Background
On May 1st, 2012, Alaska Airlines management unilaterally made a significant change to the employee travel pass policy. Effective that day, almost all Alaska Airlines employees who had previous service with Horizon Air had their year of hire adjusted to their Alaska Air Group (AAG) date of hire for the purposes of non-revenue travel priority. Over three hundred (300) employees had their travel seniority changed—approximately one hundred fifty (150) of them flight attendants. All former Horizon employees hired after July 1, 2012, have received their Alaska date of hire as their travel seniority.
AFA and ALPA filed grievances in response
AFA and ALPA filed grievances in response to that change. This was not something we undertook lightly, because many of our flight attendants are former Horizon employees. Ultimately, however, the Master Executive Council (MEC) filed the grievance because we felt—and still feel—that the Company’s actions abrogated our seniority. Seniority is the bedrock of our contract and the guiding principle governing our work rules. The grievance was intended to protect our contract and the workgroup as a whole, not to hurt a group of flight attendants.
Recent developments
ALPA recently settled its grievance, and now management has informed us that it will respond to our grievance by rolling back the travel seniority of Alaska flight attendants and pilots who are former Horizon employees. The Company is not rolling back the travel seniority of former Horizon employees in any other work group.
AFA believes the grievance is not resolved
AFA has told management that we do not believe that the grievance is fully resolved. The MEC is evaluating its options and determining its next steps. We will, of course, keep you informed of any developments. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your local officers.
***
In solidarity,
Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl; and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput
elizabeth taufaasau says
As a former Horizon Air flight attendant I find this disappointing. I must say that I am confused as to why a grievance was ever filed in this matter. It is my understanding that travel benefits are a company offered and administered benefit. I just pulled up the current contract, stilled referred to as TA2 on the AFA website, I cannot find a section titled “Travel/Non-Rev Benefits” nor did I find it as a bullet in the “General and Miscellaneous” section. Can someone with AFA point me to where I can find the section that has this information that would cause a grievance to be filed in this matter? Thank you.
Jeffrey Peterson (MEC President) says
Elizabeth~
In the grievance Section 5 Definitions and Section 24.B were cited in the old CBA. They were not changed in the new CBA and remain the same language.
The grievance was filed on both of those sections and the long standing practice that employees who transferred from Horizon into a covered work group were given their Alaska DOH for travel and Company benefits including vacation and of course occupational bidding. However, we know that there were groups who were given incorrect information and told they would retain their QX seniority for pass travel. We recognize this has caused a tremendous amount of frustration for the affected flight attendants in those groups.
Section 5 states that the definition of Company Seniority is the following:
Company Seniority: Seniority that begins to accrue from the date an employee is placed on the Company payroll and will continue to accrue during the term of employment. Company seniority will determine vacation time, and all Company benefits.
There are a few points regarding why we felt we had to file:
1) Failing to file a grievance could have resulted in AS taking the position that other carriers purchased by AAG in the future could be treated similarly.
2) Failing to file a grievance could have resulted in AS choosing to define other benefits, Vacation or bidding based on AAG DOH, although they gave us no indication they intended to do this.
3) A portion of our members felt very strongly that the precedent of allowing seniority from another company (albeit a very closely connected company) to be utilized for pass travel violated their Company seniority with Alaska.
I hope that helps provide contractual context for the grievance.
Carol leitz-miller says
As a former horizon employee I take offence to this . My seniority date at horizon (4 years ) will not effect me with my alaska status as I’ve already been on this side for 26 years . But I really don’t see the difference In alaskas buyout of horizon and the merger of jet America . We all know that that was integrated differently then horizon employees have been, why?? Don’t really understand that one to this day . The ugly step child once again gets pushed aside by the wicked step sisters . Also , if I work in a different department then inflight I get to keep?? Really ?? That’s not discrimination at all!! So someone who worked with me at horizon will get the boarding priority above me even if I came to alaska first ?? because I come to inflight and not a corporate secretary . Thanks union representatives you just made things worse .
Jeffrey Peterson (MEC President) says
Carol~ The difference between the two is that Horizon was purchased by Alaska Air Group (AAG) and was continued to be operated as a separate carrier under a different certificate. jetAmerica was absorbed by Alaska Airlines (the Company) and flown under the AS certificate. See the response for Elizabeth for more contractual background why this is significant. The main reason is that we have contractual language in regards to how benefits are applied–Company seniority (meaning Alaska Airlines company seniority not AAG/QX/etc.).