CC89 seem to be on very thin ice regarding protected status for any IA resulting from the current ballot. In their newsletter they say
any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.
To my mind, untutored in legal niceties, this seems to be strong evidence that any action this time will be a continuation of the last action, which is well past its protected life.