Radarspod
Are you kidding me? Is that really an argument? What about the sustainment of the employer who provides pretty much (and still will) the best Ts and Cs you will ever find? Any administrator charged with sorting out a bust company is going to target the thing that caused it to fail - in the NATS case the pension scheme that was too expensive that the company went bust.
NATS management have been very keen on emphasising to employees that the pension fund can only exist while the company exists. The implied threat being that if NATS goes under then both our jobs and pensions are lost.
However, Section 26 of the Transport Act 2000 lays out clearly the procedure for implementing an 'air traffic administration order' in the event of NATS failing to discharge its statutory or license requirements.
For example, in the event of the company being unable to pay its debts then an administration order would be enforced (TA2000, Pt1, Ch1, Para2) to remove the license from NATS and bring the functions of the company back under the control of the SofS, in effect, re-nationalisation.
Moreover, Section 96 of the Transport Act 2000 refers to the Secretary of States authority to make provision to re-allocate assets in CAAPS, but in doing so the SofS '...
must ensure that each person falling within subsection (6) is overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order...'.
Subsection 6 states that if you are, or have at any time, been a contributing member of the scheme then you are covered by Sec 96, as indeed, are any nominated beneficiaries.
I wonder if the Union have explored the articles and schedules in the TA2000 so at least the membership are informed of the impacts of 'worst case scenario'...and whether indeed it is 'worst case' on closer inspection.
The membership really need expert legal advice and an IMPARTIAL assessment of the likely ramifications of any particular course of action.