Yep, and we know what it sucks (or kisses)
Sad fact is, when Unions are willing to accept loosely worded agreements, with liberal use of terms such as "should"/ "may be" / "will endeavour to " , particularly when the guy on the opposite side of the table is a solicitor, it does leave one wondering if the word collusion is applicable.
In my time in BM (BMI for you younger uns) BALPA was another level of management (in waiting) where most of the Reps were just biding their time & buying pints in the lodge whilst waiting to move sides.
I doubt if there is quite that level of treachery in NAS, but it does appear the "agreements" could be more watertight.
The main problem remains though, that a solicitor knows that he can sign something, subsequently disregard it, and enjoy the benefits accrued for quite a number of years before the inevitable court case/appeal etc . . . much like that affable Irish bloke running the other mob.