I don't know. That's way above any of the level of work I've done. What I do know is that the legal doctrine (? @jtrain609) that came out of this was that ALPA can be held responsible for job action related suggestions of it's membership, even if the official message of the MEC is to maintain the status quo.
Also, nothing happened to the pilots because United felt that ALPA followed the requirements of the injunction that was issued.
Article VIII has been around a lot longer than this and doesn't really relate to the issue so I don't think that is what you are thinking of.
I had thought there was language added to "address the issue" regarding this, I just can't remember what it may have been reference-wise.
Still, it's hard to see how all of a sudden working the letter of the law and flying the contract, could be seen as negative work action; aside from just revealing that "flying the contract" hasn't been being done since. It would logically seem that anything above doing "the contract" would be initiative above and beyond, but not in any way required. So dialing things back to "the contract" as the baseline minimum standard, I wouldn't think shouldn't have any punitive action to it?