Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

July 28, 2021 09:00

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

Master Executive Council (MEC), Benefits Committee, Grievance Committee

This is the first in a series reporting on management’s opposition to various state and local laws, the latest developments to complex state law litigations related to these laws that are playing out in Washington and California, and what Flight Attendants can do about it.

Background

Management alleges that certain state and local laws do not apply to flight crew

Airlines For America (A4A) is an American trade association and lobbying group representing major North American air carriers such as Alaska Airlines. A4A and/or Alaska Airlines management has taken the position that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempts (i.e., invalidates) certain state and local laws that in its opinion overlaps with, conflicts with or complicates various benefits and provisions provided for in collective bargaining agreements negotiated with labor unions representing flight crew. Simply stated, A4A and Alaska Airlines management are making legal arguments in several jurisdictions (e.g., WA, CA, MA and NY) that specific state and local laws do not apply to Flight Attendants and pilots. However, it is notable that management has been honoring the same laws for ground employees–even if they are also covered by contracts negotiated with their respective labor unions and under the RLA.

Management believes that honoring various local laws for flight crew would ultimately lead to competitive disadvantage and tough business decisions in response

Why? Based on our interactions with management, here are some of the reasons offered by management to justify denying flight crew access to various benefits and protections provided for under what management characterizes as a “patchwork quilt” of state and local laws:

Administratively burdensome to honor because of the difficulties in tracking the sheer number of such laws and complying with their complexities.
Some laws may overlap with and/or conflict with one another and may also apply only conditionally based on the real-time location of an individual crewmember.
Significant challenges with overlaying these laws on top of the provisions of existing collective bargaining agreements (e.g., clock hours versus block hours versus TFP; meal, rest break and wage reporting requirements).
Honoring such laws for flight crew would create significant operational and financial liabilities for the Company and thereby result in untenable competitive disadvantage. This in turn could lead management to reevaluate the viability of existing crew domiciles in problematic locations and to make tough business decisions about the location of crew domiciles going forward. Management has cautioned your union leadership to beware of the potential for such unintended and undesirable consequences as these would likely be perceived by you as unacceptably disruptive and universally unpopular.

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest because the outcomes affect our members at various airlines. However, the legal arguments themselves are generally outside of AFA’s “jurisdiction” in the sense that the Association’s sole duty is to act as the agent for members of the collective bargaining unit under the RLA and to fairly represent them. AFA neither has an obligation to directly participate in the preemption disputes nor has the resources to broadly do so, but nonetheless we have very strategically chosen to intervene in some of the preemption litigations over the past ten years. Several current and former MEC officers and chairpersons have been directly involved in a few cases as complainants, subject matter experts and/or deposed witnesses.

Recent Cases

Washington Family Care Act: Alaska Airlines v. Schurke (WA L&I)

In approximately 2012, Alaska Airlines sued the State of Washington regarding provisions of the Washington Family Care Act (WFCA), alleging that the WFCA does not apply to Washington-domiciled Flight Attendants. AFA intervened as a defendant in the suit, as this was a case of first impression, and we wanted our interests protected in an area of law not yet addressed.

The case was initially decided in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit. A panel of three justices decided in Alaska Airlines’ favor. At that point, the State of Washington and AFA requested an en banc opinion, with all justices making a decision.

In August 2018, the en banc opinion ruled in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines then filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court did not grant the writ of certiori, which means it did not accept the case, and the 9^th Circuit ruling stands in favor of the State of Washington and AFA.

The case went back to a state administrative hearing, and the administrative law judge ruled for the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines then appealed this ruling. We are currently awaiting a ruling on the appellate case, which hopefully will be issued within the next few months. In the meantime, Alaska Airlines is still not honoring this law.

Washington Paid Sick Leave: A4A v. WA L&I and Joel Sacks

In early 2018, AFA demanded that Alaska Airlines comply with a new State of Washington law: Washington Paid Sick Leave (WPSL) law. Alaska’s response to AFA’s formal demand was to have A4A file suit against the State of Washington on behalf of all airlines it represents. Again, AFA was an intervenor in this lawsuit. The State of Washington and AFA won this suit in a summary judgment motion; A4A appealed the ruling.

On November 17, 2020, the parties argued in front of the US Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, and a decision was returned very recently that ruled in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. At this juncture, AFA has every reason to believe that A4A will attempt an appeal with the US Supreme Court. In the meantime, Alaska Airlines is still not complying with the law.

California overtime, meal & rest breaks, and wage statement laws: Bernstein v. Virgin America

In 2018, a California state court ruled in favor of Virgin America Flight Attendants, which resulted in an initial award of just under $78 million when factoring in legal fees and other costs. Alaska Airlines appealed this judgment, and it currently remains in the appeal process.

California wage statement laws: Gunther v. Alaska Air Group Inc.

In May 2019, a California state court ruled in favor of an Alaska Airlines Flight Attendant who brought her own wage statement non-compliance lawsuit against Alaska Air Group. The court ruled against Alaska Airlines on behalf of all California-domiciled Flight Attendants and issued an award of $25 million. Seventy-five percent of the award is to be paid to the State of California, and the remaining twenty-five percent of the award is to be paid to California-domiciled Flight Attendants with no more than $4,000 to each Flight Attendant. Alaska Airlines also appealed this judgment, and it is presently still in the appeals process.

New and Pre-Existing Laws Denied

In response to litigation of the Washington State leave laws initiated directly by Alaska Airlines management or indirectly via Airlines for America (A4A), management has simply denied flight crew access to the benefits of new laws. Management also retracted a Flight Attendant’s ability to use several state laws already existing at the time litigation was filed. One example of such retraction is the California Family School Partnership Act, which management allowed California-domiciled Flight Attendants to use for many years prior.

Next Up (in “Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 2”)

Definition of Sick Family/Sick Child
Applicable State Laws
Filing a Claim with the Appropriate Agency

AFA Alaska Update – July 2, 2021

July 2, 2021 12:00

In This Edition

Unruly Passenger Survey
What Is Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder?

Unruly Passenger Survey

AFA International

As unruly passenger incidents remain at an all-time high, our union is launching a platform to collect your experiences to fully assess the problem and help get meaningful support to all crews.

Take this five minute anonymous survey to share your experiences with unruly passengers onboard this year.

Self Defense Training

This week, the TSA announced the resumption of Crewmember Self Defense Training classes on July 1. The program is helpful in gaining skills for defense and confident positioning. However, as we have advocated since September 11, 2001, this training should be mandatory and part of our paid initial and recurrent training in order to build the muscle memory to use the tactics immediately when attacks advance without warning. Still, the resumption of the voluntary course is positive and should send a message to the flying public as well that these unruly incidents are serious. Flight Attendants are onboard for the safety and security of everyone on the plane.

The voluntary four-hour training is offered to flight crew members free of charge and is held at 24 locations around the United States. All active flight crew members for domestic carriers are eligible to register for the training. You can register here.

Our union continues to work with other unions, lawmakers, the FAA, DOT, and airline management on more that needs to be done to get this under control.

The Role of Alcohol

Alcohol is a major contributor to unruly passenger events. Make sure you keep this regulation handy as you advise the public that they cannot carry a drink onto the plane or consume their own alcohol on the plane. Federal regulations also affirm passengers may be refused boarding if they appear to be intoxicated.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) regulation §121.575 alcoholic beverages: (a) No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him.

AFA EAP is always available at (949) 470-0493. Additionally, make sure you’re copying in your AFA Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) on unruly incidents to ensure our union can follow up with the airlines and regulators.

Sample of News Stories on Unruly Passengers

What Is Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder?

Employee Assistance Program (EAP)/Professional Standards Committee

Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) is a condition in which children or adolescents experience ongoing severe irritability, anger, and frequent, intense temper outbursts. The symptoms of DMDD go beyond a “bad mood.” DMDD symptoms are severe. Youth who have DMDD experience significant problems at home, at school, and often with peers. They also tend to have high rates of health care service use, hospitalization, and school suspension, and they are more likely to develop other mood disorders.

The Signs and Symptoms of DMDD include:

Severe temper outbursts (verbal or behavioral), on average, three or more times per week
Outbursts and tantrums that have been ongoing for at least 12 months
Chronically irritable or angry mood most of the day, nearly every day
Trouble functioning due to irritability in more than one place (at home, at school, and with peers)

Youth with DMDD are diagnosed between the ages of 6 and 10. To be diagnosed with DMDD, a child must have experienced symptoms steadily for 12 or more months.

What is the difference between typical irritability and severe irritability? All children can become irritable sometimes. It’s a normal reaction to frustration. Children experiencing severe irritability (as observed in DMDD) have difficulty tolerating frustration and have outbursts that are out of proportion for the situation at hand. These outbursts occur more often and are more severe than what you would typically expect for children of this age.

Over time, as children grow and develop, the symptoms of DMDD may change. For example, an adolescent or young adult with DMDD may experience fewer tantrums, but they begin to exhibit symptoms of depression or anxiety. For these reasons, treatment may change over time, too.

If you think your child has DMDD, it is essential to seek a diagnosis and treatment.

DMDD can be treated. If you are concerned that your child may have DMDD, talk to your child’s pediatrician or health care provider. Your AFA EAP can also assist you with a referral for your child. Your local AFA EAP Committee members contact information is available at https://afaalaska.org/eap or call (949) 470-0493.

Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19

June 2, 2021 16:00

Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19

Grievance Committee

AFA and management recently agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19. This MOU is now in effect through September 30, 2021. Related information can be found in Bulletin Bundle 2021-0030 dated April 12, 2021; however, there are several out of date or incomplete details, so AFA will request that management update the bulletin and/or issue a new one.

Click here for the Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19 MOU (5/28/2021) >

Details

To apply for points forgiveness for absences related to COVID-19:

Go to the Inflight website –> Administration –> Performance to complete a COVID-19 Absence Reporting Form for each qualifying ‘single continuous occurrence’ (SCO) related to COVID-19;
Submit the form for each SCO absence related to COVID-19 no later than the end of your next scheduled sequence; and
In addition to the form, you must submit a positive COVID-19 test result for yourself or for someone in your household, or proof of your COVID-19 vaccination, either of which must be provided to the Inflight Performance Team’s confidential email address no later than the end of your next scheduled sequence,

If returning from a leave of absence, you must submit the form and documentation within 14 days of returning from the leave of absence.

For more details, please see the MOU.

About Certain State Laws…

In the midst of drafting the MOU, and after management published the above Bulletin Bundle, a new California COVID-19 law was enacted. The new law is retroactive to January 1, 2021, and in effect through September 30, 2021. CA 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave provides that California employees are entitled to a separate bank of paid sick leave in certain circumstances related to COVID-19, in addition to other record-keeping and paystub requirements.

Alaska Air Group management and the other Airlines for America (“A4A”) member carriers continue to argue that many state laws, including the CA 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave, are not applicable to Flight Attendants and Pilots because those laws are preempted by federal law (e.g., the Railway Labor Act). Various parties, including AFA, have been litigating the broader claim of preemption against A4A and/or AAG management in federal and state court for 10+ years. However, management continues to appeal the cases they lose, so their claim that certain state laws do not apply to aircrew continues.

Stay tuned for more details regarding which state laws management is blatantly refusing to apply to aircrew, what you can do to help in the effort to fight back, and how to exercise your rights to these state laws. In the meantime, we encourage California-domiciled Flight Attendants to familiarize yourselves with the various provisions of the CA 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law. AFA strongly suggests that any communications with management about the law should be in writing, and it is best practice to copy in a union rep. Covered California employees who are denied the provisions of the law may file a claim or a report of a labor law violation with the CA Labor Commissioner’s Office, which is the state agency charged with enforcement.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact your LEC president for assistance.

AFA Alaska Settlement Agreement 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations and Schedule Changes”

May 29, 2021 12:00

AFA Alaska Settlement Agreement 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations and Schedule Changes”

Grievance Committee

After several years of periodic settlement discussions, AFA and management have settled Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Precancellation and Schedule Changes.” This settlement agreement becomes effective Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.

Click here for AFA Settlement Agreement Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes” >

Some History

AFA filed Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes” back in June 2017 regarding retimes of between 15 and 21 minutes that were pushed to schedules in advance of the day of departure (prior to the first day) of a sequence. (Read the July 2017 Grievance Report for more details.) Management sustained the grievance (meaning they agreed the contract was violated) shortly thereafter in July 2017. However, AFA disagreed with management’s remedy (i.e., the “fix”) for the violation, and the parties have been in negotiations over the remedy since then.

We were somewhat close to achieving a mutually agreeable solution when the pandemic began, which delayed our progress. However, the pandemic did provide an opportunity to test drive a proposed remedy to the dispute starting on April 18, 2020, via the temporary COVID-19 Schedule Changes Letter of Agreement (LOA), which was extended through June 30, 2020. Please note that most but not all aspects of that temporary LOA were incorporated into this grievance settlement agreement.

Details

This settlement agreement requires that all pre-cancellations, retimes, flight routing changes, and aircraft downgrades (i.e., from a four-position aircraft to a three-position aircraft) that occur in advance of the day of departure of a sequence will be handled under JCBA §10.S [Pre-Cancellations]. This will apply to Lineholders and to Reserves who pick up on days off. The language in §10.S Pre-Cancellations remains the same but will be interpreted to encompass the agreed-to definitive parameters around retimes, flight routing changes and aircraft downgrades.

The settlement makes it very clean in defining when the provisions of §10.S Pre-cancellations are used. Essentially any schedule change that occurs for Lineholders (and for Reserves who pick up on days off) prior to the first day of a sequence, except for a simple flight numbering change, will now always be handled as a pre-cancellation under §10.S. A simple flight numbering change in the absence of a retime or a flight routing change may occur at any time and does not trigger the contractual provisions of §10.S.

Summary of §10.S Pre-Cancellations

Note: The following is a summary of pre-cancellation provisions under §10.S. Please refer to the contract for a comprehensive description.

Alternate Assignment Offered During Initial Contact (§10.S.2)

If there is a schedule adjustment involving a pre-cancellation, retime flight routing change or aircraft downgrade on the day(s) prior to the first day of a sequence, then Crew Scheduling will make initial contact and may offer an alternate assignment made up of one or more sequences with a check-in up to two hours prior to scheduled check-in and/or with a release up to two hours later than scheduled release. The two options are to (1) accept the alternate assignment (§10.S.2.a) or (2) to decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection (§10.S.2.b). If Crew Scheduling does not have an alternate assignment available that meets the required criteria of falling within the scheduled footprint plus two hours on either side (before or after) when they first make contact with the Flight Attendant, then the Flight Attendant can opt to call Crew Scheduling between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the evening prior to the sequence (§10.S.2.c).

No Alternate Assignment Offered During Initial Contact (§10.S.3)

If Crew Scheduling does not offer an alternate assignment when they make initial contact with the Flight Attendant, then the Flight Attendant can either (1) waive pay protection and be relieved of further obligation (10.S.3.a), or (2) they can opt to call Crew Scheduling between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the evening prior to the sequence (§10.S.3.b).

Calling Back Between 6 PM and 8 PM the Evening Prior (§10.S.2.c and §10.S.3.b) or no Later Than Release Time if on Duty (§10.S.7)

When the Flight Attendant calls back between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the evening prior to the sequence, either (1) an alternate assignment that operates within the exact footprint of the original sequence must be available (§10.S.2.c.1 or §10.S.3.b.1) or (2) the Flight Attendant is pay protected (§10.S.2.c.2 or §10.S.3.b.2). A Flight Attendant must call back no later than release time if on duty during those hours (§10.S.7).

Reassignments (§10.R) – Same Day and/or Sequence in Progress Schedule Changes

Same day and/or sequence in progress schedule changes are covered under §10.R Reassignments. Please note AFA and management have on multiple occasions confirmed their mutual understanding that Flight Attendants will neither be required nor offered to report earlier than scheduled for the first duty period of a sequence under §10.R Reassignments. The parties continue to work their way through several contractual disputes related to reassignments that are currently active, and AFA will keep you updated on any developments.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact your LEC president for assistance.

AFA Alaska Update – May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021 12:00

In This Edition

Grievance Committee Update
Join the Delta AFA Campaign
UNCF Commitment Aircraft
Mental Health Awareness Month

Grievance Committee Update

Grievance Committee

Our Grievance Committee has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requires a minimum of 13 arbitration dates yearly to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. AFA typically prioritizes termination cases 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 the 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. There is no middle ground or progressive discipline for certain violations. 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.

For Your Information – Block2Block Team Messaging

Everything that Flight Attendants and other employees type in the team messaging feature of Block2Block is recorded, saved, and regularly reviewed by management. Anyone in the company who has access to the system can log on to a flight and use the system to communicate or just see what is being said. Also, if they choose, they can go back and review conversations from past flights.

Subjects of Most Recent Discipline

Sick leave and FMLA abuse—terminations on the rise due to travel audits among other things. Anything written in the advertising comments on trip trades and personal drops can be seen, even if later deleted. Also, recorded telephone conversations with Crew Scheduling can be referenced for use by management in discipline. If management determines abuse it results in termination. The Company will be looking at sick leave patterns around holidays as well. This means, for example, if a Flight Attendant has called in sick for 3 of the last 3 Mother’s Days, s/he may be called in for a sick leave abuse meeting.
Timecard fraud—for example: delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay. Management has terminated for this violation.
Drug/alcohol violations
Theft. Anything other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food removed from the aircraft will result in termination.
Harassment and discrimination
Reserve Flight Attendants commuting during the reserve availability period (RAP) even if self-assigned a trip and/or not being in base for the entirety of the RAP (except as provided for in §11.C.5 on the last day of the block). Management has terminated for commuting during the RAP several times.
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 reserve Flight Attendants are in base for their full RAP, and if not, it typically results in termination.
Social media violations including sending friend or follow requests to passengers on social media based on information gained from Block2Block. Also, postings which can be deemed harassing or discriminatory typically result in discipline ranging from written warning to termination.
Lost IMD or other required items
Failing to complete CBT—even if Flight Attendant 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 and/or issued discipline.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

Arbitration	October	Contractual Grievance
Arbitration	November	Contractual Grievance
Arbitration	December	Contractual Grievance
Arbitration	January	Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Arbitration Awards

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-29-20-Violation of §30.C.4 Computer Based Training (CBT). The Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement [Training], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 21, 2020, it significantly increased the number of evaluated drills conducted during recurrent training (RT) and considerably changed the requirements to demonstrate proficiency and pass said drills. To pass all 36 drills with the required perfect score, the Company published 39 videos for Flight Attendant viewing with total watch time of 39 minutes and 40 seconds, none of which Flight Attendants were compensated for watching.

Details: Unfortunately, the arbitrator found in favor of the Company. The arbitrator did recognize the merits of the Union’s case; however, the CBA did not provide for the decision for which we hoped.

Recent Grievance Settlements

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-45-17-Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling: Pre-Cancellation], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it altered Flight Attendant schedules due to a schedule change/flight retiming using inapplicable Pre-Cancellation language without prior notice to or approval from AFA.

Details: All pre-cancellations, retimes, flight routing changes and aircraft downgrades that occur in advance of the day of departure of a sequence will be handled under §10.S [Pre-Cancellations] beginning Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 12:01 AM Pacific Time. Click here to read the settlement agreement.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-144-19-Violation §13.D.1 Uniform Allotment and Optional Pieces. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §13.D.1 [Uniforms: Uniform Allotment/Credits], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to give Flight Attendants the ability to purchase Luly Yang inspired by Alaska Airlines optional uniform pieces (which are or will be available for purchase at the Alaska Airlines Company store) with their contractual uniform allotted funds.

Details: The Company is not obligated to sell Luly Yang items at the Company Store; however, if it does, all Luly Yang items will be sold at cost to all Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants. Click here to read the settlement agreement.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-165-19- Violation of Vacation Trading Past Practice. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement § 14 [Vacation], an established past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it violated an established past practice for a real-time, electronic vacation trading system and the subsequent failure of that system to allow SEA-based Flight Attendants to access and trade vacation at the established start time.

Details: On or about October 28, 2019, the Company’s Flight Attendant vacation trading system went down for 20 minutes affecting many Flight Attendants’ ability to trade their vacation. Approximately 57 Flight Attendants contacted AFA due to the outage. The Company agreed to pay each of those 57 Flight Attendants 1.0 TFP no later than their March 19, 2021, paycheck. Click here to read the settlement agreement.

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

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.

More Information

For more information, including the status of previously filed grievances, please visit the Grievance Committee Activity Page.

Questions?

Please contact your Local Grievance Committee if you have any questions about the Grievance Committee update.

Join the Delta AFA Campaign

AFA International

Volunteer Delta Air Lines Flight Attendants have been actively working to organize and build their Union and AFA continues to support them in their efforts. Activities are continuing to ramp up and the AFA organizing team is seeking Flight Attendants from Alaska and other AFA airlines who would like to get involved. If you have personal connections with Delta Flight Attendants, commute or travel regularly on Delta, or are interested in supporting the organizing effort, please take a moment to complete the online contact form or scan the QR code to the right.

Want to Know More?

You can read more about the Delta AFA organizing campaign at https://www.deltaafa.org.

UNCF Commitment Aircraft

Human Rights Committee

On April 26, 2021, Alaska Airlines proudly received its newest livery, an aircraft that symbolizes the Company’s support for education and equity – called “Our Commitment.” This aircraft was inspired and designed in partnership with the Air Group Black Employees (ABEA) business resource group and others. The profiles on the side of the aircraft are 14 children and grandchildren of Alaska’s employees. Located at the L/R1 doors are two inspirational quotes: “The time is always right to do what is right,” (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and “Education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world” (Nelson Mandela).

Alaska’s partnership with the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) began in 1991. Over the years, Alaska has supported UNCF’s fundraising efforts through donating tickets and event sponsorship. In 2017, UNCF became a LIFT Miles partner enabling students to attend college tours and travel back and forth during school semesters at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). This is like other partnerships and sponsorships the Company presently has with many colleges and universities throughout the route network.

As this aircraft travels around our system, it represents Alaska’s commitment to promote equality and education. It encourages us as an airline to do the right thing by amplifying the conversation around education and equity.

Questions?

If you have any questions, please reach out to your Local Human Rights Committee.

Mental Health Awareness Month

Employee Assistance Program (EAP)/Professional Standards Committee

If you have a mental health condition, you’re not alone. One in 5 American adults experiences some form of mental illness in any given year. And across the population, 1 in every 20 adults is living with a serious mental health condition such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or long-term recurring major depression. Unfortunately, many people don’t seek treatment or remain unaware that their symptoms could be connected to a mental health condition. Trying to tell the difference between what expected behaviors are and what might be signs of a mental illness isn’t always easy. Each illness has its own symptoms, but common signs of mental illness in adults and adolescents can include the following:

Excessive worrying or fear
Feeling excessively sad or low
Confused thinking or problems concentrating and learning
Extreme mood changes, including uncontrollable “highs” or feelings of euphoria
Prolonged or strong feelings of irritability or anger
Avoiding friends and social activities
Difficulties understanding or relating to other people
Changes in sleeping habits or feeling tired and low energy
Changes in eating habits such as increased hunger or lack of appetite
Changes in sex drive
Difficulty perceiving reality (delusions or hallucinations, in which a person experiences and senses things that don’t exist in objective reality)
Inability to perceive changes in one’s own feelings, behavior, or personality (“lack of insight” or anosognosia)
Overuse of substances like alcohol or drugs
Multiple physical ailments without obvious causes (such as headaches, stomach aches, vague and ongoing “aches and pains”)
Thinking about suicide
Inability to carry out daily activities or handle daily problems and stress
An intense fear of weight gain or concern with appearance

If you’re concerned about any of these signs either in yourself, a love one or a flying partner, please reach out to your AFA EAP Committee for confidential support and assistance. Call (949) 470-0493 or locate your local AFA EAP Committee Members at https://afaalaska.org/eap.

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

Background

Management alleges that certain state and local laws do not apply to flight crew

Management believes that honoring various local laws for flight crew would ultimately lead to competitive disadvantage and tough business decisions in response

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest

Recent Cases

Washington Family Care Act: Alaska Airlines v. Schurke (WA L&I)

Washington Paid Sick Leave: A4A v. WA L&I and Joel Sacks

California overtime, meal & rest breaks, and wage statement laws: Bernstein v. Virgin America

California wage statement laws: Gunther v. Alaska Air Group Inc.

New and Pre-Existing Laws Denied

Next Up (in “Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 2”)

In This Edition

Unruly Passenger Survey

Self Defense Training

The Role of Alcohol

Sample of News Stories on Unruly Passengers

What Is Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder?

Section 32 Attendance Policy Points Related to COVID-19

Details

About Certain State Laws…

AFA Alaska Settlement Agreement 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations and Schedule Changes”

Some History

Details

Summary of §10.S Pre-Cancellations

Alternate Assignment Offered During Initial Contact (§10.S.2)

No Alternate Assignment Offered During Initial Contact (§10.S.3)

Calling Back Between 6 PM and 8 PM the Evening Prior (§10.S.2.c and §10.S.3.b) or no Later Than Release Time if on Duty (§10.S.7)

Reassignments (§10.R) – Same Day and/or Sequence in Progress Schedule Changes

In This Edition

Grievance Committee Update

For Your Information – Block2Block Team Messaging

Subjects of Most Recent Discipline

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

Recent Arbitration Awards

Recent Grievance Settlements

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

More Information

Questions?

Join the Delta AFA Campaign

Want to Know More?

UNCF Commitment Aircraft

Questions?

Mental Health Awareness Month

Recent Posts

Local Councils

Master Executive Council

Negotiations

Contract

Committees

News By Month

News By Category

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Connect With AFA