Grievance Committee Update – 2nd Quarter 2026

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants

Our Grievance Committee is committed to supporting you by ensuring fair disciplinary procedures and upholding our contractual rights. Our contract guarantees at least 13 arbitration dates each year to address both disciplinary and contractual matters. Termination cases are typically prioritized to help Flight Attendants return to work as soon as possible, but we work diligently to balance these with contractual cases. AFA and management jointly decide which cases proceed to arbitration, considering a range of relevant factors.

The steps of discipline are: confirmation of an oral warning (COW), a written warning (WW), suspension (for a varying number of days), and 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 disciplinary step and commits another violation, the new violation will build upon the previous violation. Management doesn’t always progress through 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). An 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., they will not be disciplined. This is not the case; regardless of any good work qualities one may have, if management believes the Flight Attendant committed an offense, they will be disciplined.

If a supervisor or manager contacts you about a flight, work issue, or disciplinary matter and there is no AFA representative present, clearly state that you would like an AFA Representative to join the call before you continue.

Subject of Most Recent Discipline

• Sick Leave and FMLA Abuse: Terminations for sick leave and FMLA abuse are increasing, often due to travel audits. Management can see all comments or remarks on posted trip trades and personal drops, even if later deleted. If management finds evidence of abuse, termination will result. Never call in sick unless you are truly too ill or injured to fly. Calling in sick for reasons unrelated to your health, such as to care for a pet, is grounds for termination. If you cannot make it to work and are not sick, and cannot obtain a management drop, a no-show may be the best option.
• Theft: Removing anything from the aircraft except an opened/used box of water, an unused pilot crew meal, or food you have purchased will lead to termination.
• Timecard fraud: Examples include intentionally delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay. Management has terminated for this violation.
• Reserve “Roulette”: Not being physically within two hours of base for your Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only once given an assignment. Management considers this a terminable violation. Management regularly reviews the trip trade postings and history related to sick calls, and whether comments and money incentives are added to trips that are subsequently called in sick. Even deleted trade history or postings can be seen by management.
• Picking up trips when you know you are not legally able to work them.
• Lying during an investigation
• Drug/Alcohol violations
• Offering or awarding passengers frequent flyer points in exchange for kudos or completed credit card applications
• Harassment
• Refusing scheduling revisions or ignoring requests to call Crew Scheduling.
• Reserves Commuting During RAP: Commuting during your Reserve Availability Period (RAP), even if you have self-assigned a trip or are not in base for the full reserve period. Management has issued suspensions or terminated employment depending on the situation.
• Social Media Violations: This includes sending friend or follow requests to passengers using information obtained from Block2Block.
• Commuter Violations
  • Flight Attendant released from DHD and used D8Y to travel home
• • Flight Attendant used D8Y to travel to a trip picked up out of base
• • Flight Attendant used D8Y to or from incorrect cities
  • Flight Attendant used D8Y for pleasure travel.
  • Commuter audits are conducted monthly, and usually reveal reserve Flight Attendants who were not in base. 
• Lost IMD or Other Required Items: If your IMD is stolen, obtain a police report as soon as possible.
• Failing to complete CBT: even if Flight Attendant just forgets to close the training window (tap the “X” at the top of the screen) to move it from in process to complete.
• Uniform Issues: Flight Attendants have been removed from duty without pay for uniform non-compliance.
• Late to Gate or Causing a Flight Delay

Hot Topic: Social Media Discipline

Disciplinary actions related to social media, including terminations, are increasing. Remember, social media pages and accounts—including personal and group pages—are not private. The First Amendment right to free speech protects you from government action, but not from private employers like Alaska Airlines. The company has a social media policy, and arbitrators have upheld that comments made on private pages may be subject to discipline by your employer.

Reminder: Short Sick Calls

Section 32.C.5 of the CBA defines a “Short Sick Call” as calling in sick less than two hours before your scheduled check-in. If you want to avoid receiving 2.5 points for a short sick call, you must contact Crew Scheduling after the scheduled check-in time—not simply after you have checked in yourself, as clarified in Section 32.C.6.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

April 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
May 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
May 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
June 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
July 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
August 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
September 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
October 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
November 2025	Disciplinary Grievance
January 2026	Disciplinary Grievance
February 2026	Disciplinary Grievance
March 2026	Disciplinary Grievance
April 2026	Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Contractual Arbitrations

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-38-24-Violation of §8.M and Grievance Settlement 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.M [Hours of Service: Domicile Rest] and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 [Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or around September 23, 2023, the Company refused to allow a Flight Attendant who had operationally-impacted reduced domicile rest (§8.M.2) to utilize the applicable contractual provisions of §8.M, which would have allowed the Flight Attendant to be removed from their subsequent sequence beginning September 24, 2023, without pay pursuant to §8.M.3, due to the domicile rest time between sequences projecting to fall below CFR-required rest. Instead, on the evening of September 23, 2024, Crew Scheduling altered the Flight Attendant’s check-in time for the subsequent sequence (on September 24, 2023) to a later check-in time in violation of §8.M.2, thereby denying them access to their contractual right to be released from the subsequent sequence without pay pursuant to §8.M.3. 

Decision:

Alaska Airlines, Inc., violated Section 8.M of the collective bargaining agreement when the Flight Attendant waived contractual domicile rest and, before their duty period on the first trip ended and the Company changed their report time for the first duty period of the second trip to meet CFR requirements. Alaska Airlines, Inc. shall cease and desist from unilaterally changing a Flight Attendant’s report time for the first duty period of the second trip to meet CFR requirements before the Flight Attendant’s duty period on the first trip has ended where a Flight Attendant has waived contractual domicile rest.

Recent Grievance Settlements

None

Grievances Recently Mediated 

None

Grievances Recently Granted by Management 

None

Grievances Recently Withdrawn

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 28^th week of pregnancy.   

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.:  36-99-2-41-24- Violation of §25.B Safe and Healthy Workplace-B/E Aerospace Coffee Makers.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Heath and Security:  Safe and Healthy Workplace] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about February 15, 2024, it refused AFA’s request to discontinue the use of older style B/E Aerospace coffee makers until adequate physical mitigations are put into place to prevent the coffee makers, when coupled with the Company’s new onboard coffee product, from spewing hot coffee and grounds during the brew process, which has previously resulted in the injury of at least ten Flight Attendants.

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.  

Grievances Recently Filed and Awaiting Management Response

None

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-122-25-Violation of §21.T Sit Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.T [Compensation: Sit Pay] and §5

[Definitions: Ground Time] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to pay sit pay for the cumulative time between two flights, which is ground time. Normally it is paid from L1 door opening of the prior flight until L1 door closing for the final time from the departing flight; it should be paid regardless of the interim activities before the closing of the L1 door for the final time.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-255-25- Violation of §8.F Over-Duty Pay and §11.F

Airport Standby.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.F [Hours of Service: Over-Duty Pay] and §11.F [Reserve: Airport Standby] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to pyramid the pay rate for a Flight Attendant who sits airport standby (APSB) and is subsequently assigned flying with a duty period that initially exceeds 10:30 (except for those APSB Flight Attendants who accept a 4K) but ultimately goes over-duty, greater than 12:30.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-256-25– Violation of §8.F Over-Duty Pay and §10.E

Line Construction and Operational Impact.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.F [Hours of Service: Over-Duty Pay] and §10.E [Scheduling: Line Construction and Operational Impact] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to pyramid the pay rate of flights, including surface deadheads, for a Flight Attendant whose duty period intrudes into a day off by 15 minutes or more and the trip also extends over-duty, flying over 12:30, in the same duty period.

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

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.:  36-99-2-41-19-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.:  36-99-2-84-22-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.

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. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-170-24-Violation of §15.G Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents (AQ).  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.G [Leaves of Absence: Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about August 30, 2024, it refused to allow Flight Attendants the ability to use the above provisions when they had a documented air quality event, as they are requiring the Flight Attendants to file workers’ compensation claims, which are frequently denied.  

Grievance No:  36-99-2-2-25- Violation of §10.Z Personal Drops.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.Z [Scheduling: Personal Drop(s)] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement occurred when, on or about October 10, 2024, it was discovered that Crew Scheduling was processing personal drops incorrectly. Instead of processing the personal drops in seniority order the day prior, as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Crew Scheduling would process them in random time periods throughout the day of operation, skipping over the contractual requirement to process them in seniority order the day prior. This resulted in Crew Scheduling randomly executing first-come, first-served requests based on their staffing needs, thereby circumventing the seniority order provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Grievance No:  36-99-2-73-25-Violation of §8.I Night Rule & 10.DD Long Stage Length Duty Period (“4k”). This grievance alleges t The Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.I [Hours of Service: Night Rule] and§10.DD [Scheduling: Long Stage Length Duty Period (“4k”)] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to pay double time (2.0x) for the full duty period on a 4k sequence in which the Flight Attendant is on duty at 4:29 a.m.*, 8:30 a.m.†, and the duty day is ultimately over twelve hours and thirty minutes (12:30), although they currently pay double time (2.0x) on non-4k sequences when the Flight Attendant is on duty at 4:29 a.m.*, 8:30 a.m.†, and the duty day ultimately goes over ten hours and thirty minutes (10:30).

* Local time
† Initial departure station time of the duty period