This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants

Our Grievance Committee has been busy working to ensure that your rights are protected when it comes to discipline and following the rules set in our contract. According to our contract, there are a minimum of 13 arbitration dates each year to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. When it comes to termination cases, we prioritize those situations to help get Flight Attendants back to work quickly, but we also try to balance that with other types of cases. Together, representatives from AFA and management decide which cases to arbitrate next based on a variety of factors. 

Discipline usually happens in several steps: starting with a confirmation of oral warning (COW), then a written warning, potential suspension, and finally termination. COWs, written warnings, and suspensions stay in a Flight Attendant’s record for 18 months before being removed. If someone receives another violation while already facing discipline, that new issue will add to the existing one. However, management doesn’t always follow the usual path of progressively increasing discipline. For serious issues like theft or abuse of sick leave, if there is enough evidence, management may choose to terminate a Flight Attendant immediately. If the evidence isn’t strong, the Flight Attendant might receive a record of discussion (ROD), which isn’t considered formal discipline.

Many Flight Attendants believe that if they generally do a good job, have no or very few attendance points, and receive positive passenger feedback, they won’t face discipline. Unfortunately, that’s not true. If management thinks someone has done something wrong, they may still face consequences, regardless of their past performance.

If a supervisor or manager calls you to discuss a flight, work-related matter, or a disciplinary issue, and there is no AFA representative present, it’s important to pause the conversation and request that one be included. Having an AFA representative ensures that your interests are effectively protected and represented. 

What Have Flight Attendants Been Disciplined For Recently?

• Sick Leave and FMLA Abuse: Terminations are increasing due to travel audits and other factors. Any comments made on posted trip trades and personal drop requests can be viewed by management, even if deleted. If management determines there is abuse, it may lead to termination. If you cannot make it to work and are not genuinely sick, it may be best to no-show for the trip instead of calling in sick. Calling in sick for a non-medical reason, such as for a pet, is considered a terminable offense.
• Theft: Removing anything from the aircraft, except for an opened or used bottle or box of water, an unused pilot crew meal, or purchased food, will result in termination.
• Timecard Fraud: Intentionally delaying the closure of the boarding door to obtain sit pay is a violation that can result in termination.
• Reserve “Roulette”: This refers to failing to be within two hours of base during your Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only after being given an assignment. This is considered a terminable violation by management.
• Calling In Sick for a Trip You Tried to Give Away: Management regularly reviews trip trade postings and sick call history, including any monetary incentives added to trips that were subsequently called in sick. Deleted trade history or postings can still be accessed by management.
• Dishonesty in Investigations: Lying during an investigation can lead to serious consequences.
• Drug and Alcohol Violations: Any breaches of policies regarding drug and alcohol use are treated very seriously.
• Improper Passenger Compensation: Giving away miles in exchange for positive feedback or completed Visa applications is not permitted.
• Harassment: Any form of harassment is considered unacceptable, and management has disciplined accordingly.
• Refusal to Comply with Scheduling Changes: Ignoring requests to call Crew Scheduling when required to be contactable or refusing scheduling revisions.
• Reserve Commuting Violations: Reserves commuting during the RAP, even if they self-assign trips, or not being present at base throughout the entire RAP (unless otherwise released by Crew Scheduling for purposes of contactability). Depending on the situation, management has issued a two-week suspension or termination for these cases.
• Social Media Violations: Sending friend or follow requests or direct messages to passengers on social media based on information obtained from Block2Block.
• Commuter Violations: Issues include using commuter boarding priority (D8) home after being released from DHD, using D8 for trips picked up out of base, using D8 to/from cities other than the designated commuter city and domicile, or using D8Y for pleasure travel. Monthly commuter audits also often reveal reserve Flight Attendants who were not at their base while on call during a RAP.
• Lost or Forgotten Required Items: Misplacing your IMD or other required items can result in disciplinary action.
• Failure to Complete CBT: Not completing Computer-Based Training (CBT), even if it’s something as small as forgetting to close out of a window to switch the module from “in process” to “complete.”
• Uniform Compliance: Flight Attendants can and have been removed from flights without pay by management for non-compliance with uniform standards.
• Late To Gate/Flight Delay: Being late to the gate or causing flight delays can result in disciplinary action.   

Hot Topic: Social Media Discipline

There has been an increase in disciplinary actions related to social media, including terminations. Please keep in mind that social media groups and pages are not truly private, even if they claim to be. This applies to your personal pages or accounts and any groups you may be part of, including group chats.

While the First Amendment protects your right to free speech in relation to the government, it does not provide the same protections within private companies like Alaska Airlines. The company has a social media policy, and arbitrators have ruled that posts or comments made on private pages or groups can still result in disciplinary action by your employer.

Reminder: Short Sick Calls

Section 32.C.5 of the contract defines a Short Sick Call as follows: “Short Sick Call: When a Flight Attendant calls in sick due to their own illness, a sick child, or a sick family member less than two hours (2:00) before the scheduled check-in.”

If you plan to call in for a Short Sick Call but want to avoid receiving the 2.5 points associated with it, make sure that your call to Crew Scheduling is initiated after your SCHEDULED check-in time, not just after you’ve checked in, as outlined in section 32.C.6.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

September 2024	Disciplinary Grievance
October 2024	Contractual Grievance
November 2024	Disciplinary Grievance
January 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
February 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
March 2025	Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Contractual Arbitrations

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-340-23-Violation of §11.E.1.c & §11.H.8.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.E.1.c [Reserve:  Order of Assignment/Reserve Self-Assignment] and §11.H.8 [Reserve:  Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it prohibited Reserve Flight Attendants who had been assigned sequences with the an Ineligible for Self-Assignment (ISA) code from giving such sequences away to another Reserve Flight Attendant or trading such sequences in open time or with another Reserve Flight Attendant.    

Arbitrator’s Decision: The Company did not violate the JCBA when it restricted trades with assignments with ISA designation with Open time under Section 11.H.8. However, to the extent that the Company limits trades between Reserve Flight Attendants it would violate the JCBA.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-38-24-Violation of §8.M and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.M [Hours of Service: Domicile Rest] and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 [Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or around September 23, 2023, the Company refused to allow a Flight Attendant who had operationally-impacted reduced domicile rest (§8.M.2) to utilize the applicable contractual provisions of §8.M, which would have allowed the Flight Attendant to be removed from their subsequent sequence beginning September 24, 2023, without pay pursuant to §8.M.3, due to the domicile rest time between sequences projecting to fall below CFR-required rest. Instead, on the evening of September 23, 2024, Crew Scheduling altered the Flight Attendant’s check-in time for the subsequent sequence (on September 24, 2023) to a later check-in time in violation of §8.M.2, thereby denying them access to their contractual right to be released from the subsequent sequence without pay pursuant to §8.M.3. 

We are currently waiting for the decision from this arbitration.

Grievances Recently Filed and Awaiting Management Response

Grievance No:  36-99-2-73-25-Violation of §8.I Night Rule & 10.DD Long

Stage Length Duty Period (“4k”). This grievance alleges t The Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.I [Hours of Service: Night Rule] and §10.DD [Scheduling: Long Stage Length Duty Period (“4k”)] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to pay double time (2.0x) for the full duty period on a 4k sequence in which the Flight Attendant is on duty at 4:29 AM*, 8:30 AM†, and the duty day is ultimately over twelve hours and thirty minutes (12:30), although they currently pay double time (2.0x) on non-4k sequences when the Flight Attendant is on duty at 4:29 AM*, 8:30 AM†, and the duty day ultimately goes over ten hours and thirty minutes (10:30).

* Local time
† Initial departure station time of the duty period

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

Grievance No:  36-99-2-37-24- Violation of §10.Z Personal Drops. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.Z [Scheduling: Personal Drop(s)] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement occurred when, on or about October 10, 2024, it was discovered that Crew Scheduling was processing personal drops incorrectly. Instead of processing the personal drops in seniority order the day prior, as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Crew Scheduling would process them in random time periods throughout the day of operation, skipping over the contractual requirement to process them in seniority order the day prior. This resulted in Crew Scheduling randomly executing first-come, first-served requests based on their staffing needs, thereby circumventing the seniority order provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Grievances Previously Filed, Denied by Management and Currently Awaiting Arbitration Dates

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-22-14-Violation of Required Maternity Leave.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 15.D. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to require Flight Attendants to begin Maternity Leave after the 28th week of pregnancy.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-55-17-Violation of §21.V Winds Aloft Adjustment of Sit Pay in JCTE.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.V [Compensation: “Scheduled” or “Actual” For Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs) and/or Sit Pay], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system displayed each posted trip as a static ‘snapshot’ taken at the time of posting rather than a ‘live’ view, thus denying the Flight Attendant the ability to determine whether a trip is eligible for 1.0 TFP of Sit Pay due to an automated scheduling adjustment (e.g. by the Winds Aloft program).

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-19-Violation of §25.D.2 Failing to Notify MEC President and ASHSC of Reconfiguration or Re-design Prior to Final Decision. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.D.2 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Information], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to notify the MEC President of a decision to reconfigure or re-design the interior of the Airbus aircraft and when it failed to discuss with the ASHSC the parties’ interests and concerns for inflight safety prior to making a final decision on the reconfiguration/re-design. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-36-20-Violation of §25.B ANC Training Facility.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it conducted Recurrent Training (RT) drills in Anchorage, Alaska in the Ross Aviation Hanger, and on or about February 16-19, 2020, the external temperature ranged from 18 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit and when the hanger door opened, frequently without notice, the internal hanger temperature dropped to as low as 46 degrees.  After the external hanger door opened it took approximately two hours with a loud heater to get the internal temperature back up to the low to mid 60s.  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-207-20-Violation of §10, §11.D & §24.L Bundled Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10 [Scheduling], §11.D [Reserve:  Scheduling/Notice of Time to Report] and §24.L [General and Miscellaneous: Company-Provided Inflight Mobile Device (IMD)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system sent bundled scheduling notifications to Flight Attendants on their Inflight Mobile Devices (IMDs) or directly in Crew Access, requiring Flight Attendants to batch acknowledge or ignore such notifications and thereby resulting in Flight Attendants potentially waiving multiple contractual protections via an extra-contractual point of contact (i.e. Crew Access scheduling notifications).  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-384-20-Violation of §10.S Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling :  Pre-Cancellations], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent to Flight Attendants via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign alternate flying or an obligation to call Crew Scheduling within a specific window of time.  If a Flight Attendant accepts such non-contractual scheduling notification(s), which is neither contact by Crew Scheduling via Company email nor via primary phone contact as defined in §10.S.1.a, the scheduling notification(s) violates the contract by abrogating the Flight Attendant’s ability to: (1) decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection (§10.S.2.b), (2) decline the “out of original footprint by more than two hours” alternate assignment and call Crew Scheduling between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM (local domicile time) the night prior to the start of the original sequence (§10.S.2.c), or (3) waive pay protection and be relieved of any further scheduling obligation (§10.S.3). 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-386-20-Violation of §8.Q & §8.R Contactability and Notification of Delay or Cancellation.This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.Q [Hours of Service: Contactability] and §8.R [Hours of Service: Notification of Delay or Cancellation], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign revised flying to Flight Attendants who were off-duty on a remain overnight (RON). Such scheduling notifications are in violation of the contractually defined means of contact and/or the Flight Attendant’s obligation to respond pursuant to these provisions.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-84-22-Violation of §21.J Ground Delay Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.J [Compensation:  Block and Ground Delays], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not pay ground delay pay accumulatively, requiring each delay to go over 11 minutes to be eligible for pay, when a flight (same flight number/same routing) returns to gate one or more times.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-176-22-California Family School Partnership Act Violation of Past Practice and Roberts Award.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally disallowed the California Family School Partnership Act for those Flight Attendants based in Los Angeles (LAX); then reinstated, with no notice, the state law for LAX based Flight Attendants only, but not for the other California based Flight Attendants in San Diego (SAN) or San Francisco (SFO), and not for the rest of the Flight Attendants based in our system, Seattle (SEA), Portland (PDX) or Anchorage (ANC), in violation of Roberts.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-215-23-Violation of §10.J.4 Bidding Packet and Bidding Times and Violation of Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.J.4 [Scheduling:  Bid Packets and Bidding Timelines], Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18, past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about July 10, 2023, it and/or the NAVBLUE Preferential Bidding System (PBS) vendor did not provide an administrative lock-out function or a mutually agreeable alternate solution to allow for the correction of a technical issue when processing bid awards without opening up the system to all users.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-248-23- Violation of §32 and Roberts Decision.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32 [Attendance], past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally rolled out state leave laws on a state-by-state basis rather than applying the most liberal of state leave laws to all Flight Attendants regardless of domicile, thereby disparately treating Flight Attendants within the Collective Bargaining unit, in violation of Roberts. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-24- Violation of §25.B Safe and Healthy Workplace-B/E Aerospace Coffee Makers.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Heath and Security:  Safe and Healthy Workplace] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about February 15, 2024, it refused AFA’s request to discontinue the use of older style B/E Aerospace coffee makers until adequate physical mitigations are put into place to prevent the coffee makers, when coupled with the Company’s new onboard coffee product, from spewing hot coffee and grounds during the brew process, which has previously resulted in the injury of at least ten Flight Attendants.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-170-24-Violation of §15.G Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents (AQ).  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.G [Leaves of Absence: Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about August 30, 2024, it refused to allow Flight Attendants the ability to use the above provisions when they had a documented air quality event, as they are requiring the Flight Attendants to file workers’ compensation claims, which are frequently denied.