Committees

March 2016 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Update

March 24, 2016 08:00

AFA and management work through potential disputes prior to engaging in the arbitration process in the hopes of coming to a fair resolution. The process is called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). To access the ADR log, which is a record of issues being addressed via ADR, click here. Alternatively, you can point your browser to www.afaalaska.org –> Committees –> Grievance Committee, then scroll down and select “View the ADR log.” AFA has diligently advocated on your behalf; here is a small highlight of issues that are resolved and pending.

Resolved

ADR 004-15A- Probationary Flight Attendants (CBA §7 & 32)—It will not be considered an unsuccessful month for a probationary Flight Attendant if his/her crew is coded with a delay provided the delay is not caused by a late report, failure to brief the exit row, etc.

ADR 019-15A- Appearance of Sleeping—Management instituted a new policy regarding sleeping in public view. AFA stringently objected to the original policy and after much discussion management issued a much preferred policy change.

ADR 024-15A- Fatigue Policy—AFA worked diligently to establish a way to assist fatigued Flight Attendants. As a response management issued a labor memorandum to inflight Crew Scheduling to advise “fatigued” Flight Attendants to call out sick if they are not fit for duty; and fatigue like any condition rendering a Flight Attendant not physically fit for duty is a legitimate reason to call out sick.

ADR 028-15A- Stranded and Sit Pay (CBA §21.D.5.)—Management believes that stranded and sit pay would not be included in the same pairing. AFA believes that stranded and sit shouldn’t be paid in the same stranding, but there could be more than one issue per pairing. AFA’s argument prevailed, and we added contract language for the extra pay and protection.

ADR 033-15A- Flight Attendants Deadheading on Flights Over 4 hours (CBA §10.X.2.d.)—Management agreed to instruct Customer Service Agents to refrain from asking Flight Attendants deadheading on flights over 4 hours to sit in the jump seat. The same courtesy is already given to Pilots and will now be extended to Flight Attendants.

ADR 039-15A- Jury Duty and Subpoenas (CBA §32)—After AFA brought forward some applicable laws regarding subpoenas; management agreed to treat subpoenas the same as jury duty in regards to attendance points.

ADR 061-15A- Overlapping Multiple Pay Rules (MPRs)(CBA §21.F.)—Management agreed that if a Flight Attendant is on a month end overlapping trip and wishes to be paid for the MPRs for the pairing during the first month’s pay period s/he can do so by filling out an activity pay form.

ADR 076-15A- Trading a Premium Trip with a Non-Premium Trip in Open Time (CBA §8.D.)—After many lengthy conversations management agreed to process the trading of premium with non-premium trips.

Pending

ADR 084-15A- Open Time (CBA §21.E.1.d.)—AFA alleged that Crew Scheduling is holding trips out of open time and when caught doing so is paying contractually mandated 1 TFP as a type of penalty.

ADR 085-15A- Crew Scheduling is Posting Premium Trips in Open Time (CBA §9.E.)—Crew Scheduling posted premium trips in open time and then revoked them and gave them to line holders as a reassignment or put them back into open time without the premium pay attached in violation of the contract. Management agreed and will take action to address this with Crew Scheduling.

ADR 001-16A- Coordinating Sick Leave While on Paternity Leave (CBA §15.E.2.)—Flight Attendants should be able to coordinate sick leave while on paternity leave; it should be treated like a maternity leave. Management will be reviewing this issue, and AFA will continue to pursue.

ADR 002-16A- Crew Duty Time (CBA §21.J.1.)—Flight Attendants given a day room after check in due to delay should be paid delay and stranded pay from check in to departure. AFA believes Flight Attendants are considered to be on duty if given a day room and not put into rest. Payroll analysts believe that when the FA is in a day room they are not on duty and do not get ground delay pay. AFA will continue to pursue this issue.

ADR 006-16A- Supervisors are asking Flight Attendants on a Leave why they are traveling (CBA §15.J.)—AFA believes that Supervisors are not to ask Flight Attendants on leaves of absence why they are traveling. Management agreed, and will take action to address this issue in their spreadsheet.

ADR 011-16A- Sick Child Online (CBA §32.C.6-7)—AFA believes Flight Attendants are allowed to call in sick child/sick family on-line per Washington Family Care Act. Management agrees and will follow up on the issue with a labor memo.

ADR 015-16A- Long Term Disability (LTD) (CBA 23.C.6.)—AFA believes when a Flight Attendant is receiving LTD, a Flight Attendant may continue to receive health care at active-employee rates for the duration of the benefits or 24 months. Management is investigating this issue.

ADR 016-16A- Insurance Issues (CBA §23.C.6.)—AFA alerted management that Flight Attendants are getting frustrated with the difficulty in resolving benefit/insurance issues. Management is looking for a solution, and AFA will continue to persist in finding a solution.

* * *

As we work through these ADR issues you will see more information on the ADR log. Until then, if you have any questions or concerns about these issues please contact your local Grievance Committee.

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 MEC Grievance Committee Member Stephanie Adams

Coping with Reaction to Terrorism

March 23, 2016 15:00

Acts of terrorism and threats of continued attacks are purposefully designed to scare people and to disrupt lives. For most people, it is common and normal to experience feelings of anxiety, sadness, grief and anger. It is important to remember, however, that everyone may react differently. Some people may have a more profound reaction to these events than others because each of us has our own tolerance level for difficult feelings. To cope with these emotions, the National Mental Health Association offers you and your family some tips to help manage distress and build resilience.

Take a News Break

Find your personal balance between staying informed and listening to or watching too much coverage of terrorism. Excessive exposure can negatively impact your ability to cope. This includes social media sites that can also be a source of distress.

Maintain Daily Routines and Connections

Make time for your own tried and true stress management techniques which could include regular exercise, social outings, favorite pastimes and spiritual services. Routines provide a sense of “normalcy”, comfort and stability. They are helpful in diverting us from anxious thoughts and worries. Our social connections can also serve as valuable outlets for sharing feelings and relieving stress.

Have A Plan

In times of uncertainty, take control of what you can reasonably control. Having an emergency plan in place will make you feel more in control and prepared for emergencies. Establish a clear plan for how you, your family, friends and flying partners will respond and connect in the event of a crisis.

Seek Out Professional Care If You Are Having Trouble Coping

If you are feeling stuck or overwhelmed and unable to use the tips listed above, you may want to consider talking to a professional. Professional guidance may help you strengthen your resilience and perseverance through difficult times. Your local AFA EAP committee representatives can provide you with peer support and help you locate a professional referral. You can find the roster and contact numbers of your local committee representatives at http://www.afacwa.org/eap under “Your Local EAP Rep”. You can also call (800) 424-2406 for your local EAP committee representatives’ phone numbers.

March 2016 Grievance Report

March 23, 2016 12:00

Your AFA Alaska Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very busy pursuing contractual compliance on your behalf.

Grievances recently filed and sustained:

Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16: Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 13.G. [Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it failed to: (1) Consult with the Flight Attendant Uniform Committee and consider their recommendations before making any change in the style, color or material of the uniform; and (2) Consider the recommendations of the Association Air Safety, Heath and Security chairperson in regard to materials available, including application FAA or NTSB flammability standards.

For management’s response sustaining the grievance, click here.

Grievances recently filed and settled:

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

The details of this grievance were communicated in a recent standalone communication. For details, click here.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-11-16: Incorrect Application of EOR for February 2016 LIH Pairings

This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21.D.2. [Compensation/Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs)/Extended Overnight Rule (EOR)], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it incorrectly calculated the extended overnight rule for February 2016 LIH pairings in the Seattle domicile.

The settlement agreement states: Those Flight Attendants identified by their specific PBS bid who could have been awarded such pairings and were affected by the error, will be paid four (4) TFP….

Grievances recently filed and now awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievance No. 36-99-2-32-15: Concourse Uniform Shoe Standards

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 25.B. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and past practice when it issued Revised Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) requiring Flight Attendants to wear concourse shoes: With a defined heel between a half inch and three inches in height; with added restrictions, i.e., solid black in color, single functional strap with a plain silver or gold buckle, button, or snap smaller than a quarter, and no textured leather, suede, cloth fabric, color threading, or separate colored trim styles; and during boarding up until the aircraft door closes. These restrictions essentially limit Flight Attendants to wear a pump type shoe only, and unlike past practice eliminates many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos, Naot, and makes them non compliant.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-33-15: In-Flight Uniform Shoe Standards

Grievance No. 36-99-2-34-15: Uniform Luggage Standards

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it issued Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) which says: Designated “Crew” luggage tag and/or Company-approved recognition luggage strap is the only permitted accessory/adornment that may be attached on luggage items; recreational equipment must fit into company issued luggage; and individual or union lanyards with personal pins may not be worn.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-41-15: Section 34.C.3. Alternative Hotel Selection/Site Visit

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 34.C.3. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to include the hotel committee in the selection of alternative hotels; and when it failed to provide site visits on alternative hotels.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-2-16 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement: ASAP and Discipline July 2006 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) process to complete prior to disciplining and terminating a Flight Attendant. The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to discipline. Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

Grievance No. 36-99-2-4-16: Order of Reserve Assignment

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.E. [Order of Reserve Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it out of order assigned reserve Flight Attendants to pairing 1164 on June 12, 2015.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-5-16: Non-negotiated Compensation

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21 [Compensation] and Section 32 [Attendance Policy], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it awarded, without prior consistent notice, policy and application, $5 gift cards to all Anchorage based Flight Attendants for meeting the daily attendance goal (in December 2015).

Grievance No. 36-99-2-10-16: Mandatory Attendance Counseling in Violation of Section 32

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 32.A. [Attendance Policy/Reporting Procedure], Section 32.E.1. [Attendance/Control Procedure/Attendance Policy Disciplinary Action], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it required Flight Attendants to attend meetings to discuss sick leave under the guise of an investigation when in fact it was a counseling in violation of Section 32.E.1.

Grievances previously filed and currently awaiting arbitration dates:

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

This grievance alleges 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

This grievance alleges 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

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 11.C.3.b.6 [Conversion of Reserves to ER] and 11.C.3.c [ER Contactability], 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

This grievance alleges 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

This grievance alleges 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 prior referenced Flight Attendant Manual (FAM) 6.500 page 1, 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

This grievance alleges 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

This grievance alleges 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

This grievance alleges 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.

* * *

As we work through these grievances you will receive more information. Until then, if you have any questions or concerns about grievances please contact a member of your Local Executive Council Grievance Committee.

In Solidarity,

Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16 Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change sustain letter

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

March 22, 2016 08:00

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 24^th or 25^th, 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,

AFA Alaska Master Executive Council Supports FIGHT FOR 10

March 21, 2016 18:00

Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants attended the March 16^th RALLY FOR REST

Over 300 Flight Attendants from across the industry, including Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants, descended on Capitol Hill on March 16^th to RALLY FOR REST. Flight Attendants from the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Transport Workers Union joined together to FIGHT FOR 10. They visited all 541 Congressional offices to advocate for these provisions.

What is the FIGHT FOR 10 all about?

Every three to five years Congress is required to authorize funding and set policies for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). AFA’s top legislative priority for this FAA reauthorization is to have Congress increase the minimum rest requirements for Flight Attendants. Seven Flight Attendant fatigue studies, commissioned by Congress, concluded that the best way to combat fatigue is to get more rest.

Currently, Flight Attendant rest can include passenger deplaning, preflight preparation and passenger boarding is included within the rest period which means that the opportunity to actually sleep is closer to four or five hours. Unless an air carrier is contractually required to provide more rest than the Federal Air Regulations (FARs), Flight Attendants could be facing a scheduled 14-hour duty day following that very short sleep opportunity. The goal of AFA’s FIGHT FOR 10 includes achieving an irreducible FAA minimum 10 hours rest for all Flight Attendants.

In addition to proper rest, the FIGHT FOR 10 includes a Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP). The FRMP would provide a protocol for reporting instances of fatigue in order to take steps to correct it. The FRMP would also require education for Flight Attendants to determine when they are fatigued and how to avoid it.

What is the current status of the FIGHT FOR 10?

The House of Representatives and the Senate have two different versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, which both including language regarding Flight Attendant rest. The Senate bill includes proposed ten hours with “reasonable flexibility,” which means rest for Flight Attendants will most often be reduced to nine hours. The House version of the bill includes FAA minimum (irreducible) rest of ten hours and a FRMP.

Now that both the House and Senate have marked up FAA reauthorization bills, each chamber will schedule votes in their respective chamber. If the House and the Senate pass different versions the bill, a Conference Committee will work out differences between the two versions of the bill.

How would the FIGHT FOR 10 affect the contractual premium pay for going under 9 ½ hours?

If the FAA required minimum (irreducible) rest were to become ten hours, Alaska Flight Attendants would never achieve the two and a half times (2.5x) premium for receiving less than nine and one-half (9 ½) hours per CBA §8.K. [Hours of Service: Reduced RON Rest]. Instead, Crew Scheduling would always ensure that Flight Attendants received at least 10 hours of rest on layovers, even if that meant delaying a flight.

Why would the Master Executive Council support a legislative effort that could negatively impact a lucrative contractual provision?

The Master Executive Council (MEC) strongly believes that it would be near sighted of us to not fully support legislation that would greatly improve Flight Attendant rest across the entire industry. Not only that, but there are no guarantees the new provisions in §8.K will survive from one contract to the next. Did you know the Negotiating Committee sought such a stiff “penalty” for receiving reduced rest on a layover not for the purpose of consistently paying out, but rather to ensure Flight Attendants received improved rest? In other words, the new contractual provisions in §8.K were specifically negotiated to improve safety for Flight Attendants, not primarily as a windfall (although it is a nice bonus when it happens).

Proper rest for Flight Attendants is about safety, health and equality. Fatigue threatens safety throughout the industry. Consequently, the MEC officers feel it is our duty as safety professionals to advance the legislative agenda encapsulated in the FIGHT FOR 10.

* * *

Do you have any questions or want to know how you can help the FIGHT FOR 10? Contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) president or LEC Government Affairs Committee.

In solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Government Affairs Chairperson Bev Bullock

March 2016 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Update

Resolved

Pending