What good are supplements, riders and ammendments?

[Que-Ball]

Thanks for the reply and I did read the tread that's why I'm posting on this one, but it still doesn't answer my question which was "Who does article 53 apply to?" I understand the progression is 4 years. No question about that. It was explained to me that if you are in progression during and only during contract year; you get percentage of top pay. My BA said that I would get 75 percent of top pay since I had gained seniority, which kinda makes since to me. Management said everyone falls under Article 41 of the master. I hope BA is correct but if not: "WHY IS THE LAST 2 PARAGRAPHS EVEN IN THE SUPPLEMENT IF EVERYONE IS UNDER THE MASTER?"

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Thanks for the reply and I did read the tread that's why I'm posting on this one, but it still doesn't answer my question which was "Who does article 53 apply to?" I understand the progression is 4 years. No question about that. It was explained to me that if you are in progression during and only during contract year; you get percentage of top pay. My BA said that I would get 75 percent of top pay since I had gained seniority, which kinda makes since to me. Management said everyone falls under Article 41 of the master. I hope BA is correct but if not: "WHY IS THE LAST 2 PARAGRAPHS EVEN IN THE SUPPLEMENT IF EVERYONE IS UNDER THE MASTER?"

No one is covered by the last two paragraphs.
The following is my best guess as to why it's in there:

We hashed this out in another thread, specifically about the ft pay progression. I'm not sure why some supplementals outline a different progression when the master nullifies them. Maybe they were added at some point before the master outlined the progression or before it had language to override the supplementals, and neither side wants to give up the negotiating leverage it would require to have the language removed. Just a thought.

.

 

[Que-Ball]

That's the best explanation I've gotten. Thanks