Grievance Committee
- Our Grievance Committee protects all Flight Attendants from arbitrary and unjust disciplinary action and upholds our collective bargaining agreement. This update briefly summarizes the committee’s work over the past few quarters.
- Management has issued discipline lately for a variety of reasons. Read on for more information about why management is disciplining and terminating Flight Attendants.
- If you’ve faced a situation that you believe might be a contractual violation, please report the issue through the AFA Alaska Online Support Center. AFA Representatives review each report submitted and will follow up to help you determine options and a course of action.
Our Grievance Committee has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. The contract requires a minimum of 13 arbitration dates yearly to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. Termination cases are usually given first priority in order to return a Flight Attendant back to work as soon as possible; however, we seek a balance between discipline and contractual cases. AFA and management mutually decide which cases to arbitrate next based on many factors.
Steps of discipline are confirmation of oral warning (COW), written warning (WW), suspension (varied number of days) to termination. COWs, WWs, and suspensions remain in a Flight Attendant’s file for 18 months, and then are removed. If a Flight Attendant is in a step of discipline and gets another violation, the new violation will build on the previous violation. Management doesn’t always progressively travel up the steps of discipline. If management investigates a Flight Attendant for theft or abuse of sick leave, for example, management will terminate the Flight Attendant if there is evidence to support its findings; if there is no evidence, then the Flight Attendant will most likely be issued a record of discussion (ROD). An ROD is not considered discipline. There is no middle ground for certain violations.
Many Flight Attendants are under the impression that if they’ve been an overall good employee, have no to low attendance points, good kudos, decent seniority, etc.…that they will not get disciplined. This is not the case, regardless of any good work qualities one may have, if management believes the FA committed an offense, they will be disciplined.
If a supervisor or manager calls and asks questions pertaining to a flight, work issue, or disciplinary issue and no AFA representative is on the call, you should assert that you would like an AFA rep on the call.
Subject of Most Recent Discipline
- Sick leave and FMLA abuse. Terminations are on the rise due to travel audits among other things. Anything written in the comments/remarks on posted trip trades and personal drops can be seen, even if eventually deleted. Management can also see every drop/trade attempt, even if it was not processed successfully. If management determines abuse it results in termination. If you’re not going to make it to work and you’re not sick and can’t get a management drop, your best option might be to simply no-show the trip. You should never call in sick unless you are actually too ill or injured to fly. Calling in sick for a pet is a terminable offense as well.
- Theft. Removing anything from the aircraft other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food will result in termination.
- Timecard fraud. Examples: Intentionally delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay. Management has terminated for this violation.
- Reserve “Roulette”. Not being within two hours of base for your Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only once given an assignment. The Company considers this a terminable violation. Management regularly reviews the trip trade postings and history related to sick calls and whether comments and money incentives are added to trips which are subsequently called in sick. Even deleted trade history or postings can be seen by management.
- Lying in an investigation
- Drug/Alcohol violations
- Giving miles in exchange for kudos or filled out Visa applications
- Harassment
- Refusing scheduling revisions or ignoring requests to call Crew Scheduling.
- Reserves commuting during Reserve Availability Period (RAP) even if self-assigned a trip and/or not being in base for the entirety of reserve period. Management usually gives a two-week suspension or termination depending on circumstances.
- Social media violations including sending friend or follow requests to passengers on social media based on information gained from Block2Block.
- Commuter Violations
- Flight Attendant released from DHD and used D8Y home
- Flight Attendant used D8Y when they picked up out of base
- Flight Attendant used D8Y to/from incorrect cities
- Flight Attendant used D8Y for pleasure travel.
- Commuter audits are conducted monthly, and usually reserve FAs not in base are discoverable in said audits.
- Lost IMD or other required items
- Failing to complete CBT—even if FA just forgets to hit the close out x at the top to switch it from in process to complete.
- Uniform Issues—Flight Attendants can and have been pulled from working their flights without pay for uniform non-compliance.
- Late to gate/flight delay
Reminder
CBA §32.C.5 says, “Short Sick Call, When a Flight Attendant calls in sick less than two hours (2:00) prior to scheduled check-in.” If you intend to call in for a short sick call, but not get the 2.5 points, the call to Crew Scheduling must be after SCHEDULED check in, and not just after you check in per §32.C.6.
Recent Arbitration/Mediation
| September 2024 | Disciplinary Grievance |
| October 2024 | Contractual Grievance |
| November 2024 | Disciplinary Grievance |
Recent Contractual Arbitration Awards
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.
Awaiting Decision
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.
Awaiting Decision
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.
