Then I may be misunderstanding something and if that is the case I apologise.
After the initial vote, when NATS and Prospect entered into fresh discussions, why were PCS not involved in that (or were they?). Why did NATS only make an improved offer to Prospect? Presumably because PCS had signalled their satisfaction and so had no mandate?
If the negotiating rules permit you to put the initial vote aside if Prospect secured better and all 3 sections have to vote yes to accept, what was the point in PCS recommending acceptance if Prospect didn't? Shouldn't PCS have sided with the ATCOs in the first place? THAT was where the division started.
The point still stands that all members were told there was no more money on the table (as one might expect them to say). It was up to each section to accept that or not.
May I finally add that I have no difficulty whatsoever with ATCAs an ATCEs receiving the same offer. We are all essential parts of the system. My point is that if you are going to change sides because another section negotiates better than you do you should have taken your lead from it in the first place and then we wouldn't still be waiting for the money.
Point 4
