I read the "correct" version with some interest, and was taken back to read that it was allegedly a Lt. Colonel that penned that. While I have sympathy for his situation, and have seen that sort of thing on many occasions personally and while representing other crew as a steward and business agent, the language and presentation was so unprofessional and unpolished that I'd have never used it. It needs a full re-write, at a minimum.
Every single adjective needs to come out. Lose the emotion. It's not a melodrama. Stick to facts. Use of language such as "mythical" makes it sound more likeit was written by a fourteen year old. The use of phrases such as "I demand" is not helpful. The only thing missing was a condescending "Do you have any idea who I am?" The author wishes to make clear that he us a very important person.
The author does not appear to understand regulation, or the process of grieving these events. The suggestion that he intends to take it beyond the grievance process to "other entities as I deem necessary to prodce results," regardless of poor grammar, speaks to reckless disregard and a combative approach. It's ill advised. Again, the entire statement needs a re-write, as it's very damaging to credibility as is, and makes it harder to defend, from a steward perspective. (I do not work for ABX and am not associated with their legal representation, nor am I a steward in their organization; my comments are an ouside reading based only on what's been presented). This is a serious grievance with validity: it deserves to be presented and prosecuted in the most favorable light. As presented here, it is anything but favorable.
The author provides that the chief pilot wanted to simply start duty when interruptions began. The author states that rest cannot be applied retrospectively, which is true; he gives no indication here that any such thing occurred. As it reads, the chief pilot, in essence, said to begin duty at the time of the first interruption. This is not a violation of duty regulations or any legal interpretation of them: it is a conservative application of duty time which is actually made in the author's favor. It does not suggest backdating a rest period. If the author had legal rest prior, then the rest requirement is met If this did not work for the author, then he should certainly have called fatigue.
This account should be handled with competent representation, and NOT posted on a public forum, as it does carry legal implications. I emphasise the call for competent representation, as the account as authored is not a competent rendering, and needs some careful review and a full re-write before being carried further. I would hope that no legal representative of the author posted it here, as there are legal and ethical implications of going that route. It's a vaguely concealed effort to try the matter quasi-publicly. It's a bad idea.
Having said that, ensure there is documention, including copies of any notes taken, communications received (a reminder as to why texts and emails have value in memorializing the exchange). The circumstances described are adequate to make a powerful argument for fatigue (once sanitized of the emotional and judgemental language). The combination of events (multiple interruptions, repeat fire alarms, evacuation, unpaid hotel, etc) are compelling, and speak to a larger problem. When a local pushes an issue, it's best done with one or two poster-child cases, and this one has all the hallmarks. Just don't let it go to waste by submitting it as it appears in tjis thread.