Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bubblehead" data-source="post: 1454936" data-attributes="member: 14176">This horse has been beat to death in another thread and this one as well.What &quot;Big Union&quot; people and those who are &quot;in the game&quot; can&#039;t explain is how the opening sentence is relevant in Article 15 sec 1 of the CRT?Why is it even there?&quot;no regular seniority employee shall be required the below named holidays&quot;If section 4 of the same article supposedly provides for employees being required to work a named holiday, in what context does the opening line of the article come into play?How are these 2 sections not completely contradicting of one another?The only plausible explanation is in conjunction with Art 40 of the Master, which is exactly how it has played out since the inception of this language and the only way it is &quot;otherwise provided for&quot;.It&#039;s only now, in the wake of a newly imposed contract, that the company and union forgot or realized they didn&#039;t have the foresight to address this issue and are trying to once again trick us into believing we don&#039;t understand what we read.How many times are we going to fall for the &quot;banana in the tailpipe&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bubblehead, post: 1454936, member: 14176"] This horse has been beat to death in another thread and this one as well. What "Big Union" people and those who are "in the game" can't explain is how the opening sentence is relevant in Article 15 sec 1 of the CRT? Why is it even there? "no regular seniority employee shall be required the below named holidays" If section 4 of the same article supposedly provides for employees being required to work a named holiday, in what context does the opening line of the article come into play? How are these 2 sections not completely contradicting of one another? The only plausible explanation is in conjunction with Art 40 of the Master, which is exactly how it has played out since the inception of this language and the only way it is "otherwise provided for". It's only now, in the wake of a newly imposed contract, that the company and union forgot or realized they didn't have the foresight to address this issue and are trying to once again trick us into believing we don't understand what we read. How many times are we going to fall for the "banana in the tailpipe"? [/QUOTE]

Verification