The courts have made it clear!   Durng Status Quo, and concerted effort by pilots put the Union in jepordy for bad faith bargaining tactics:

https://cite.case.law/f-supp-3d/280/59/

US AIRWAYS, INC., Plaintiff, v. US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and MICHAEL J. CLEARY, Defendants.

September 28, 2011

If either side unilaterally alters the status quo during the bargaining and mediation process, a court may issue an injunction to put a stop to that party's illegal self-help. See, e.g., Consol. Rail Corp., 491 U.S. at 303. This rule empowers courts to “enjoin not only strikes but also ‘union conduct . . . which has the consequences of a strike,’ such as refusal of overtime, slowdowns and sit-ins.” IAM, 243 F.3d at 362 (quoting ALPA, 802 F.2d at 906); accord Elevator Mfrs.' Ass'n v. Local 1, Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors, 689 F.2d 382, 386 (2d Cir.1982) (“That the overtime was designated as voluntary in the contract does not ... render the concerted refusal to perform it any less a strike.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For example, federal courts have enjoined slowdowns, e.g., United II, 563 F.3d 272; IAM, 243 F.3d at 369; Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union, No. CV 84-3357, 1984 WL 49055 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.20, 1984); Trans World Airlines v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, No. 74 CV 460-W-2, 1974 WL 1170 (W.D.Mo. Aug.22, 1974); sick-outs, e.g., United II, 563 F.3d 275; Pan Am., 1984 WL 49055; Pan Am. World Airways v. Indep. Union of Flight Attendants, No. 81 Civ. 3785, 1981 WL 2367 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 1981); work-to-rule programs, e.g., Long Island R.R. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 156, Am. Fed'n of Labor, 368 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1966); Tex. Int'l Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 518 F.Supp. 203, 216 (S.D.Tex.1981); “safety” campaigns, e.g., IAM, 243 F.3d at 368-69 & n. 14; increased write-ups of maintenance problems, e.g., Texas Int'l Air Lines, Inc., 518 F.Supp. at 207; and concerted refusals to work overtime, e.g., Delta, 238 F.3d at 1311.

Thus, even if this court were to conclude that USAPA had not instigated the slowdown, the association would still have an affirmative duty to exert every reasonable effort to stop it. See Delta, 238 F.3d at 1310 & n. 22 (“[W]e need not rule on whether ALPA has ratified the pilots’ actions . . . the duty of ALPA under the RLA is sufficiently high that even if it has not sponsored or ratified the unlawful job action by the pilots, it has a duty to end such unlawful action.”); IAM, 243 F.3d at 363 (“Once a court determines that such a concerted work action is occurring in violation of the RLA, an injunction can issue ordering the union to observe its statutory duty by trying to stop it”).

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 10) against USAPA and HEREBY ORDERS:

2. USAPA shall take all reasonable steps within its power to prevent the aforesaid actions and to refrain from continuing the aforesaid actions if commenced, including, but not limited to, the following:

c. Including in such notice a directive from USAPA to US Airways’s pilots who are engaging in a concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations, including but not limited to, slow taxiing, writing up all maintenance items, calling in fatigued, delaying flights, refusing to answer a call from the scheduling, refusing to fly an aircraft that meets the requirements for flight, or refusing to accept voluntary or overtime flying, to cease and desist all such activity and to cease and desist all exhortations or communications encouraging same.

Negotiations. Not rank and file. They cannot be enjoined from discussing with one another any freedom of speech topic.

You are not acting in good faith and are jeopardizing bargaining for everyone attempting to promote a such a tactic (which it is clear you are attempting to do)

employee will be charged with a crime because they did not volunteer to perform an advertised workover?

You've cited cases that say it is illegal to refuse overtime.  How does that apply to individuals?

A company representative sends out an email offering a workover available at Base "A".  Do you charge all of the employess that don't volunteer to take it, or just one of them?  Which one?  How does this apply to actual individual employees?

This is why you're not a lawyer.

the horse is dead

That will never happen. Those rulings were all ancient history. Even if they did who cares.

they will fine the union haaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

whih means it comes out of your dues, and those may wind up increasing as a result.

don't know that.

pretty self explanitory bro

although if terms and definitions within contract language indicate otherwise.  Voluntary can be defined as, perhaps, being offered an OT shift to the pilot pool with expectation that at least one will 'up and volunteer' but if that does not occur things get muddy in absence of further definition of consequence.

Aka Mumbo-Jumbo but for sure the answers are always in the fine print of detail.

A language thing.

a complete moron lol

Intelligent, and mature than yours.

but it's still wrong so there's that 

Note the difference, a concerted effort, not individual choice.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concerted

Overtime is voluntary.  Simple.  

Work over, shift coverage and overtime are voluntary.  Fact. 

that would prove less people wanted to work overtime. so what. call 911.

nothing

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/disgruntled-pilots-blast-5-year-contract-with-atlas-air

Robert Kirchner, a trustee for Teamsters Local 2750 that represents more than 2,500 Atlas Air pilots, excoriated National Mediation Board arbitrator Dana Eischen of New York for delivering a “lopsided” award that is “catastrophic” for employees.

It does NOT prove concerted effort

Even in a case of concerted effort, the amount of volunteering alone does not prove it

He rejected it, then the Court of Appeals did too!

And the pilots retain the authority to not be convinced.