to go see a man about a horse. Be back next week.