Grievance Committee

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,

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

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,

Alaska Listens “Red Flags”

January 12, 2016 17:00

AFA would like to bring to your attention management’s use of Alaska Listens passenger comments. Inflight management has deemed negative comments “red flags” and has a procedure to address them.

When a red flag comes to management’s attention an Inflight manager will determine its seriousness. If the red flag is deemed to be somewhat benign or general then a base supervisor will email the Flight Attendant and copy in the other base supervisors. The Flight Attendant can contact any supervisor and have the email/Alaska Listens comment read to them over the phone or read it in person. Depending on the number of red flags for the specific Flight Attendant, the supervisor will either shred the document after the conversation or let the Flight Attendant know that s/he will now have a record of discussion (ROD) in her or his file.

A ROD is not considered discipline, but it can lead to discipline if the Flight Attendant acquires more red flags. Management decided that if a Flight Attendant receives three benign/general comments in a six-month period then that Flight Attendant would be referred to their performance supervisor.

If an Alaska Listens comment is deemed serious then the Flight Attendant will likely be referred directly to her or his performance supervisor. Depending on the severity of the allegation, the Flight Attendant could be given a ROD, an oral or written warning, and in rare cases a suspension or termination.

If a Flight Attendant is contacted to speak with management, s/he should ask if the conversation could lead to discipline. If the answer is “yes” or “maybe” (or any other permutation of that sentiment such as “I don’t know”), s/he should request union representation. In all cases s/he should request a union representative prior to writing any statement.

Questions? Contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) officers [ANC 30 | SEA 19 | PDX 39 | LAX 18 | SAN 15] or grievance reps.

In solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and Committee Member Stephanie Adams

Filing an Individual Grievance in Regards to Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority

October 13, 2015 15:50

Flight attendants have requested to file individual grievances per Section 19 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in regards to Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority. If any member would like to utilize this provision, this is a reminder to contact the MEC Grievance Chair Jennifer Wise MacColl (jennifer.wisemaccoll@afaalaska.org) as soon as possible to receive a grievance number and instructions that will be sent to you during normal business hours. The issue is timely as management notified Flight Attendants on September 1, 2015, of the roll back. In order to file a grievance per the 30 business days required by the contract, individual grievances should be filed by close of business at 5pm PT this coming Wednesday, October 14, 2015.

If you have any questions or concerns, contact your Local Executive Council president: ANC | SEA | PDX | LAX | SAN.

In solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput

[Revised] Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority Grievance Update

October 10, 2015 09:00

[Note: Individual grievances must be filed by close of business at 5pm PT Wednesday, October 14, 2015.]

Management unilaterally changed the employee travel pass policy on May 1, 2012

Recent developments

In recent developments ALPA settled its grievance, and management granted the AFA grievance. Management announced the intent to roll back the Alaska Flight Attendants and Pilots who are former Horizon employees and to return their travel priority to their Alaska Airlines date of hire. While all employees (formerly from Horizon) hired after July 2012 and those in the Flight Attendant and Pilot work groups are being handled consistently, a small number of employees remain in the other work groups who were not rolled back to their Alaska Airlines date of hire for travel seniority.

Flight Attendants impacted by this decision were notified in early September that their date of hire for travel would revert to the Alaska Airlines hire date and that they would receive new badges. This has caused understandable disappointment and frustration for our members impacted by the change.

AFA’s assessment

AFA advised management that it does not believe that the resolution allowing a small number of employees to retain a date of hire boarding priority that is unavailable to the rest of the employees in the company is equitable and just, or a full resolution of the grievance. In our opinion the overall implementation of the policy changes since the original change in May of 2012 has been badly mishandled. The failure to fully review the original policy change, failure to consult with the Labor groups involved or to assess the potential conflict with their Collective Bargaining Agreements is unacceptable.

Difficult decision

AFA was left with the difficult decision on how to proceed. The Master Executive Council (MEC) consulted with our AFA staff attorney to determine if filing a new grievance in order to pursue a uniform policy for all employees, while upholding our contractual language regarding benefits and company seniority, was possible. Ultimately the advice was that a grievance initiated by AFA would be unlikely to succeed, as it would be attempting to change the policy for employees in other work groups, who are covered by their own collective bargaining agreements.

After much discussion, the MEC decided that no further grievances would be filed on this issue, and that the rollback for flight attendants would stand (as will the rollback for pilots, based on ALPA’s settlement). This was a very challenging conclusion for all and the vote was not unanimous. The MEC has spent over three years attempting to resolve this difficult issue, constantly operating with the knowledge that no matter the resolution, one portion of our membership would be negatively impacted.

Filing an individual grievance

The MEC understands that our members who were formerly employed by Horizon feel very strongly about the issue. Many have requested to file individual grievances per Section 19 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. If any member would like to utilize this provision of the contract and file an individual grievance they have the ability to do so and should contact the MEC Grievance Chair Jennifer Wise-MacColl (jennifer.wisemaccoll@afaalaska.org) to receive a grievance number and instructions. The issue is timely as management notified Flight Attendants on September 1, 2015, of the roll back. In order to file a grievance per the 30 business days required by the contract, individual grievances should be filed by close of business at 5pm PT this coming Wednesday, October 14, 2015.

* * *

If you have any questions or concerns, contact your Local Executive Council president:

ANC | SEA | PDX | LAX | SAN.

In solidarity,

Additional Background Information

On May 1, 2012, Alaska Airlines management unilaterally made a significant change to the employee travel pass policy. Effective that day, almost all Alaska Airlines employees who had previous service with Horizon Air had their year of hire adjusted to their Alaska Air Group (AAG) date of hire for the purposes of non-revenue travel priority. Prior to this change there was a long standing past practice that any employee who entered a work group covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement did not retain their AAG date of hire for non-revenue travel priority. The May 1^st change directly affected over three hundred (300) employees and their travel seniority changed—approximately one hundred fifty (150) of them flight attendants. Some of those employees now had travel seniority greater than Alaska Flight Attendants who had been hired at Alaska before the former Horizon employees transferred to Alaska. In effect, the change impacted all Alaska Flight Attendants.

Then in July of 2012 management changed its policy again and determined that all former Horizon employees hired after July 1, 2012, would receive only their Alaska date of hire as their travel seniority. This left the group of 300 as the only employees utilizing their AAG date of hire for non-revenue travel priority. There have been numerous questions regarding longevity for retirement and if this change negates previous service with Horizon Air for purposes of retirement eligibility. The short answer is that this changes impacts date of hire only for non-revenue travel priority.

AFA and ALPA filed grievances in response to the May 1, 2012, change. This was not something we undertook lightly, because many of our flight attendants are former Horizon employees. Ultimately, however, the Master Executive Council (MEC) filed the grievance because we felt—and still feel—that the Company’s actions abrogated our seniority. Seniority is the bedrock of our contract and the guiding principle governing our work rules. The grievance was intended to protect our contract and the workgroup as a whole, not to hurt a group of flight attendants. In addition the MEC weighed the decision of taking no action and the implication that would have if AAG were to acquire new carriers. The MEC was concerned that not grieving the May 1, 2012, change would adversely affect our ability to protect the travel seniority of our Flight Attendants—including former Horizon flight attendants.

March 2016 Grievance Report

Grievances recently filed and sustained:

Grievances recently filed and settled:

Grievances recently filed and now awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievances previously filed and currently awaiting arbitration dates:

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

Grievance filed

Settlement agreement

AFA and management developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Junior Assignments

Use of the new Premium Open Time provisions prior to JA

Alaska Listens “Red Flags”

Filing an Individual Grievance in Regards to Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority

[Revised] Applying Alaska Air Group Date of Hire to Non-revenue Travel Priority Grievance Update

Management unilaterally changed the employee travel pass policy on May 1, 2012

Recent developments

AFA’s assessment

Difficult decision

Filing an individual grievance

* * *

Additional Background Information

Human Rights & Equity Committee Meeting Recap – 1st Quarter 2026

Pre-Merger Hawaiian Inflight Service Committee Update – March 2026

Joint Contract Negotiations Session 13 – March 2026

Scheduling Committee Meeting Recap – March 2026

Recent Posts

Local Councils

Master Executive Council

Contract

Committees

News By Month

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Connect With AFA

Grievances recently filed and sustained:

Grievances recently filed and settled:

Grievances recently filed and now awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievances previously filed and currently awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievance filed

Settlement agreement

AFA and management developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Junior Assignments

Use of the new Premium Open Time provisions prior to JA

Management unilaterally changed the employee travel pass policy on May 1, 2012

Recent developments

AFA’s assessment

Difficult decision

Filing an individual grievance

* * *

Additional Background Information

Recent Posts

Local Councils

Master Executive Council

Contract

Committees

News By Month

News By Category

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Connect With AFA