AFA Alaska

Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Archives for Committees / Grievance Committee

Health Benefits Coverage & Staffing Adjustment Leaves

Benefits Committee

Our Benefits Committee has been notified that there are multiple issues with health benefits coverage for those returning from staffing adjustment leaves (SAL). If you are on a staffing adjustment leave or have recently returned from one, please be aware of the following.

Re-Enrolling After A Leave

While we disagree that one should have to re-enroll in Health Benefits when returning from Staffing Leave, we strongly suggest that you do so. Check to make sure that all your prior coverages are in place. To do so, you can call your health plan directly or visit www.MyAlaskaBenefits.com and check your coverage. We’ve also been advised that once you re-enroll, it can take several days for the coverage to update. You should also have received an email in your company Outlook email regarding health benefits when returning from SAL.

Health Benefits Deductions For September Premiums And Direct Billing

Health benefits premiums, like payroll, are deducted in the subsequent month (i.e., in October for September). When on a Staffing Leave, these deductions do not take place. Flight Attendants are advised to review their pay statement to determine whether or not deductions were taken from October 20th paychecks.

Direct Billing Notice Errors

Those on Staffing Adjustment Leave should have received a direct bill from Cobra Management Services (CMS) with instructions to self-pay the employee contribution for September Health Benefits. We are aware that some Flight Attendants DID receive this notice, and it was correct. We are also aware that many did NOT receive a direct bill and that some did receive bills for very strange amounts that do not reflect the usual employee contributions.

No Direct Bill Received

If you did not receive a direct bill, or if you did not have a correct bill or a deduction from your October 20 paycheck, please contact CMS. The balance owed must be paid to continue coverage. You can contact CMS at:

Phone: (425) 452-9889, ext. 145 or (866) 527-7580, ext. 145
Email: services@cobramanagement.com

Service Charges May Apply

Payments made by credit card or electronic funds transfer have an added service charge applied by the vendor. You might prefer to mail a check to avoid these.

Reporting Issues And Questions

If you’re having challenges with any of these issues, please email management at tiffany.perry@alaskaair.com and emmit.elliott@alaskaair.com and cc our AFA Benefits Committee at benefits@afaalaska.org. Our Benefits and Grievance Committees are continuing to work to resolve these issues.

Grievance Committee Update – 3rd Quarter 2023

Grievance Committee

  • Our Grievance Committee protects all Flight Attendants from arbitrary and unjust disciplinary action and upholds our collective bargaining agreement. This update briefly summarizes the committee’s work over the past quarter.
  • Management has issued discipline lately for a variety of reasons. Read on for more information about why management is disciplining and terminating Flight Attendants.
  • If you’ve faced a situation that you believe might be a contractual violation, please report the issue through the AFA Alaska Online Support Center.

Our Grievance Committee has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. Our contract requires a minimum of 13 arbitration dates yearly to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. Termination cases are usually prioritized to return a Flight Attendant to work as soon as possible; however, we seek a balance between discipline and contractual matters. Our Grievance Committee 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), and termination. COWs, WWs, and suspensions remain in a Flight Attendant’s file for 18 months and are then eligible for removal. If a Flight Attendant is in a step of discipline and gets another violation, the new violation will build on the previous one. Management doesn’t always progressively travel up the steps of discipline. If management investigates a Flight Attendant for theft or abuse of sick leave, for example, they will terminate the Flight Attendant if there is evidence to support its findings; if there is no evidence, then the Flight Attendant will most likely be issued a record of discussion (ROD). A ROD is not considered discipline. There is no middle ground for certain violations.  

Many Flight Attendants believe they will not get disciplined if they’ve been good employees, have no-to-low attendance points, receive positive passenger comments, are at a certain seniority level, etc. This is not the case; regardless of good working qualities, if management believes a Flight Attendant committed an offense, they will be disciplined.

If a supervisor or manager calls and asks questions about a flight, work-related concern, or disciplinary issue and no AFA Representative is on the call, you should assert that you would like to consult with an AFA Representative and have them present on the call with you before proceeding.

Subject of Most Recent Discipline

  • Sick leave and FMLA abuse. Terminations are on the rise due to travel audits among other things. Anything written in the comments/remarks on posted trip trades and personal drops is visible to management, even if eventually deleted. If management determines abuse, it results in termination.  
  • Theft. Removing anything from the aircraft other than an opened/used box of water, unused pilot crew meal, or purchased food will result in termination. 
  • Timecard fraud.  Example: intentionally delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay.  Management has terminated for this violation.
  • Reserve “Roulette”. Not being within two hours of base for a Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only once given an assignment. Management considers this a terminable violation and regularly reviews the trip trade postings and history related to sick calls. Even deleted trade history or postings can be seen by management.
  • Lying in an investigation
  • Drug/alcohol violations
  • Harassment
  • Refusing scheduling revisions or ignoring requests to call Crew Scheduling when contractually obligated to do so
  • Reserves commuting during their Reserve Availability Period (RAP), even if self-assigned a trip or not being in base for the entirety of their RAP. Management usually gives a two week suspension on the first offense.
  • Social media violations, including sending a friend or follow request to passengers on social media based on information gained from Block2Block.
  • Commuter violations (management conducts commuter audits monthly)
    • 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.  
  • Lost IMD or other required items
  • Failing to complete CBT, even if a Flight Attendant simply forgets to hit the close out button at the top of the window to change the transcript from in process to complete.
  • Uniform issues. Flight Attendants can and have been pulled from working their flights without pay for uniform non-compliance.
  • Late to gate/flight delay

Reminder

Section 32.C.5 of the collective bargaining agreement defines a Short Sick Call as “When a Flight Attendant calls in sick less than two hours (2:00) prior to scheduled check-in.” If you do not want to be assessed 2.5 points, you must call in Sick Leave On-Line at Scheduled Check-in per section 32.C.6. The call to Crew Scheduling must occur after scheduled check-in and not simply after you check in on Block2Block.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

July 2023Disciplinary Grievance
August 2023Contractual Grievances
September 2023Disciplinary Grievance
October 2023Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Contractual Arbitration Awards

None

Recent Grievance Settlements

None

Grievances Recently Mediated 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-60-23-Violation of §19.A and §7.B Disciplinary Meetings and Probationaries. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A & §7.B [Grievance Procedures:  Dismissal and Disciplinary Procedure; Probationary Period:  Discharge, Discipline or Furlough], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to conduct investigatory, work performance, disciplinary and dismissal meetings with probationary Flight Attendants per the contractual meeting requirements with regard to pay, scheduling and union representation. 

Details:  Probationary Flight Attendants will be issued discipline the same as non-probationary Flight Attendants. Probationary Flight Attendants will also have access to Union representation either via email or via phone/in person depending on the severity of the alleged offense.  

Grievances Recently Granted by Management

None

Grievances Recently Withdrawn

None

Grievances Recently Filed and Awaiting Management Response

None

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-215-23-Violation of §10.J.4 Bidding Packet and Bidding Times and Violation of Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.J.4 [Scheduling:  Bid Packets and Bidding Timelines], Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18, past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about July 10, 2023, it and/or the NAVBLUE Preferential Bidding System (PBS) vendor did not provide an administrative lock-out function or a mutually agreeable alternate solution to allow for the correction of a technical issue when processing bid awards without opening up the system to all users.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-248-23- Violation of §32 and Roberts Decision.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32 [Attendance], past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally rolled out state leave laws on a state-by-state basis rather than applying the most liberal of state leave laws to all Flight Attendants regardless of domicile, thereby disparately treating Flight Attendants within the Collective Bargaining unit, in violation of Roberts. 

Grievances Previously Filed, Denied by Management and Currently Awaiting Arbitration Dates

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-22-14-Violation of Required Maternity Leave.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 15.D. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to require Flight Attendants to begin Maternity Leave after the 28th week of pregnancy.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-55-17-Violation of §21.V Winds Aloft Adjustment of Sit Pay in JCTE.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.V [Compensation: “Scheduled” or “Actual” For Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs) and/or Sit Pay], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system displayed each posted trip as a static ‘snapshot’ taken at the time of posting rather than a ‘live’ view, thus denying the Flight Attendant the ability to determine whether a trip is eligible for 1.0 TFP of Sit Pay due to an automated scheduling adjustment (e.g. by the Winds Aloft program).

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-40-19-Violation §25.B Failure to Provide a Safe and Healthy Workplace.  This alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to provide a safe and healthy workplace when it installed new bulkheads on the retrofitted Airbus (“Aura”) aircraft that effectively renders the aft assist handles near doors L1/R1 as unusable and unnecessarily increases the likelihood and potential severity of Flight Attendant injury during an emergency evacuation.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-19-Violation of §25.D.2 Failing to Notify MEC President and ASHSC of Reconfiguration or Re-design Prior to Final Decision. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.D.2 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Information], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to notify the MEC President of a decision to reconfigure or re-design the interior of the Airbus aircraft and when it failed to discuss with the ASHSC the parties’ interests and concerns for inflight safety prior to making a final decision on the reconfiguration/re-design. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-162-19- Violation of §12.C.1 Real-Time Trading Procedures Grievance 36-99-2-28-17 Mediated Settlement.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.1 [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedure], past practice, its mediated settlement of grievance 36-99-2-28-17 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it agreed but failed to adhere to its July 5, 2017, mediated settlement of grievance 36-99-2-28-17:  To have AFA and Alaska representatives meet with Jeppesen to explore the capabilities of the system and how to align the front-end with the “real time” experience of the back-end user.  This is a continual violation as such meeting did not take place in a reasonably timely manner, and sufficient action was not taken to rectify the underlying system issues.    

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-36-20-Violation of §25.B ANC Training Facility.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it conducted Recurrent Training (RT) drills in Anchorage, Alaska in the Ross Aviation Hanger, and on or about February 16-19, 2020, the external temperature ranged from 18 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit and when the hanger door opened, frequently without notice, the internal hanger temperature dropped to as low as 46 degrees.  After the external hanger door opened it took approximately two hours with a loud heater to get the internal temperature back up to the low to mid 60s. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-207-20-Violation of §10, §11.D & §24.L Bundled Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10 [Scheduling], §11.D [Reserve: Scheduling/Notice of Time to Report] and §24.L [General and Miscellaneous: Company-Provided Inflight Mobile Device (IMD)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system sent bundled scheduling notifications to Flight Attendants on their Inflight Mobile Devices (IMDs) or directly in Crew Access, requiring Flight Attendants to batch acknowledge or ignore such notifications and thereby resulting in Flight Attendants potentially waiving multiple contractual protections via an extra-contractual point of contact (i.e. Crew Access scheduling notifications).  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-384-20-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.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-84-22-Violation of §21.J Ground Delay Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.J [Compensation:  Block and Ground Delays], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not pay ground delay pay accumulatively, requiring each delay to go over 11 minutes to be eligible for pay, when a flight (same flight number/same routing) returns to gate one or more times.    

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-176-22-California Family School Partnership Act Violation of Past Practice and Roberts Award.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally disallowed the California Family School Partnership Act for those Flight Attendants based in Los Angeles (LAX); then reinstated, with no notice, the state law for LAX based Flight Attendants only, but not for the other California based Flight Attendants in San Diego (SAN) or San Francisco (SFO), and not for the rest of the Flight Attendants based in our system, Seattle (SEA), Portland (PDX) or Anchorage (ANC), in violation of Roberts.

Protect Our Contract – Don’t Perform Duties Belonging to Other Work Groups

Grievance Committee

  • In order to protect our contract and show respect for other employee groups’ scope of work, Flight Attendants must not perform work belonging to other work groups.
  • Support other work groups by reporting staffing issues through a Flight Attendant Irregularity Report (FAIR) so management knows changes need to be made.
  • Only Flight Attendants may perform Flight Attendant duties; report any instances of supervisors or other employees performing Flight Attendant work to AFA.

Note: this is an updated version of a post previously published in an AFA Alaska Update on July 30, 2021.

Over many decades, we have all worked hard to improve our working conditions and strengthen our collective bargaining agreement (CBA). These improvements have been achieved through several avenues, including demonstrating solidarity during contract negotiations, lobbying management to make changes that benefit our profession, and rigorously enforcing the contractual language we have already achieved. We must continue to protect and defend our contract and hold management accountable for what has been agreed upon between our Flight Attendants and the company.

Over the past few years, management has made it known they’ve had challenges recruiting and retaining frontline employees in various locations throughout the route network. This includes staff who the company directly employs, those employed by company subsidiaries (e.g., McGee Air Services), and contract vendors who provide above- and/or below-the-wing services at various stations. The situation has caused a noticeable impact on the company’s operations and resulted in some on-the-ground functions being adjusted or modified due to staffing in some cases. 

We all know Alaska Airlines focuses on hiring Flight Attendants who exhibit kindness and are willing to help. Because these traits are such a pervasive part of our culture, it may be tempting to want to jump in and assist our coworkers from other work groups when we see that they are short-staffed. Unfortunately, this causes more harm than good for several reasons. 

As previously mentioned, it’s up to each of us to protect the provisions of our collective bargaining agreement. Section 24.D of the CBA says in part, “A Flight Attendant will not be required to perform work normally assigned to a cleaner, provisioner, ramp or operations agent.” Just as we expect other work groups to honor our contractual language by not performing Flight Attendant duties and responsibilities, it’s similarly important that we respect other work groups and their typically assigned scope of work. Doing so protects the security of both Flight Attendant jobs and the jobs of our coworkers in other departments.

Customer service, ramp, mechanics, pilots, fleet service, catering, and other work groups receive specific training to perform their duties that Flight Attendants don’t have. We must allow our colleagues to do the work they’ve been trained to do to ensure it complies with applicable regulations and company standards. If there are concerns with staffing in a particular department, management needs to receive the corresponding reports of flight delays, complaints from passengers, and performance audit results. These are all indicators management uses to make adjustments and ensure our colleagues in other departments have the support they need. If this data is skewed to show no problems exist, management will make no changes to ensure proper staffing and service levels.

The best way Flight Attendants can show support for other work groups who may be experiencing short or inadequate staffing is by reporting the issue to ensure it gets attention from the proper levels of management. This can be accomplished by submitting a Flight Attendant Irregularity Report (FAIR) detailing the date, flight number, and specifics of the situation (e.g., areas that were skipped/missed, etc.).

Only Flight Attendants May Perform Flight Attendant Duties

Closing the overhead bins, confirming luggage is stowed correctly, and making passenger announcements during boarding are all duties that traditionally define our work but are only a fraction of what we are ultimately responsible for. When supervisors* or other employees perform this undisputed Flight Attendant work, it violates our contract.

If someone who isn’t a Flight Attendant assigned to pre-board or work the flight begins to perform Flight Attendant duties, calmly advise them the work will be completed before the aircraft door is closed, consistent with all applicable policies and regulations. Reassure them that the crew is aware of their duties and responsibilities that need to be accomplished. If this approach is ineffective, advise them they’re violating our contract and respectfully ask them to stop.

If you encounter a supervisor or another employee performing Flight Attendant work onboard the aircraft, please report the situation by opening a ticket on the AFA Alaska Online Support Center. The purpose of this isn’t to get anyone in trouble but to ensure that any misunderstanding is promptly corrected. Quickly addressing the issue helps protect our jobs and prevent management from assigning our work to other work groups or vendors simply because it’s easier or less expensive for them to do so.

*Inflight management who hold an FAA Flight Attendant certificate may perform Flight Attendant duties only during a check-ride or IOE, when assigned to pre-board a flight if minimum crew is not available, or if assigned to work the flight as a Flight Attendant consistent with the limits of our contract.

Questions?

If you have any questions, please contact your Local Grievance Committee.

Grievance Committee Update – 3rd & 4th Quarters 2022, 1st Quarter 2023

Grievance Committee

  • Our Grievance Committee works to protect all Flight Attendants from arbitrary and unjust disciplinary action and to uphold our collective bargaining agreement.  This update provides a short summary of the committee’s work over the past few quarters.
  • Management has issued discipline lately for a variety of reasons.  Read on for more information about the reasons why management is disciplining and terminating Flight Attendants.
  • If you’ve faced a situation that you believe might be a contractual violation, please report the issue through the AFA Alaska Online Support Center.  AFA Representatives review each report submitted and will follow up to help you determine options and a course of action.

Our Grievance Committee has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. The contract requires a minimum of 13 arbitration dates yearly to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. Termination cases are usually given first priority in order to return a Flight Attendant back to work as soon as possible; however, we seek a balance between discipline and contractual cases. AFA and management mutually decide which cases to arbitrate next based on many factors. 

Steps of discipline are confirmation of oral warning (COW), written warning (WW), suspension (varied number of days) to termination. COWs, WWs, and suspensions remain in a Flight Attendant’s file for 18 months, and then are removed. If a Flight Attendant is in a step of discipline and gets another violation, the new violation will build on the previous violation.  Management doesn’t always progressively travel up the steps of discipline. If management investigates a Flight Attendant for theft or abuse of sick leave, for example, management will terminate the Flight Attendant if there is evidence to support its findings; if there is no evidence, then the Flight Attendant will most likely be issued a record of discussion (ROD). A ROD is not considered discipline. There is no middle ground for certain violations.  

Many Flight Attendants are under the impression that if they’ve been an overall good employee, have no to low attendance points, good kudos, decent seniority, etc., that they will not receive discipline. This is not the case; regardless of any good work qualities you may have, if management believes the Flight Attendant committed an offense, they will receive discipline.

If a supervisor or manager calls and asks questions pertaining to a flight, work issue, or disciplinary issue and no AFA representative is on the call, you should assert that you would like an AFA rep on the call. 

Subject of Most Recent Discipline

  • Sick leave and FMLA abuse. Terminations are on the rise due to travel audits among other things. Anything written in the comments/remarks on posted trip trades and personal drops can be seen, even if eventually deleted. If management determines abuse it results in termination.  
  • Theft. Removing anything from the aircraft other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food will result in termination.  
  • Timecard fraud. Examples: Intentionally delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay.  Management has terminated for this violation.
  • Reserve “Roulette”. Not being within two hours of base for your Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only once given an assignment. The Company considers this a terminable violation. Management regularly reviews the trip trade postings and history related to sick calls. Even deleted trade history or postings can be seen by management.
  • Lying in an investigation
  • Drug/Alcohol violations
  • Harassment
  • Reserves commuting during Reserve Availability Period (RAP) even if self-assigned a trip and/or not being in base for the entirety of reserve period. Management has terminated for this reason several times. Management regularly reviews commuting history and whether a Flight Attendant is in base for their RAP.
  • Social media violations including sending friend or follow requests to passengers on social media based on information gained from Block2Block.
  • Commuter Violations
    • Flight Attendant released from DHD and used D8Y home
    • Flight Attendant used D8Y when they picked up out of base
    • Flight Attendant used D8Y to/from incorrect cities
    • Flight Attendant used D8Y for pleasure travel.  

Commuter audits are conducted monthly.

  • Lost IMD or other required items
  • Failing to complete CBT even if FA just forgets to hit the close out x at the top to switch it from in process to complete.
  • Uniform Issues. Flight Attendants can and have been pulled from working their flights without pay for uniform non-compliance.
  • Late to gate/flight delay

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

September 2022Disciplinary Grievance
October 2022Contractual Grievances
November 2022Disciplinary Grievance
December 2022Disciplinary Grievance
January 2023Disciplinary Grievance
February 2023Contractual Grievance
March 2023Contractual Grievance

Recent Grievance Settlements

Grievances 36-99-2-1-22, 3-22, and 4-22 Christmas 2021 Grievances:

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

Details:  On February 11, 2022, I sent my original grievance response as follows: “In reviewing this grievance, we attempted to look into this alleged issue within B2B. Without an example however, we couldn’t determine that this was in fact what happens in B2B if a Flight Attendant has an unacknowledged trip change requiring them to report as originally scheduled. As such, this grievance is denied.” 

I am now amending my grievance response to Grievance 36-99-2-1-22 [Violation of §8.D Check-In and Release] to the following: We are aware of two Flight Attendants who were not able to check-in on Block to Block (B2B) during the last week of December 2021 because they had an unacknowledged trip change requiring them to report as originally scheduled. These two Flight Attendants’ circumstances were discussed and remedied shortly after the Company became aware of what happened and neither AFA nor the Company believe any further action is required to address this grievance other than to sustain this grievance under these narrow set of facts. 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-3-22-Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellations. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling: Pre-Cancellations], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about December 26, 2021, it did not accept or process Flight Attendant calls in a timely manner thereby usurping the Flight Attendants’ ability to utilize the contractual pre-cancellation language allowing them to receive and decline an alternate assignment; and it allowed the Company to reassign Flight Attendants. 

Details: My original grievance response, dated January 28, 2022, stated “In reviewing this grievance, we are aware that with 300+ flight cancellations during this timeframe, and the resulting call handling volume Inflight Crew Scheduling was working through, that some Flight Attendant calls were not accepted or processed in a timely manner. We are unaware of any specific situations where due to not having their phone call processed or accepted timely, a Flight Attendant wasn’t able to utilize the contractual pre- cancellation language allowing them to receive and decline an alternate assignment.” 

I am now amending my grievance response to Grievance 36-99-2-3-22 [Violation of §10.S Pre- cancellations] to the following: We are unaware of any Flight Attendant who attempted to call Crew Scheduling between approximately December 26, 2021 to December 30, 2021 regarding a pre- cancelation, and then was unable to get through due to increased call volume from irregular operations. During this time period, Alaska Airlines experienced hundreds of cancelations which forced many unplanned calls between Schedulers and Flight Attendants thus jamming up the phone lines at certain times. We are aware that some flight attendants were not able to immediately get through to Crew Scheduling during this period of time due to the increased call volume. If a Flight Attendant attempted to call Crew Scheduling as required regarding a pre-cancelation (10.S), and was unable to get through, we would sustain this grievance under these narrow set of facts. 

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

Details: AFA will withdraw this grievance due to no identifiable harmed parties.

Grievances Recently Mediated

Grievances 36-99-2-230-21, 234-21 and 233-22, COVID Grievances: 

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

Details: There were different provisions for different dates, vaccination status and symptom status. Management agreed to true up sick leave and points in some instances. Full details can be found in the LOA.

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

Details:  Management agreed vaccinated FAs can keep their $200, but they would not agree that unvaccinated with or without a medical or religious exemption would get $200.  

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-233-22-Violation of §16 Sick Leave/On the Job Injury. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §16 [Sick Leave/On the Job Injury], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about May 11, 2022, it unilaterally implemented disparate quarantine procedures without adequate notice by posting and/or updating the Company intranet (“Alaska’s World”) with different quarantine requirements for symptomless vaccinated versus symptomless unvaccinated Flight Attendants. Alaska’s World articles do not provide adequate notice of a policy change to Flight Attendants, whereas such changes are communicated to Flight Attendants via required bulletins that must be read within 24-hour period prior to beginning of pairing, recurrent/requalification training, or reserve. Under this new policy, the Company requires symptomless unvaccinated Flight Attendants to be removed from their scheduling obligations by forcing them onto sick leave and paid through their sick leave bank or accrued vacation pay if the sick leave bank was depleted. Section 16 does not contain any exceptions or distinctions based on vaccination status, yet the Company failed to bargain with the Association and unilaterally implemented such non-contractual exceptions or distinctions inequitably across the collective bargaining unit.

Details: The Company agreed it will notify Flight Attendants of any changes to COVID-19 quarantine policies and procedures through required (“must-read”) bulletins. 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-458-22- Violation of §8.D Check in and Debrief. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.D.1 [Hours of Service/Check in and Debrief], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on July 22, 2022, it delayed flight 263 IAH-SEA by nine minutes to adjust for one crew member’s 24/7 violation.  While doing so it did not change the other three Flight Attendants’ scheduled check in time on their roster thus requiring them to report for the start of the duty day 54 minutes prior to the new adjusted flight time rather than the required 45 minutes.    

Details:  The parties agree that in the case of a FAR illegality affecting one or more Flight Attendant(s) on the same flight, the Company may either:  1. Change the schedule departure time (to a later time) and adjust the report time of all Flight Attendants; or 2. Keep the scheduled report time. At Crew Scheduling’s direction, the Flight Attendant(s) affected by the illegality may report fewer than forty-five minutes (:45) prior to scheduled departure.

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-458-22- Violation of §8.D Check in and Debrief. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.D.1 [Hours of Service/Check in and Debrief], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on July 22, 2022, it delayed flight 263 IAH-SEA by nine minutes to adjust for one crew member’s 24/7 violation. While doing so it did not change the other three Flight Attendants’ scheduled check in time on their roster thus requiring them to report for the start of the duty day 54 minutes prior to the new adjusted flight time rather than the required 45 minutes.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-60-23-Violation of §19.A and §7.B Disciplinary Meetings and Probationaries. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A & §7.B [Grievance Procedures:  Dismissal and Disciplinary Procedure; Probationary Period:  Discharge, Discipline or Furlough], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to conduct investigatory, work performance, disciplinary and dismissal meetings with probationary Flight Attendants per the contractual meeting requirements with regard to pay, scheduling and union representation. 

Grievances Recently Filed, Denied by Management and Currently Awaiting Arbitration Dates

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-22-14-Violation of Required Maternity Leave.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 15.D. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to require Flight Attendants to begin Maternity Leave after the 28th week of pregnancy.   

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-55-17-Violation of §21.V Winds Aloft Adjustment of Sit Pay in JCTE. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.V [Compensation: “Scheduled” or “Actual” For Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs) and/or Sit Pay], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system displayed each posted trip as a static ‘snapshot’ taken at the time of posting rather than a ‘live’ view, thus denying the Flight Attendant the ability to determine whether a trip is eligible for 1.0 TFP of Sit Pay due to an automated scheduling adjustment (e.g. by the Winds Aloft program).

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-40-19-Violation §25.B Failure to Provide a Safe and Healthy Workplace. This alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to provide a safe and healthy workplace when it installed new bulkheads on the retrofitted Airbus (“Aura”) aircraft that effectively renders the aft assist handles near doors L1/R1 as unusable and unnecessarily increases the likelihood and potential severity of Flight Attendant injury during an emergency evacuation.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-41-19-Violation of §25.D.2 Failing to Notify MEC President and ASHSC of Reconfiguration or Re-design Prior to Final Decision. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.D.2 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Information], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to notify the MEC President of a decision to reconfigure or re-design the interior of the Airbus aircraft and when it failed to discuss with the ASHSC the parties’ interests and concerns for inflight safety prior to making a final decision on the reconfiguration/re-design. 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-162-19- Violation of §12.C.1 Real-Time Trading Procedures Grievance 36-99-2-28-17 Mediated Settlement. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.1 [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedure], past practice, its mediated settlement of grievance 36-99-2-28-17 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it agreed but failed to adhere to its July 5, 2017, mediated settlement of grievance 36-99-2-28-17:  To have AFA and Alaska representatives meet with Jeppesen to explore the capabilities of the system and how to align the front-end with the “real time” experience of the back-end user.  This is a continual violation as such meeting did not take place in a reasonably timely manner, and sufficient action was not taken to rectify the underlying system issues.    

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-36-20-Violation of §25.B ANC Training Facility.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it conducted Recurrent Training (RT) drills in Anchorage, Alaska in the Ross Aviation Hanger, and on or about February 16-19, 2020, the external temperature ranged from 18 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit and when the hanger door opened, frequently without notice, the internal hanger temperature dropped to as low as 46 degrees.  After the external hanger door opened it took approximately two hours with a loud heater to get the internal temperature back up to the low to mid 60s.  

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-207-20-Violation of §10, §11.D & §24.L Bundled Scheduling Notifications. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10 [Scheduling], §11.D [Reserve:  Scheduling/Notice of Time to Report] and §24.L [General and Miscellaneous: Company-Provided Inflight Mobile Device (IMD)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system sent bundled scheduling notifications to Flight Attendants on their Inflight Mobile Devices (IMDs) or directly in Crew Access, requiring Flight Attendants to batch acknowledge or ignore such notifications and thereby resulting in Flight Attendants potentially waiving multiple contractual protections via an extra-contractual point of contact (i.e. Crew Access scheduling notifications).  

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-384-20-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.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-84-22-Violation of §21.J Ground Delay Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.J [Compensation:  Block and Ground Delays], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not pay ground delay pay accumulatively, requiring each delay to go over 11 minutes to be eligible for pay, when a flight (same flight number/same routing) returns to gate one or more times.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-176-22-California Family School Partnership Act Violation of Past Practice and Roberts Award.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally disallowed the California Family School Partnership Act for those Flight Attendants based in Los Angeles (LAX); then reinstated, with no notice, the state law for LAX based Flight Attendants only, but not for the other California based Flight Attendants in San Diego (SAN) or San Francisco (SFO), and not for the rest of the Flight Attendants based in our system, Seattle (SEA), Portland (PDX) or Anchorage (ANC), in violation of Roberts.

COVID-19 Grievance Mediation & Settlement

Grievance Committee

  • Our MEC Grievance Committee successfully settled three outstanding grievances related to COVID-19.
  • Flight Attendants who received $200 from the Company for attesting to their vaccination status get to keep the payout.
  • In some cases, Flight Attendant sick leave will be restored.

We are pleased to inform you that our MEC Grievance Committee has successfully resolved three COVID-19-related grievances with the Company through mediation with Arbitrator Symonette and management. We have settled Grievance 36-99-2-230-21 for violation of §16 Sick Leave/On the Job Injury, Grievance 36-99-2-234-21 for §21 Non-Negotiated Compensation, and Grievance 36-99-2-233-22 for violation of §16 Sick Leave/On the Job Injury. Please take a look below for more details on the settlements or review the settlement agreement.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-230-21 – Violation of §16 Sick Leave/On the Job Injury

The grievance was about how the Company treated vaccinated Flight Attendants compared to unvaccinated Flight Attendants who contracted or were exposed to COVID-19 while on the job. Over two years, the Company’s stance on this matter changed multiple times, resulting in varying pay protections for different groups.

In our contract, Section 16 unequivocally applies to all Flight Attendants, regardless of their vaccination status. A Flight Attendant who is unvaccinated but holds a medical or religious exemption must be treated with the same level of respect and consideration as a vaccinated Flight Attendant. This means that even if an unvaccinated Flight Attendant must undergo quarantine while their vaccinated counterpart does not, they should not be treated differently.

We carefully reviewed the dates and changes made by the Company and devised a solution that will make exempted Flight Attendants whole. However, there were specific dates when we could not provide a remedy for those who did not disclose their status. Those who were covered before the vaccine and had access to exemptions will have their sick leave restored, and in some cases, they will have their attendance points removed. For more information, please refer to the Letter of Agreement.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-234-21 – Violation of §21 Non-Negotiated Compensation

This grievance alleges that the Company violated Section §21 [Compensation], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it announced on or about September 2, 2021, that it would pay $200 to each vaccinated Flight Attendant who provided proof of vaccination to the Company by October 15, 2021.   The provisions of Section 21 do not provide for any exemptions or differentiations based on vaccination status. Nevertheless, the Company unfairly imposed this exception on the entire bargaining unit without engaging in negotiations with AFA.

Management agreed that Flight Attendants who have been vaccinated will be able to retain their $200. However, they would not agree to give the same amount to those who are unvaccinated, even if they have a medical or religious exemption. After careful consideration, we decided to withdraw the grievance as the mediator expressed doubts about our likelihood of success in arbitration.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-233-22 – Violation of §16 Sick Leave/On the Job Injury

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §16 [Sick Leave/On the Job Injury], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about May 11, 2022, it unilaterally implemented disparate quarantine procedures without adequate notice by posting and/or updating the Company intranet (“Alaska’s World”) with different quarantine requirements for symptom-free vaccinated versus symptom-free unvaccinated Flight Attendants. Our Grievance Committee argued that Alaska’s World articles are not sufficient notice of policy changes since they are not mandatory reading, and Flight Attendants must be informed of changes through must-read bulletins. 

The Company agreed it would notify Flight Attendants of any changes to COVID-19 quarantine policies and procedures through required (“must-read”) bulletins.

Questions?

Overall, the outcome of this settlement was successful, and we are glad to be able to provide some resolution to these grievances. Our commitment to ensuring fair treatment and safe working conditions for all our Members remains firm, and we will continue to work tirelessly towards that goal. Please don’t hesitate to contact your Local Grievance Committee or LEC President with any questions or concerns.

Meet Our Merged MEC Committee Chairpersons & Representatives

We’re excited to introduce our next group of newly elected merged MEC Committee Chairpersons, who will begin their roles on November 1. These leaders are dedicated to representing the interests of our Flight Attendants as they coordinate activities across the merged committees of both airlines. They’ll work closely with the Local Committee Chairpersons from all […]

Hotel Committee Meeting Recap – October 2025

On Monday, October 13, our AFA Local Hotel Committee Chairpersons met in person in Seattle to receive an update about current layover hotels and transportation providers and discuss concerns with management. Representing you at the meeting were Dori Marron (ANC), Jarod McNeill (SEA), Kelly Hepworth (PDX), Hilary Streem (SFO), Chris Cardenas (LAX), and Kanani Vallot […]

Pre-Merger Alaska MEC Committee Election Results

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants During this week’s MEC Meeting, our MEC held interviews for the next group of pre-merger Alaska MEC Committee positions to be elected for the upcoming MEC Officer term. We want to thank everyone who expressed interest in the available positions and their willingness to serve. After careful […]

Merged MEC Committee Chairperson Election Results

During this week’s MEC Meeting, our MEC held interviews for the next group of merged MEC Committee Chairpersons and Representatives. We want to thank everyone who expressed interest in the available positions and their willingness to serve. After careful consideration and deliberation, the following candidates have been elected: MEC Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee […]

U.S. Customs & Border Protection Gender Code Requirement

Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced changes to the rules surrounding how airlines report information about passengers and crew before flights. This system is called the Advance Passenger Information System, or APIS. These changes are in response to a Presidential Executive Order. What is APIS? APIS is a system that airlines are legally […]

Recent Posts

News By Month

News By Category

AFA News Now Air Quality Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) AS/HA Merger AS/VX Merger Benefits Committee Committees Communications Committee Contract Contract 2014 Negotiations Blog Council 15 SAN Council 18 LAX Council 19 SEA Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX EAP/Professional Standards Committee Extension 2021 Blog Featured Government Affairs Committee Grievance Committee Hotel Committee Human Rights & Equity Committee Industry News Inflight Service Committee Inflight Training Committee JNC Blog Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) Latest News Local Councils Master Executive Council (MEC) Membership Committee Membership Engagement Committee Message from the MEC President Mobilization Committee Negotiations Pairing Construction Preferential Bidding System (PBS) Press Releases Reserve Committee Retirement Committee Scheduling Committee Uniform Committee

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Stay up-to-date on AFA Alaska news and information by signing up for our email and text message updates. Click a button below to get started or update your preferences if you're already a subscriber.
Sign Up for Emails
Sign Up for Text Updates