Fit to burst
I think we are getting into the realms of semantics here - trust does not necessarily come into it.
A select few members of the Union and Management have been privy to the confidential documment.
The Union has tabled a joint proposal based on an agreement after negotiation. That proposal is what managemnt claim they can afford.
The union believe that that is the best deal they can get. That does not mean they believe that is all NATS can afford.
That is the first part of the process.
Part 2 is the ballot.
People who vote 'NO' believe and think that NATS can actually afford to dig deeper.
This belief is borne out by the fact that although the union claims not to have a clue about what to do for a plan B or Plan C, management almost certainly have - and in fact this was alluded to by management on the intranet/at some briefings when asked (I believe Phillip James may be one person who said this) who have said that what happens next depends on the extent of the 'NO' vote.
i.e. if there is a 'NO' vote but it's a slim majority, then the proposals will get pushed through anyways (because it's not p!$$ing off a huge amount of people ). If the vote is a larger majority, then management will go to plan B.
It is not necessarily a lack of trust on the side of the Union, it is a lack of belief from fund members that a company that happily takes from the fund when the sun shines, and spends millions on unnecessary costs yet still posts a good profit, cannot dig deeper into it's own pockets.