AFA Alaska + Hawaiian

Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Archives for Jeffrey Peterson (Negotiating Committee Chairperson, Alaska CBA 2025-2028)

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

Master Executive Council (MEC), Benefits Committee, Grievance Committee

This is the first in a series reporting on management’s opposition to various state and local laws, the latest developments to complex state law litigations related to these laws that are playing out in Washington and California, and what Flight Attendants can do about it.

Background

Management alleges that certain state and local laws do not apply to flight crew

Airlines For America (A4A) is an American trade association and lobbying group representing major North American air carriers such as Alaska Airlines.  A4A and/or Alaska Airlines management has taken the position that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempts (i.e., invalidates) certain state and local laws that in its opinion overlaps with, conflicts with or complicates various benefits and provisions provided for in collective bargaining agreements negotiated with labor unions representing flight crew. Simply stated, A4A and Alaska Airlines management are making legal arguments in several jurisdictions (e.g., WA, CA, MA and NY) that specific state and local laws do not apply to Flight Attendants and pilots. However, it is notable that management has been honoring the same laws for ground employees–even if they are also covered by contracts negotiated with their respective labor unions and under the RLA.

Management believes that honoring various local laws for flight crew would ultimately lead to competitive disadvantage and tough business decisions in response

Why? Based on our interactions with management, here are some of the reasons offered by management to justify denying flight crew access to various benefits and protections provided for under what management characterizes as a “patchwork quilt” of state and local laws:

  • Administratively burdensome to honor because of the difficulties in tracking the sheer number of such laws and complying with their complexities.
  • Some laws may overlap with and/or conflict with one another and may also apply only conditionally based on the real-time location of an individual crewmember.
  • Significant challenges with overlaying these laws on top of the provisions of existing collective bargaining agreements (e.g., clock hours versus block hours versus TFP; meal, rest break and wage reporting requirements).
  • Honoring such laws for flight crew would create significant operational and financial liabilities for the Company and thereby result in untenable competitive disadvantage. This in turn could lead management to reevaluate the viability of existing crew domiciles in problematic locations and to make tough business decisions about the location of crew domiciles going forward. Management has cautioned your union leadership to beware of the potential for such unintended and undesirable consequences as these would likely be perceived by you as unacceptably disruptive and universally unpopular.

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest because the outcomes affect our members at various airlines. However, the legal arguments themselves are generally outside of AFA’s “jurisdiction” in the sense that the Association’s sole duty is to act as the agent for members of the collective bargaining unit under the RLA and to fairly represent them. AFA neither has an obligation to directly participate in the preemption disputes nor has the resources to broadly do so, but nonetheless we have very strategically chosen to intervene in some of the preemption litigations over the past ten years. Several current and former MEC officers and chairpersons have been directly involved in a few cases as complainants, subject matter experts and/or deposed witnesses.

Recent Cases

Washington Family Care Act: Alaska Airlines v. Schurke (WA L&I)

In approximately 2012, Alaska Airlines sued the State of Washington regarding provisions of the Washington Family Care Act (WFCA), alleging that the WFCA does not apply to Washington-domiciled Flight Attendants.  AFA intervened as a defendant in the suit, as this was a case of first impression, and we wanted our interests protected in an area of law not yet addressed. 

The case was initially decided in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  A panel of three justices decided in Alaska Airlines’ favor. At that point, the State of Washington and AFA requested an en banc opinion, with all justices making a decision.

In August 2018, the en banc opinion ruled in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines then filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.  The US Supreme Court did not grant the writ of certiori, which means it did not accept the case, and the 9th Circuit ruling stands in favor of the State of Washington and AFA.

The case went back to a state administrative hearing, and the administrative law judge ruled for the State of Washington and AFA.  Alaska Airlines then appealed this ruling. We are currently awaiting a ruling on the appellate case, which hopefully will be issued within the next few months. In the meantime, Alaska Airlines is still not honoring this law. 

Washington Paid Sick Leave: A4A v. WA L&I and Joel Sacks

In early 2018, AFA demanded that Alaska Airlines comply with a new State of Washington law:  Washington Paid Sick Leave (WPSL) law.  Alaska’s response to AFA’s formal demand was to have A4A file suit against the State of Washington on behalf of all airlines it represents.  Again, AFA was an intervenor in this lawsuit.  The State of Washington and AFA won this suit in a summary judgment motion; A4A appealed the ruling.

On November 17, 2020, the parties argued in front of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and a decision was returned very recently that ruled in favor of the State of Washington and AFA.  At this juncture, AFA has every reason to believe that A4A will attempt an appeal with the US Supreme Court.  In the meantime, Alaska Airlines is still not complying with the law. 

California overtime, meal & rest breaks, and wage statement laws: Bernstein v. Virgin America

In 2018, a California state court ruled in favor of Virgin America Flight Attendants, which resulted in an initial award of just under $78 million when factoring in legal fees and other costs.  Alaska Airlines appealed this judgment, and it currently remains in the appeal process. 

California wage statement laws: Gunther v. Alaska Air Group Inc.

In May 2019, a California state court ruled in favor of an Alaska Airlines Flight Attendant who brought her own wage statement non-compliance lawsuit against Alaska Air Group.  The court ruled against Alaska Airlines on behalf of all California-domiciled Flight Attendants and issued an award of $25 million.  Seventy-five percent of the award is to be paid to the State of California, and the remaining twenty-five percent of the award is to be paid to California-domiciled Flight Attendants with no more than $4,000 to each Flight Attendant. Alaska Airlines also appealed this judgment, and it is presently still in the appeals process.

New and Pre-Existing Laws Denied

In response to litigation of the Washington State leave laws initiated directly by Alaska Airlines management or indirectly via Airlines for America (A4A), management has simply denied flight crew access to the benefits of new laws. Management also retracted a Flight Attendant’s ability to use several state laws already existing at the time litigation was filed. One example of such retraction is the California Family School Partnership Act, which management allowed California-domiciled Flight Attendants to use for many years prior.

Next Up (in “Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 2”)

  • Definition of Sick Family/Sick Child
  • Applicable State Laws
  • Filing a Claim with the Appropriate Agency

Blue Cross Blue Shield Class Action Settlement

Blue Cross Blue Shield Class Action Settlement

Master Executive Council (MEC)

Legal Disclaimer

The following information is being provided as a courtesy to our members because enrollment in some of the Company-provided healthcare plans subject to specific provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement may have made you eligible for a class action settlement. However, AFA is neither a party to the class action nor has been involved in the settlement agreement discussions. If you have specific questions or concerns about the terms of the class action settlement, then you need to consult with the Claims Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel as described in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Settlement or with your own attorney.

Class Action Settlement is Legitimate

Many Flight Attendants have received notice via USPS or email about a class action settlement involving the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) companies, including Premera Blue Cross. For reasons unknown, the delivery of the notices has been all over the map in terms of timing, and many Flight Attendants have reported that they have not received any notice whatsoever. Regardless, these notices are legitimate, and you may be eligible for a settlement payment pursuant to this cause of action if you enrolled in the Company-funded traditional or high-deductible PPO healthcare plans administered by Premera Blue Cross during the eligibility period (see “Settlement Details” below).

Alaskasworld Notice Posted

AFA requested that management post a notice to employees on Alaskasworld (AW), and management agreed to do so. See AW “For your information: Blue Cross Blue Shield notices” (May 27, 2021) for the article (AAG SSO required).

Settlement Details

  • Website: http://www.BCBSsettlement.com
  • Alaska Airlines employees would potentially belong to the “self-funded employees” category under “self-funded accounts”
  • Self-funded net settlement fund: 6.5% of the estimated $1.9 billion “net settlement fund” = ~$120 million.
  • Self-funded eligibility period: September 1, 2015 – October 16, 2020
  • Default payment option for employees is a portion of total administrative fees paid during the eligibility period: 18% for “single coverage” (employee only) and 25% for “family coverage (employee + spouse or employee + family), with the remainder going to the employer. In our opinion, this is a favorable calculation relative to the proportion of our contribution rate compared to the Company’s actual cost for healthcare.
  • Opt-out or objection deadline is July 28, 2021
  • You must submit a claim in order to be eligible to receive a payment.
  • Claim deadline is November 5, 2021
  • Minimum payment is $5

Minimum Payment

In our estimation, the minimum payment of $5 is likely to exclude any Alaska employees from receiving a payout under this settlement. However, there really is no way to know for certain. We are recommending that all eligible Flight Attendants who are interested in participating in the terms of the settlement should submit a claim by November 5, 2021.

Premera Blue Cross Third Party Administrative (TPA) Fees

This information is not necessary to know in order to submit a claim. However, some Flight Attendants have expressed an interest in potentially submitting for an alternative payment option instead of the default 18% for single coverage and 25% for family coverage. Some of those Flight Attendants have inquired about the third party administrative (TPA) fee paid to Premera Blue Cross by the Company for each enrolled employee on a monthly basis during the eligibility period.

Please refer to the emailed version of this communication for the TPA fees paid per employee (enrolled) per month (PEPM).

Questions?

If you have questions specifically for AFA, contact your LEC president.

Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19

Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19

Grievance Committee

AFA and management recently agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19.  This MOU is now in effect through September 30, 2021.  Related information can be found in Bulletin Bundle 2021-0030 dated April 12, 2021; however, there are several out of date or incomplete details, so AFA will request that management update the bulletin and/or issue a new one.

Click here for the Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19 MOU (5/28/2021) >

Details

To apply for points forgiveness for absences related to COVID-19:

  1. Go to the Inflight website –> Administration –> Performance to complete a COVID-19 Absence Reporting Form for each qualifying ‘single continuous occurrence’ (SCO) related to COVID-19;
  2. Submit the form for each SCO absence related to COVID-19 no later than the end of your next scheduled sequence; and
  3. In addition to the form, you must submit a positive COVID-19 test result for yourself or for someone in your household, or proof of your COVID-19 vaccination, either of which must be provided to the Inflight Performance Team’s confidential email address no later than the end of your next scheduled sequence,

If returning from a leave of absence, you must submit the form and documentation within 14 days of returning from the leave of absence. 

For more details, please see the MOU.

About Certain State Laws…

In the midst of drafting the MOU, and after management published the above Bulletin Bundle, a new California COVID-19 law was enacted. The new law is retroactive to January 1, 2021, and in effect through September 30, 2021.  CA 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provides that California employees are entitled to a separate bank of paid sick leave in certain circumstances related to COVID-19, in addition to other record-keeping and paystub requirements. 

Alaska Air Group management and the other Airlines for America (“A4A”) member carriers continue to argue that many state laws, including the CA 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave, are not applicable to Flight Attendants and Pilots because those laws are preempted by federal law (e.g., the Railway Labor Act).  Various parties, including AFA, have been litigating the broader claim of preemption against A4A and/or AAG management in federal and state court for 10+ years. However, management continues to appeal the cases they lose, so their claim that certain state laws do not apply to aircrew continues.

Stay tuned for more details regarding which state laws management is blatantly refusing to apply to aircrew, what you can do to help in the effort to fight back, and how to exercise your rights to these state laws. In the meantime, we encourage California-domiciled Flight Attendants to familiarize yourselves with the various provisions of the CA 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law. AFA strongly suggests that any communications with management about the law should be in writing, and it is best practice to copy in a union rep. Covered California employees who are denied the provisions of the law may file a claim or a report of a labor law violation with the CA Labor Commissioner’s Office, which is the state agency charged with enforcement.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact your LEC president for assistance.

AFA Alaska Settlement Agreement 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations and Schedule Changes”

AFA Alaska Settlement Agreement 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations and Schedule Changes”

Grievance Committee

After several years of periodic settlement discussions, AFA and management have settled Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Precancellation and Schedule Changes.” This settlement agreement becomes effective Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.

Click here for AFA Settlement Agreement Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes” >

Some History

AFA filed Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes” back in June 2017 regarding retimes of between 15 and 21 minutes that were pushed to schedules in advance of the day of departure (prior to the first day) of a sequence. (Read the July 2017 Grievance Report for more details.)  Management sustained the grievance (meaning they agreed the contract was violated) shortly thereafter in July 2017. However, AFA disagreed with management’s remedy (i.e., the “fix”) for the violation, and the parties have been in negotiations over the remedy since then. 

We were somewhat close to achieving a mutually agreeable solution when the pandemic began, which delayed our progress.  However, the pandemic did provide an opportunity to test drive a proposed remedy to the dispute starting on April 18, 2020, via the temporary COVID-19 Schedule Changes Letter of Agreement (LOA), which was extended through June 30, 2020. Please note that most but not all aspects of that temporary LOA were incorporated into this grievance settlement agreement.

Details

This settlement agreement requires that all pre-cancellations, retimes, flight routing changes, and aircraft downgrades (i.e., from a four-position aircraft to a three-position aircraft) that occur in advance of the day of departure of a sequence will be handled under JCBA §10.S [Pre-Cancellations].  This will apply to Lineholders and to Reserves who pick up on days off.  The language in §10.S Pre-Cancellations remains the same but will be interpreted to encompass the agreed-to definitive parameters around retimes, flight routing changes and aircraft downgrades.

The settlement makes it very clean in defining when the provisions of §10.S Pre-cancellations are used.  Essentially any schedule change that occurs for Lineholders (and for Reserves who pick up on days off) prior to the first day of a sequence, except for a simple flight numbering change, will now always be handled as a pre-cancellation under §10.S.  A simple flight numbering change in the absence of a retime or a flight routing change may occur at any time and does not trigger the contractual provisions of §10.S.

Summary of §10.S Pre-Cancellations

Note: The following is a summary of pre-cancellation provisions under §10.S. Please refer to the contract for a comprehensive description.

Alternate Assignment Offered During Initial Contact (§10.S.2)

If there is a schedule adjustment involving a pre-cancellation, retime flight routing change or aircraft downgrade on the day(s) prior to the first day of a sequence, then Crew Scheduling will make initial contact and may offer an alternate assignment made up of one or more sequences with a check-in up to two hours prior to scheduled check-in and/or with a release up to two hours later than scheduled release. The two options are to (1) accept the alternate assignment (§10.S.2.a) or (2) to decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection (§10.S.2.b).  If Crew Scheduling does not have an alternate assignment available that meets the required criteria of falling within the scheduled footprint plus two hours on either side (before or after) when they first make contact with the Flight Attendant, then the Flight Attendant can opt to call Crew Scheduling between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the evening prior to the sequence (§10.S.2.c).

No Alternate Assignment Offered During Initial Contact (§10.S.3)

If Crew Scheduling does not offer an alternate assignment when they make initial contact with the Flight Attendant, then the Flight Attendant can either (1) waive pay protection and be relieved of further obligation (10.S.3.a), or (2) they can opt to call Crew Scheduling between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the evening prior to the sequence (§10.S.3.b).

Calling Back Between 6 PM and 8 PM the Evening Prior (§10.S.2.c and §10.S.3.b) or no Later Than Release Time if on Duty (§10.S.7)

When the Flight Attendant calls back between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the evening prior to the sequence, either (1) an alternate assignment that operates within the exact footprint of the original sequence must be available (§10.S.2.c.1 or §10.S.3.b.1) or (2) the Flight Attendant is pay protected (§10.S.2.c.2 or §10.S.3.b.2). A Flight Attendant must call back no later than release time if on duty during those hours (§10.S.7).

Reassignments (§10.R) – Same Day and/or Sequence in Progress Schedule Changes

Same day and/or sequence in progress schedule changes are covered under §10.R Reassignments.  Please note AFA and management have on multiple occasions confirmed their mutual understanding that Flight Attendants will neither be required nor offered to report earlier than scheduled for the first duty period of a sequence under §10.R Reassignments. The parties continue to work their way through several contractual disputes related to reassignments that are currently active, and AFA will keep you updated on any developments.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact your LEC president for assistance.

AFA Alaska Contract and Negotiations Newsletter – May 22, 2021

AFA Alaska Contract and Negotiations Newsletter – May 22, 2021

Master Executive Council (MEC)

In This Edition

  • Contract Extension 2021 Ratified and Associated Sideletter Executed
  • A Historic All-Time Low Voter Participation
  • Negotiating Committee Interviews Paused and Applicants Released for Now
  • Contract and Negotiations Education Efforts Resume

Contract Extension 2021 Ratified and Associated Sideletter Executed

Although it is less than ideal for a tentative agreement (TA) to be ratified by such a small margin, the Contract Extension 2021 did pass with a spread of 25 votes or 1.4% of active members in good standing casting votes.

Click here for certified ballot results >

The associated sideletter of agreement has now been executed and posted on the AFA Alaska website –> Contract Home –> Letters of Agreement (LOAs). It will also be uploaded to Inflight Mobile Devices soon.

Click here for the One Year Contract Extension 2021-2022 Sideletter of Agreement >

A Historic All-Time Low Voter Participation

The Contract Extension 2021 TA voter participation was a historic all-time low for AFA Alaska with 37.7% of active members in good standing who cast votes. The MEC anticipated that voter turnout would be significantly impacted by the substantial number of Flight Attendants on leaves, many of whom may have understandably chosen to not convert themselves to “active” status by paying dues for every month they had been on leave through May 2021. We also know of a few who inadvertently barely missed the balloting window. Regardless, participation was much lower than anticipated.

Many Flight Attendants posted on social media that they were largely ambivalent about the vote. Although this was “just” a one-year contract extension with a minimal raise, it is extremely important that we get our participation rate much higher for next time. Member participation sends a signal to management regarding our collective engagement. The silver lining to this cloud is that we will have plenty of time to prepare for negotiations in September 2022 and to build our solidarity in the meantime.

Negotiating Committee Interviews Paused and Applicants Released for Now

Negotiating Committee interviews have been paused and the Negotiating Committee applicants have been released for now. The MEC is planning to re-post Negotiating Committee positions this coming October 2021 and to resume interviews in January 2022.

Contract and Negotiations Education Efforts Resume

AFA Alaska will resume contract and negotiations education efforts via periodic newsletters such as this one.

Next Up

(New topics may be added and the order subject to change)

  • Updated Contract Negotiations Timeline
  • Preparatory Work to Improve the Efficiency of Negotiations
  • Negotiations Under the Railway Labor Act
  • Growing Reliance on Non-AFA Social Media Outlets as Sole Source of Information
  • Negotiating for Our Future
  • Block-Hours vs. TFP
  • Block or Better vs. §21.J Block Delays
  • L-VX Incentive Pay vs. Productivity Premium Program (PPP)
  • L-VX Inflight Team Leader (ITL) Pay vs. “A” Pay

Protect Yourself From Potential Discipline on Social Media

Our Grievance Committee would like to provide background on social media, protected classes, and discipline. Federal protected classes include race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or transgender status), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.  Alaska’s People Policy says: Personal Conduct22. Threatening, intimidating, or discourteous behavior, including abusive, profane, or obscene language, acts, […]

Human Rights & Equity Committee Meeting Recap – 1st Quarter 2026

On Wednesday, March 25, our AFA Human Rights & Equity Committee Chairpersons met to discuss their ongoing activism to raise awareness and create positive change within our workplace and community. Your representatives attending the meeting included Louise Borras (LAX-pmAS), Bruni Agosto-Pinal (LAX-pmHA), Aaron Miller (PDX), Nyachan Chuar (ANC), and Yan Yan Teague (SEA). MEC Human […]

Pre-Merger Hawaiian Inflight Service Committee Update – March 2026

Editor’s Note: Our MEC Inflight Service Committee now represents both pre-merger airlines, but management still makes service decisions that affect each group of Flight Attendants differently. This update covers changes for both Hawaiian- and Alaska-branded flying, but is specific to aircraft flown by pre-merger Hawaiian Airlines crews. As the work of the merger progresses, we […]

Joint Contract Negotiations Session 13 – March 2026

Our JNC met this week for three days of collective bargaining with management. The JNC focused on clarifying questions about moving expenses and presented a proposal for Sick Leave, using feedback from Flight Attendants to guide improvements. The Committee is working to incorporate the strongest elements from both contracts to ensure better support for all members.

Scheduling Committee Meeting Recap – March 2026

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants On Tuesday, March 24, our pre-merger Alaska AFA Scheduling Committee Chairpersons and Representatives met virtually to discuss their ongoing work to represent our Flight Attendants and push for improvements in our workplace. Representing you at the meeting were Rebekah Olds (ANC), Rita Tillou (SEA), Melodie Anderes (PDX), […]

Recent Posts

News By Month

News By Category

AFA News Now Air Quality Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) AS/HA Merger AS/VX Merger Benefits Committee Committees Communications Committee Contract Contract 2014 Negotiations Blog Council 15 SAN Council 18 LAX (pmAS) Council 19 SEA (pmAS) Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX Council 43 HNL Council 47 LAX/SEA (pmHA) EAP/Professional Standards Committee Extension 2021 Blog Featured Government Affairs Committee Grievance Committee Hotel Committee Human Rights & Equity Committee Industry News Inflight Service Committee Inflight Training Committee JNC Blog Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) Latest News Local Councils Master Executive Council (MEC) Membership Engagement Committee Message from the MEC President Mobilization Committee Negotiations Pairing Construction Preferential Bidding System (PBS) Press Releases Reserve Committee Retirement Committee Scheduling Committee Uniform Committee

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Stay up-to-date on AFA Alaska + Hawaiian news and information by signing up for our email and text message updates. Click a button below to get started or update your preferences if you're already a subscriber.
Sign Up for Emails
Sign Up for Text Updates