Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian
AFA Alaska has been advised that the Maestro/eMaestro Crew Management System will be operative shortly around 12:15 PT.
In solidarity,
Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Scheduling Committee Chairperson Jake Jones
Click the link below to view the minutes from the March 17th Quarterly Reserve Meeting with Scheduling Management.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your AFA Alaska Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very busy pursuing contractual compliance on your behalf.
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.
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….
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
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 in-flight shoes with all concourse shoe requirements except the defined heel (with at least half inch height) requirement until the aircraft door closes. Unlike past practice these restrictions eliminate many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos and Naot, and makes them non compliant.
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.
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,
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
Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16 Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change sustain letter
