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

AFA and Management Agree on a Remedy for the Delayed May & June 2022 Bid Awards

Master Executive Council (MEC)

  • AFA Alaska leadership and Alaska Airlines management have reached agreement on a remedy for the delayed May & June bid awards.
  • All Flight Attendants who were active at any point during the May or June 2022 bid months will receive 4.0 TFP on their respective July 20th paychecks.
  • Thank you to the more than 4400 who participated in the “It’s Time to Make It Right!” letter writing campaign, and AFA appreciates management’s commitment to doing the right thing in these circumstances.

AFA Alaska leadership and Alaska Airlines management have reached agreement on a remedy for the delayed May & June bid awards:

All Flight Attendants who were active at any point during the May or June 2022 bid months will receive 4.0 TFP on their respective July 20th paychecks. *

* Flight Attendants must not have been on a leave of absence for the entirety of both bid months and newly hired Flight Attendants must have been eligible to bid for either bid period to be eligible for the settlement. The 4.0 TFP will have applicable taxes withheld at the regular withholding rate and less any other deductions/contributions.

Realistically, an arbitrator would not have awarded 4 TFP to all active Flight Attendants as a remedy to these contractual grievances, so we recognize that management ultimately agreed to more than we would have achieved through arbitration. This non-precedential monetary settlement compensates FAs for the inconvenience resulting from the contractual violations and demonstrates management’s willingness to accept responsibility for their actions. AFA appreciates management’s commitment to doing the right thing in these circumstances.

Thank you to the more than 4400 who participated in the “It’s Time to Make It Right!” letter writing campaign: Our collective action was an impressive show of solidarity that was invaluable in achieving this settlement!

System Board of Adjustment Interviews

Master Executive Council (MEC)

Our Master Executive Council (MEC) will be conducting interviews for one (1) member to serve on the AFA System Board of Adjustment.

Scope

Members are to serve on the System Board of Adjustment for the purpose of arbitrating any disputes or grievances that may arise under the terms of the Agreement between Alaska Airlines and its Flight Attendants.

Policy/Responsibilities

  • There shall be two members selected by the MEC from active members in good standing to represent the Association.  Members will be selected at-large without regard to Local Council or domicile. 
  • Any person seeking a position as a System Board of Adjustment Member must submit a resume.  Candidates must interview with the MEC.
  • System Board Members shall be selected for a two (2) year appointment period in accordance with the AFA Constitution and Bylaws.  At least one appointment will be reviewed in June of each year.  Selection shall be made, insofar as possible, to ensure that both members will not be new at the same time.  
  • The System Board Members will act in the best interest of the membership and the Association and will be consistent with the Agreement between the Flight Attendants and Alaska Airlines.
  • The MEC President shall have the ability, in the event of an emergency, to appoint a qualified member in good standing to fill an ad hoc position on the Board, should the alternate not be available.
  • The MEC on an ad hoc basis, by majority vote, may appoint an expert as a substitute for one member of the System Board of Adjustment.

Qualifications

  • Current Alaska Airlines Flight Attendant
  • Willingness to attend the requisite grievance training(s)
  • In depth knowledge of the contract
  • Understanding of the principles of just cause
  • Adherence to Grievance Committee policies, procedures, and standards of ethical conduct
  • Ability to maintain confidentiality of sensitive and personal information
  • Maintenance of member-in-good-standing status
  • Ability to remain in good standing with the company
  • Ability to analyze written data and information with high attention to detail
  • Strong written and communication skills
  • Strong computer skills.

Term of Appointment

The selected candidate will serve the a term of appointment that begins on July 1, 2022 and concludes on June 30, 2024.

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

The MEC will hold interviews of eligible candidates during the June Regular MEC Meeting on June 14 and 15, 2022.  If you’re interested in interviewing, plan to bid around this date or adjust your schedule accordingly to accommodate.  All interviews will be conducted using Google Meet videoconferencing.

Interested candidates should submit an expression of interest and resume using the online expression of interest form.  The deadline for submissions is 5 PM Pacific time on Friday, June 3, 2022.  After the submission deadline, an MEC representative will contact eligible candidates to arrange a specific interview time.

Please note that to submit an expression of interest, you must have a Google account.  If you do not have a Google account, you can create one for free at https://accounts.google.com/signup.

Questions?

Any questions regarding the position or application process should be directed to MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Stephanie Adams at stephanie.adams@afaalaska.org.

Delayed Publication of May 2022 Bid Awards

Master Executive Council (MEC)

Like all of you, the MEC is extremely frustrated by management’s unacceptable violation of Section 10.J.8 of our collective bargaining agreement through their failure to post May 2022 bid awards on time. We will file a contractual grievance on behalf of all Flight Attendants for this violation, so please note there is no need to file a ticket through the AFA Alaska Support Center. We hear you loud and clear: You want transparency and accountability from management, and you expect AFA leadership to do everything in our power to make that happen on your behalf.

Management has already acknowledged “administrative error,” but this does not go far enough. Consequently, we have communicated your expectations that management transparently communicates additional details and management’s actions in response, including how responsible parties will be held accountable and what is being done to prevent a recurrence. The MEC has also requested Labor Relations to engage with us at the earliest possible opportunity regarding an appropriate and mutually acceptable remedy for the contractual violation.

What is a potential remedy? There is no identifiable loss of pay because of the contract violation, so there is no contractual basis to seek compensation or any other alternative remedy via arbitration. The best outcome we could achieve via a favorable arbitration ruling would be for management to cease and desist (i.e., not violate the contract provision going forward). However, management has already agreed there was a contract violation and signaled to AFA there is no intent for future violations.

Although management is neither obligated to pay anything for the inconvenience, nor would an arbitrator compel management to do so, nothing prevents the parties from mutually agreeing to compensation or some other compensatory-like remedy. AFA has expressed our desire to management to settle this dispute by negotiating such a remedy, so it’s their move next.

Before It Becomes a Grievance: Understanding ADR and SRB

Grievance Committee

  • When AFA and management disagree on a contractual issue, it doesn’t necessarily become a grievance right away.  Most times, there is an intermediate step taken to try to resolve the issue.
  • Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) brings together decision makers from AFA leadership, inflight management, and labor relations management to try to work the issue out.  Scheduling Review Board (SRB) is a similar process that involves AFA Representatives and Crew Scheduling management.  
  • If everyone can’t agree on a resolution, our AFA Grievance Committee can still file a formal grievance and address the issue through the contractual grievance process.

As we know, our collective bargaining agreement provides many protections related to our working conditions, pay, and benefits.  Our AFA Grievance Committee and other AFA Representatives work constantly to ensure that management is doing right by our Flight Attendants according to the language in the contract.  Sometimes, however, disagreements arise between AFA and management about how a particular provision in the contract should be applied or whether or not a contractual violation occurred in the first place.

Our contract provides an established process for handling disagreements such as these.  Section 19 [Grievance Procedures] and section 20 [Board of Adjustment] of our CBA, often referred to collectively as the contractual grievance process, outline the procedures for how disputes about contractual language and interpretation are handled.  But before a matter is referred to the grievance process, there is often an intermediate step taken to try to work the issue out with management.

Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process is intended to give AFA Representatives and management the opportunity to resolve issues more quickly and with more flexibility while saving on the expenses related to processing a grievance.  ADR meetings are held every two weeks and include the AFA MEC Grievance Committee and management counterparts in Inflight management and the Labor Relations department.  During these meetings, the group reviews each case and attempts to work through issues that would otherwise be forced to the grievance process directly.

Scheduling Review Board (SRB)

Alongside ADR is a parallel process that specifically addresses scheduling-related issues.  The Scheduling Review Board (SRB) meets once per month and includes representatives from our AFA MEC Grievance, Scheduling, and Reserve Committees along with Crew Scheduling management.  The goal of SRB is the same—work to resolve issues more quickly than the grievance process would allow while achieving the best possible outcome for Flight Attendants.

How Do I Know If My Issue Has Been Referred to ADR/SRB?

If you’ve reported a concern to AFA and the issue has been referred to ADR or SRB, the status of your ticket on the AFA Alaska Online Support Center will show as “escalated to ADR” or “escalated to SRB” accordingly.  The AFA Representative assigned to your case will continue to be your point of contact and provide you with updates following ADR/SRB meetings.  Our MEC Grievance Committee also maintains a log of current and past ADR items that can be viewed on the Grievance Committee page of the AFA Alaska website (click the “view the ADR log” button under the ADR process heading).   

What If We Can’t Work it Out?

While an issue is being addressed through ADR or SRB, the time limitations outlined in the contract for when a grievance must be filed are placed on hold.  This ensures that the Flight Attendant and our contractual rights are protected as we try to resolve the issue.  If we aren’t able to reach an agreement with management that is acceptable to everyone involved, our AFA Grievance Committee maintains the right to address the issue by filing a formal grievance.

Questions?

If you have questions about the ADR process, don’t hesitate to contact your Local Grievance Committee Chairperson.  For any questions about the SRB process, contact your Local Scheduling Committee Chairperson or Local Reserve Committee Chairperson.

Grievance Committee Update – 3rd and 4th Quarters 2021

Grievance Committee

  • Our Grievance Committee works to protect all Flight Attendants from arbitrary and unjust disciplinary action and to uphold our collective bargaining agreement.  This update provides a short summary of the committee’s work over the past two quarters.
  • Management has issued discipline lately for a variety of reasons.  Read on for more information about the reasons 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). A ROD is not considered discipline.  There is no middle ground for certain violations.  

Subject of Most Recent Discipline

  • Theft.  Removing anything from the aircraft other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food removed will result in termination.  
  • 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.  If management determines abuse it results 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.  Even deleted trade history or postings can be seen by management.
  • Lying in an investigation
  • Drug/Alcohol violations
  • Harassment
  • 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 has terminated for this reason several times.  Management regularly reviews commuting history and whether a FA is in base for her/his RAP period.  If not, they will terminate on a first offense.
  • 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 being used for researching whether commuting
  • 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.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

May 2021Disciplinary Grievance
June 2021Disciplinary Grievance
July 2021Disciplinary Grievance
August 2021Disciplinary Grievance
September 2021Disciplinary Grievance
October 2021Contractual Grievance
November 2021Contractual Grievance
December 2021Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Contractual Arbitration Awards

None

Recent Grievance Settlements

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-64-17 Violation of §27.P.1.f-h Company Business Flight Pay Loss.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §27.P.1.f-h [General-Association: Company Business Flight Pay Loss (CB)/Company Meetings], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it requested Flight Attendants attend an Inflight Announcement Focus Group on or about August 7, 2017, without compensating for company meeting pay nor the five percent (5%) override and “A” pay, and without regard to contractual duty day applications; alternatively it provided non-negotiated compensation.   

Details:  

  1. On or about August 7, 2017, approximately 24-30 Flight Attendants attended a Flight Attendant announcement focus group.  The above-referenced grievance was filed on their behalf.   The names of the Flight Attendants are not currently known. The Company will exercise all avenues to identify them  If they become known at any time, each of those Flight Attendants will be paid 4 TFP for their attendance at a work event.  
  2. On a go forward basis, the Company will follow the best practice of alerting AFA prior to publicizing work and/or volunteer opportunities to the Flight Attendants.  The Company will inform AFA whether the Company will compensate Flight Attendants who attend the event, or if the event is intended as a volunteer opportunity only.  If the parties disagree, AFA may file a grievance based on that event.   

Grievances Recently Mediated 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-56-17-Violation of §15.C.4 Medical Leave of Absence.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.C.4 [Leaves of Absence: Medical Leave of Absence], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when in December 2016 it denied [a Flight Attendant’s] medical leave of absence (MLOA) because she did not also qualify for FMLA and because the MLOA was less than 10 days in duration.  

Details:

  1. When a Flight Attendant applies for a medical leave, the Company will process all such leaves according to the same criteria, regardless of the requested length of such leave. 
  2. FMLA will be granted if all applicable requirements are met. If the leave qualifies for FMLA, FMLA and contractual medical leave will run concurrently to the extent required by law. 
  3. If the Flight Attendant otherwise meets the requirements for having a serious health condition but the condition is not expected to meet the minimum number of days of incapacity as required by the FMLA definition of continuing treatment in 29 CFR § 825.115(a), the Company will grant a contractual medical leave. 
  4. If the Flight Attendant has a serious health condition as defined by the FMLA or by Paragraph 3 but does not qualify for FMLA for any other reason (e.g., the Flight Attendant has exhausted their FMLA; the Flight Attendant does not have enough qualifying hours for FMLA, etc.), the Flight Attendant will be granted a contractual medical leave. 
  5. If Matrix (or successor leave administrator) denies a contractual medical leave because the Flight Attendant does not supply adequate medical information to determine if the Flight Attendant has a serious health condition, the Company will review the request for a medical leave under Section 15.C.1 of the collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and either grant the leave or exercise its rights under Section 17 of the CBA. 

Grievances Recently Granted by Management 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-1-17- Violation of §32.C.5. Assessing Short Sick Call Points to Flight Attendant on FMLA.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.5 [Attendance Policy: Short Sick Call], past practice, all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Federal Law when it assessed short sick call points (2½) to Flight Attendants on qualified Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) status when they called in sick within two hours of scheduled check-in. 

Details:  As June 15, 2021, I am amending the prior grievance response on behalf of the Company. The prior grievance response dated March 10, 2017, is still accurate with respect to the Company’s position as of today, except for one small caveat. The caveat is as follows – if a Flight Attendant makes it known to the Company at the time of the short sick call that unusual circumstances related to their FMLA qualifying medical condition occurred such that they couldn’t have reasonably complied with the normal two-hour notice requirement for their sick call, the company will evaluate that information. If Employee Medical Relations determines that the unusual circumstances are consistent with the Flight Attendant’s FMLA qualifying medical condition, the Company will reduce the point value of the short sick call to zero. This is consistent with 29 C.F.R. 302(d) which requires employees on FMLA to “comply with an employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave, absent unusual circumstances.” This small portion of grievance 36-99-2-1-17 is now sustained; however, the rest of grievance 36-99-2-1-17 is still denied for the original reasons dated March 10, 2017. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-201-20-Violation of §10.Q & §11.E.4.d Violation of Reserve Assignment List Order.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.Q [Scheduling: Low-Bid Option] and §11.E.4.d [Reserve: Order of Assignment, Assignment of Open Sequences/Assignments], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system places low-bid option and no-bid lineholder Flight Attendants who pick up reserve days and opt out of the Reserve Assignment List (LTFA) at the top of the list rather than listing them in inverse seniority order following all other Reserves within the same classification (AM/PM/ER) and with the same number of days of availability.

Details:  As of today’s, date [June 18, 2021], I am amending the prior grievance response on behalf of the Company and sustaining the violation of §11.E.4.d [Violation of Reserve Assignment List Order]. The parties continue to work the issue through a mutually agreeable manual workaround that has been implemented and the “Known Crew Access Issues” document. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-20-Violation of §30.A.2 Training Hours Over Eight Hours.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §30.A.2 [Training: Hours], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 24 and 25, 2020, it required at least three Flight Attendants to attend Recurrent Training (RT) in Long Beach (LGB) in excess of eight hours.  

Details: One TFP for two Flight Attendants who released after 4pm.

Grievances Recently Withdrawn

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-320-20-Violation of §30.C.4 Computer Based Training (CBT).  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §30.C.4 [Training: Training Pay/Computer Based Training (CBT)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about September 28, 2020, it added a 5th Computer Based Training for Flight Attendants to complete for 2020.  Prior to adding the 5thCBT, it issued Quarter 1 CBT, training videos CBT, Quarter 2 CBT and Quarter 3 CBT.  

Grievances Recently Filed and Awaiting Management Response

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-1-22-Violation of §8.D Check-In and Release.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.D [Hours of Service:  Check-In and Release], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Block to Block (B2B) check-in system doesn’t allow a Flight Attendant to check-in if they have an unacknowledged trip change requiring them to report as originally scheduled.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-3-22-Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations.  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 on or about December 26, 2021,  it did not accept or process Flight Attendant calls in a timely manner thereby usurping the Flight Attendants’ ability to utilize the contractual pre-cancellation language allowing them to receive and decline an alternate assignment; and it allowed the Company to reassign Flight Attendants. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-4-22-Violation of §8.D Check-In and Release.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.D [Hours of Service:  Check-In and Release], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its designated check-in application (Block2Block) on the Flight Attendants’ Infight Mobile Device (IMD) displayed cancelled trips that were not cancelled in Crew Access thereby inhibiting check-in for their trips and assessing them a No Show and 3 (three) attendance points.  Flight Attendants were unable to check in manually via a call to Crew Scheduling as it had excessive wait times.

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-230-21- Violation of §16 Sick Leave/On the Job Injury.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §16 [Sick Leave/On the Job Injury], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it announced beginning on or about August 31, 2021, that it would grant pay protection per §21.M [Compensation: Pay Protection…] to vaccinated symptomatic and/or COVID+ Flight Attendants for scheduling obligations removed due to Company-directed quarantine in response to high-risk COVID-19 workplace exposures and deny pay protection under similar or the same circumstances for unvaccinated Flight Attendants or for Flight Attendants who decline to disclose their vaccination status and would instead require them to be removed from their scheduling obligations by forcing them onto sick leave and paid through their sick leave bank or accrued vacation pay if the sick leave bank was depleted. Neither §16 nor §21.M contains any exceptions or distinctions based on vaccination status, yet the Company failed to bargain with the Association and unilaterally implemented such non-contractual exceptions or distinctions inequitably across the collective bargaining unit.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-234-21-Violation of §21 Non-Negotiated Compensation.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21 [Compensation], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it announced on or about September 2, 2021, that it would pay $200.00 to each vaccinated Flight Attendant who provides proof of vaccination to the Company by October 15, 2021.   Section 21 does not contain any exceptions or distinctions based on vaccination status, and the Company failed to bargain with the Association and unilaterally implemented such a non-contractual exception inequitably across the collective bargaining unit.

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.:  36-99-2-159-17-Violation of §12.A & §12.E Withholding Trips from Open Time and Suspended all Trading due JCTE Issues.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.A & E [Exchange of Sequences: Unlimited Trading/Open Time], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about September 30, 2017, to October 1, 2017, for approximately 8 hours, it either withheld all trips in open time or suspended all trading due to an issue with its Jeppesen Crew Tracking system.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-321-18- Violation of §§21, 24, 30 & 34 Hotel at Domicile for Transition Training.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21 [Compensation], §24 [General and Miscellaneous], §30 [Training] and §34 [Hotels], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when some Flight Attendants requested and were provided hotel rooms at base for Transition Training while others who requested a room were not provided one.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-40-19-Violation §25.B Failure to Provide a Safe and Healthy Workplace.  This 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 failed to provide a safe and healthy workplace when it installed new bulkheads on the retrofitted Airbus (“Aura”) aircraft that effectively renders the aft assist handles near doors L1/R1 as unusable and unnecessarily increases the likelihood and potential severity of Flight Attendant injury during an emergency evacuation.

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.:  36-99-2-162-19- Violation of §12.C.1 Real-Time Trading Procedures Grievance 36-99-2-28-17 Mediated Settlement.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.1 [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedure], past practice, its mediated settlement of grievance 36-99-2-28-17 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it agreed but failed to adhere to its July 5, 2017, mediated settlement of grievance 36-99-2-28-17:  To have AFA and Alaska representatives meet with Jeppesen to explore the capabilities of the system and how to align the front-end with the “real time” experience of the back-end user.  This is a continual violation as such meeting did not take place in a reasonably timely manner, and sufficient action was not taken to rectify the underlying system issues.    

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.:  36-99-2-301-20-Violation of §3.D Scope of Agreement.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §3.D [Scope of Agreement:  Scope], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it announced beginning October 2020 through July 2021, it will operate flights with cargo in cabin seats; although such flying will occur without passengers, the Company intends to staff the flights with non-Flight Attendant employees, who will be trained to perform Flight Attendant duties, specifically including but not limited to:  Firefighting duties, cargo stowage in the passenger cabin and aircraft door operation in normal and emergency mode.    

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.

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