AFA Alaska

Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Archives for Committees / Grievance Committee

Grievance No. 36-99-2-9-16 CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation

Grievance filed

 

AFA Alaska filed Grievance No. 36-99-2-16 CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation in response to the junior assignments around Christmas. See Holiday JA … Updates, No JA for … Premium OT Returning on December 24th or 25th, Temporary Waiver to Allow CSKD to Withhold Trips from OT for Assignment to Reserves at Noon and JA December 2015 for more background information. This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 9.D.2. [Junior Available/Company’s Right to Assign JA], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act on December 23, 2015, and December 24, 2015, when it junior assigned Flight Attendants out of order.

 

Settlement agreement

 

After several meetings between AFA and Alaska Airlines management, this grievance was resolved via a settlement agreement that states:

 

  • In addition to the contractual pay outlined in 9.D.1.e. [Company’s Right to Assign JA], Flight Attendants junior assigned out of order will be paid an additional one-half times (0.5x) the trip rate for a total of one times (1.0x) the trip rate for the sequence assigned in error excluding Minimum Pay Rules per §21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules];

 

  • Flight Attendants who should have been junior assigned to the sequence will be pay protected at two and one-half times (2.5x) the trip rate for the sequence excluding Minimum Pay Rules per 21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules];

 

  • As outlined in 9.D.1.e. [Company’s Right to Assign JA], Flight Attendants who picked up and flew an out of order junior assignment will be paid an additional half-times (0.5x) the trip rate for the sequence assigned in error excluding Minimum Pay Rules per §21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules]; and

 

  • A Flight Attendant will be paid four (4.0) TFP due to incorrect junior assignment, which required her to utilize FMLA.

 

AFA and management developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Junior Assignments

 

It is the Association’s goal that management utilizes junior assignment (JA) only as a last resort. However, AFA and management are working together to develop a Junior Assignment (JA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) just in case it happens again. Both parties would like to ensure that JA out of order is eliminated—or at least greatly reduced—just in case. AFA is currently reviewing a formal draft of the JA SOP. It is our hope that this new SOP will ensure out of order JAs are eliminated—or at least greatly minimized.

 

Additionally, AFA is seeking clarification to how the provisions of §3.D.2. [Scope: Management flying to prevent a cancellation] interact with the provisions of §9.D.2.h. [Junior Available & Premium Open Time: Company’s Right to Assign JA]. This is specifically in relation to the order of release from JA for Flight Attendants (if the operation allows) and how this affects the order of release by management in order to prevent a cancellation. Both provisions were actively in effect at the same time over the holidays, which caused confusion and, in our opinion, the inappropriate application of the provisions. AFA anticipates these provisions will again be utilized concurrently, so we would like to prevent the same outcome from occurring in the future.

 

Via the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, AFA has stated our position that management personnel assigned to a flight pursuant to §3.D.2. [Scope: Management flying to prevent a cancellation] should be considered the most junior Flight Attendant on that flight consistent with §3.D.1.C.2. Therefore, AFA contends that management personnel must be released after all other JA’d Flight Attendants for that day have been released—or have declined release—pursuant to §9.D.2.h. We have stipulated that this understanding must be incorporated into the JA SOP.

 

Use of the new Premium Open Time provisions prior to JA

 

AFA leadership will continue to push management to make the most of the new Premium Open Time provisions—with escalating premiums if necessary—prior to JA. We never want to see JAs unless trips have been offered at no less than two and one-half times (2.5x) premium for a reasonable period of time prior to JA. After all, doesn’t it make sense to offer Premium OT at 2.5x for voluntary pick up, rather than force a JA on a flight attendant for the same premium?

 

* * *

 

Questions? Contact one of your Local Executive Council officers or local Scheduling Committee members.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and Committee Member Stephanie Adams; and MEC Scheduling Chairperson Jake Jones

AFA Alaska Logo Transparent Background

Alaska Listens “Red Flags”

AFA would like to bring to your attention management’s use of Alaska Listens passenger comments. Inflight management has deemed negative comments “red flags” and has a procedure to address them.

 

When a red flag comes to management’s attention an Inflight manager will determine its seriousness. If the red flag is deemed to be somewhat benign or general then a base supervisor will email the Flight Attendant and copy in the other base supervisors. The Flight Attendant can contact any supervisor and have the email/Alaska Listens comment read to them over the phone or read it in person. Depending on the number of red flags for the specific Flight Attendant, the supervisor will either shred the document after the conversation or let the Flight Attendant know that s/he will now have a record of discussion (ROD) in her or his file.

 

A ROD is not considered discipline, but it can lead to discipline if the Flight Attendant acquires more red flags. Management decided that if a Flight Attendant receives three benign/general comments in a six-month period then that Flight Attendant would be referred to their performance supervisor.

 

If an Alaska Listens comment is deemed serious then the Flight Attendant will likely be referred directly to her or his performance supervisor. Depending on the severity of the allegation, the Flight Attendant could be given a ROD, an oral or written warning, and in rare cases a suspension or termination.

 

If a Flight Attendant is contacted to speak with management, s/he should ask if the conversation could lead to discipline. If the answer is “yes” or “maybe” (or any other permutation of that sentiment such as “I don’t know”), s/he should request union representation. In all cases s/he should request a union representative prior to writing any statement.

 

Questions? Contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) officers [ANC 30 | SEA 19 | PDX 39 | LAX 18 | SAN 15] or grievance reps.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and Committee Member Stephanie Adams

AFA-Alaska-Logo-Transparent-Background

Filing an Individual Grievance in Regards to Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority

Flight attendants have requested to file individual grievances per Section 19 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in regards to Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority.  If any member would like to utilize this provision, this is a reminder to contact the MEC Grievance Chair Jennifer Wise MacColl (jennifer.wisemaccoll@afaalaska.org) as soon as possible to receive a grievance number and instructions that will be sent to you during normal business hours. The issue is timely as management notified Flight Attendants on September 1, 2015, of the roll back.   In order to file a grievance per the 30 business days required by the contract, individual grievances should be filed by close of business at 5pm PT this coming Wednesday, October 14, 2015. 

 

If you have any questions or concerns, contact your Local Executive Council president: ANC | SEA | PDX | LAX | SAN.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput

AFA Alaska

[Revised] Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority Grievance Update

[Note: Individual grievances must be filed by close of business at 5pm PT Wednesday, October 14, 2015.]

 

Management unilaterally changed the employee travel pass policy on May 1, 2012

 

On May 1, 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. AFA and ALPA filed grievances in response to the May 1, 2012, change.  More detailed background information can be found after the signature block and AFA Alaska logo below.

Recent developments

 

In recent developments ALPA settled its grievance, and management granted the AFA grievance. Management announced the intent to roll back the Alaska Flight Attendants and Pilots who are former Horizon employees and to return their travel priority to their Alaska Airlines date of hire. While all employees (formerly from Horizon) hired after July 2012 and those in the Flight Attendant and Pilot work groups are being handled consistently, a small number of employees remain in the other work groups who were not rolled back to their Alaska Airlines date of hire for travel seniority.

 

Flight Attendants impacted by this decision were notified in early September that their date of hire for travel would revert to the Alaska Airlines hire date and that they would receive new badges. This has caused understandable disappointment and frustration for our members impacted by the change.

 

AFA’s assessment

 

AFA advised management that it does not believe that the resolution allowing a small number of employees to retain a date of hire boarding priority that is unavailable to the rest of the employees in the company is equitable and just, or a full resolution of the grievance. In our opinion the overall implementation of the policy changes since the original change in May of 2012 has been badly mishandled. The failure to fully review the original policy change, failure to consult with the Labor groups involved or to assess the potential conflict with their Collective Bargaining Agreements is unacceptable.

 

Difficult decision

 

AFA was left with the difficult decision on how to proceed. The Master Executive Council (MEC) consulted with our AFA staff attorney to determine if filing a new grievance in order to pursue a uniform policy for all employees, while upholding our contractual language regarding benefits and company seniority, was possible. Ultimately the advice was that a grievance initiated by AFA would be unlikely to succeed, as it would be attempting to change the policy for employees in other work groups, who are covered by their own collective bargaining agreements.

 

After much discussion, the MEC decided that no further grievances would be filed on this issue, and that the rollback for flight attendants would stand (as will the rollback for pilots, based on ALPA’s settlement). This was a very challenging conclusion for all and the vote was not unanimous. The MEC has spent over three years attempting to resolve this difficult issue, constantly operating with the knowledge that no matter the resolution, one portion of our membership would be negatively impacted.

 

Filing an individual grievance

 

The MEC understands that our members who were formerly employed by Horizon feel very strongly about the issue.   Many have requested to file individual grievances per Section 19 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. If any member would like to utilize this provision of the contract and file an individual grievance they have the ability to do so and should contact the MEC Grievance Chair Jennifer Wise-MacColl (jennifer.wisemaccoll@afaalaska.org) to receive a grievance number and instructions. The issue is timely as management notified Flight Attendants on September 1, 2015, of the roll back.   In order to file a grievance per the 30 business days required by the contract, individual grievances should be filed by close of business at 5pm PT this coming Wednesday, October 14, 2015.

 

* * *

 

If you have any questions or concerns, contact your Local Executive Council president:

ANC | SEA | PDX | LAX | SAN.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput

 

AFA Alaska

Additional Background Information

 

On May 1, 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. Prior to this change there was a long standing past practice that any employee who entered a work group covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement did not retain their AAG date of hire for non-revenue travel priority. The May 1st change directly affected over three hundred (300) employees and their travel seniority changed—approximately one hundred fifty (150) of them flight attendants.  Some of those employees now had travel seniority greater than Alaska Flight Attendants who had been hired at Alaska before the former Horizon employees transferred to Alaska. In effect, the change impacted all Alaska Flight Attendants.

 

Then in July of 2012 management changed its policy again and determined that all former Horizon employees hired after July 1, 2012, would receive only their Alaska date of hire as their travel seniority. This left the group of 300 as the only employees utilizing their AAG date of hire for non-revenue travel priority. There have been numerous questions regarding longevity for retirement and if this change negates previous service with Horizon Air for purposes of retirement eligibility. The short answer is that this changes impacts date of hire only for non-revenue travel priority.

 

AFA and ALPA filed grievances in response to the May 1, 2012, 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.  In addition the MEC weighed the decision of taking no action and the implication that would have if AAG were to acquire new carriers.   The MEC was concerned that not grieving the May 1, 2012, change would adversely affect our ability to protect the travel seniority of our Flight Attendants—including former Horizon flight attendants.

AFA Alaska MEC Grievance Update August 2015

 

The Master Executive Council (MEC) has recently filed numerous grievances on your behalf.

 

Grievances Settlements

 

First and foremost, we filed and settled two very important grievances:

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-17-15: Assigning a Failure to Report after Successful Check In.

 

This grievance was filed due to the Company’s violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Section 32 [Attendance Policy], when it assigned failure to report occurrences after a Flight Attendant’s successful check in.

 

In certain circumstances management had been assigning a “Late Report” when a Flight Attendant arrived late to the gate or arrived late to the gate at RON, this was after a successful scan in at the beginning of her/his sequence. AFA’s long-standing position has been that “Late Report” occurrences only applied when a Flight Attendant failed to scan in at domicile. All other situations, which might result in a Flight Attendant arriving late to the aircraft, were handled as general performance issues; these will now be referred to as “Late Arrival to Aircraft”. Please note this does not change a Flight Attendant’s requirement to be at the aircraft 45 minutes prior to departure.

 

Management agreed and a settlement was reached with the following clarifications:

 

1) A Flight Attendant may only be assessed a Late Report (formerly Failure to Report) when s/he checks in after the scheduled check in time and has not been assessed a No-Show for the same event;

 

2) When a Flight Attendant is late to the aircraft at any time during a scheduled sequence, s/he will not be assessed any attendance points, these occurrences will be considered a performance issue and will be handled under the Company’s progressive discipline policy; and

 

3) The Company agrees to remove attendance points from any Flight Attendant who received them for being late to the aircraft during a scheduled sequence, provided the points were assigned in the 18 months preceding May 19, 2015.

 

If you believe that you may have been assessed a Failure to Report incorrectly and it occurred after November 19, 2013, please reach out to a local grievance representative for assistance.

 

A copy of the settlement language can be found by clicking here.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-26-15: Quarterly Productivity Premium.

 

The second grievance settlement involved Section 21.R [QPP]. It was filed due to Management’s position that Flight Attendants who had not received a PBS bid award for one or more months of the quarter were excluded from the Quarterly Productivity Premium. A copy of the settlement language can be found in its entirety here.

Grievances Upheld

 

Management granted the following two grievances:

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-11-15: Violation of Section 27.N [New Hire Initial Training Presentation].

The Company’s violation of Section 27.N, when it failed to provide the Association one hour for the purpose of new hire orientation during a regularly scheduled training day.

Resolution: Management has agreed to ensure that a full hour is provided.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-13-15-Failing to Provide Automated Trading of 4K Pairings.

The Company’s violation of Section 10.DD.6 [Long Stage Length (“4K”) Duty Period] and 12.C.1 [Trading Procedures], when it failed to automate trading of Long Stage Length Duty Period (“4K”) Pairings. In addition when it violated the Contract Implementation Schedule Letter of Agreement paragraph numbers six* (“One-hundred and twenty days after DOS-but no later than May 1, 2015,…”) and nine* (“The Company agrees to make a good faith effort to meet the above implementation time frames…”), when it failed to notify the Association of the delay and discuss the circumstances and necessary adjustments to the implementation schedule.

Resolution: Manual trading is in effect until the next emaestro release scheduled for September 15, 2015. Bulletin 2015-0182 issued on July 16, 2015, addresses how to manually trade “4K” pairings.

 

Grievances Pending

 

The following grievances have been filed and are still pending:

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-15-15-Limiting Access to the SAN Domicile.

The Company’s violation of Section 28.I [Company Provided Computers and Printers at Domiciles], when it limited access to the SAN Domicile including contractually required resources to only those Flight Attendants based in SAN.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-19-15-Failing to Pay Flight Attendants for Reasonable Suspicion Drug/Alcohol Testing.

The Company’s violation of Addendum to Section 21 [Compensation], when it failed to pay Flight Attendants for reasonable suspicion drug & alcohol testing.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-20-15-Converting a Line Holding Flight Attendant to ER Reserve Outside of her/his Contactable Period.

The Company’s violation of Section 11.C.3.b.6 [Conversion of Reserves to ER] and 11.C.3.c [ER Contactibility], when it converted a line holding Flight Attendant to ER Reserve outside of her/his contactable period.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-21-15-Section 21.M Compensation.

The Company’s violation of Section 21.M [Pay Protection Due to Weather, Mechanical or to Suit Company Convenience], when it removed a Flight Attendant from a trip and failed to pay protect her.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-22-15-Violation of Past Practice Regarding Manual Revision/Emergency Interim Bulletin (EIB) Insertion Timelines.

The Company’s violation of past practice regarding manual revision/emergency interim bulletin (EIB) insertion timelines, which fails to provide Flight Attendants sufficient time to thoroughly read and insert their revisions and/or EIB’s. Long standing past practice is articulated in the Flight Attendant Manual 6.500 page 1, dated July 6, 2012, which states: “Insert, post and record manual revisions within 14 days of receipt, no later than 30 days after distribution.” A new EIB 14-40 effective November 25, 2014, now states: “The holder of the FAM shall insert revisions/EIBs on or before the effective date or prior to the first assignment following the effective date, whichever comes first.”

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-23-15-Beyond Service Training Exceeding Contractual Training Hours.

The Company’s violation of Section 30.A.2 [Recurrent Training and Other Company-Required (Non-Computer-Based) Training; Hours], by conducting Beyond Service Training after 5:00PM local time, failing to provide a clear break between required training and the optional “Happy Hour” and failing to provide transportation information to Flight Attendants who choose to depart promptly at 5:00PM.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-24-15-Ground Floor Lodging While on Company Business.

The Company’s violation of Section 34 [Hotels], when it failed to avoid ground floor lodging for Flight Attendants attending company required Beyond Service training.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-29-15-Section 28.G.6 Commuter Boarding Priority. The Company’s violation of Section 28.G.6 [Commuter Policy], when it allowed Company employees (and their dependents) on pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.

 

* * *

 

The next step is to move forward to arbitration on any grievances that cannot be resolved appropriately. In addition, we continue to file disciplinary grievances, which occur on a near daily basis.   Many of these will move forward to arbitration as well.   All Flight Attendants system wide are impacted when AFA cannot resolve issues with management prior to arbitration.   AFA is committed to resolving these issues and will soon be scheduling new arbitration dates for the year 2016. Periodic grievance updates will follow; however should you have questions on specific grievances, please reach out to your local grievance representative.

 

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl, MEC Grievance Committee member Stephanie Adams and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput

AFA Grievance No. 36-99-2-17-15 Failure to Report or Late Report Settlement

AFA Alaska

Meet Our Merged MEC Committee Chairpersons & Representatives

We’re excited to introduce our next group of newly elected merged MEC Committee Chairpersons, who will begin their roles on November 1. These leaders are dedicated to representing the interests of our Flight Attendants as they coordinate activities across the merged committees of both airlines. They’ll work closely with the Local Committee Chairpersons from all […]

Hotel Committee Meeting Recap – October 2025

On Monday, October 13, our AFA Local Hotel Committee Chairpersons met in person in Seattle to receive an update about current layover hotels and transportation providers and discuss concerns with management. Representing you at the meeting were Dori Marron (ANC), Jarod McNeill (SEA), Kelly Hepworth (PDX), Hilary Streem (SFO), Chris Cardenas (LAX), and Kanani Vallot […]

Pre-Merger Alaska MEC Committee Election Results

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants During this week’s MEC Meeting, our MEC held interviews for the next group of pre-merger Alaska MEC Committee positions to be elected for the upcoming MEC Officer term. We want to thank everyone who expressed interest in the available positions and their willingness to serve. After careful […]

Merged MEC Committee Chairperson Election Results

During this week’s MEC Meeting, our MEC held interviews for the next group of merged MEC Committee Chairpersons and Representatives. We want to thank everyone who expressed interest in the available positions and their willingness to serve. After careful consideration and deliberation, the following candidates have been elected: MEC Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee […]

U.S. Customs & Border Protection Gender Code Requirement

Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced changes to the rules surrounding how airlines report information about passengers and crew before flights. This system is called the Advance Passenger Information System, or APIS. These changes are in response to a Presidential Executive Order. What is APIS? APIS is a system that airlines are legally […]

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 Council 19 SEA Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX 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 Committee 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 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