Recent Committee Activity
Last updated May 28, 2021
Our Grievance Committee has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requires a minimum of 13 arbitration dates yearly to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. AFA typically prioritizes termination cases to return a Flight Attendant back to work as soon as possible; however, we seek a balance between discipline and contractual cases. AFA and management mutually decide which cases to arbitrate next based on many factors.
Steps of discipline are confirmation of oral warning (COW), written warning (WW), suspension (varied number of days) to termination. COWs, WWs, and suspensions remain in the Flight Attendant’s file for 18 months, and then are removed. If a Flight Attendant is in a step of discipline and gets another violation, the new violation will build on the previous violation. Management doesn’t always progressively travel up the steps of discipline. There is no middle ground or progressive discipline for certain violations. If management investigates a Flight Attendant for theft or abuse of sick leave, for example, management will terminate the Flight Attendant if there is evidence to support its findings; if there is no evidence, then the Flight Attendant will most likely be issued a record of discussion (ROD). A ROD is not considered discipline.
For Your Information – Block2Block Team Messaging
Everything that Flight Attendants and other employees type in the team messaging feature of Block2Block is recorded, saved, and regularly reviewed by management. Anyone in the company who has access to the system can log on to a flight and use the system to communicate or just see what is being said. Also, if they choose, they can go back and review conversations from past flights.
Subjects of Most Recent Discipline
- Sick leave and FMLA abuse—terminations on the rise due to travel audits among other things. Anything written in the advertising comments on trip trades and personal drops can be seen, even if later deleted. Also, recorded telephone conversations with Crew Scheduling can be referenced for use by management in discipline. If management determines abuse it results in termination. The Company will be looking at sick leave patterns around holidays as well. This means, for example, if a Flight Attendant has called in sick for 3 of the last 3 Mother’s Days, s/he may be called in for a sick leave abuse meeting.
- Timecard fraud—for example: delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay. Management has terminated for this violation.
- Drug/alcohol violations
- Theft. Anything other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food removed from the aircraft will result in termination.
- Harassment and discrimination
- Reserve Flight Attendants commuting during the reserve availability period (RAP) even if self-assigned a trip and/or not being in base for the entirety of the RAP (except as provided for in §11.C.5 on the last day of the block). Management has terminated for commuting during the RAP several times.
- Commuter Violations
- Flight Attendant released from DHD and used D8Y home
- Flight Attendant used D8Y when they picked up out of base
- Flight Attendant used D8Y to/from incorrect cities
- Flight Attendant used D8Y for pleasure travel. Commuter audits are being used for researching whether commuting reserve Flight Attendants are in base for their full RAP, and if not, it typically results in termination.
- Social media violations including sending friend or follow requests to passengers on social media based on information gained from Block2Block. Also, postings which can be deemed harassing or discriminatory typically result in discipline ranging from written warning to termination.
- Lost IMD or other required items
- Failing to complete CBT—even if Flight Attendant just forgets to hit the close out x at the top to switch it from in process to complete.
- Uniform Issues—Flight Attendants can and have been pulled from working their flights without pay for uniform non-compliance and/or issued discipline.
Recent and Upcoming Arbitration/Mediation
| Arbitration | October | Contractual Grievance |
| Arbitration | November | Contractual Grievance |
| Arbitration | December | Contractual Grievance |
| Arbitration | January | Disciplinary Grievance |
Recent Arbitration Awards
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-29-20-Violation of §30.C.4 Computer Based Training (CBT). The Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement [Training], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 21, 2020, it significantly increased the number of evaluated drills conducted during recurrent training (RT) and considerably changed the requirements to demonstrate proficiency and pass said drills. To pass all 36 drills with the required perfect score, the Company published 39 videos for Flight Attendant viewing with total watch time of 39 minutes and 40 seconds, none of which Flight Attendants were compensated for watching.
Details: Unfortunately, the arbitrator found in favor of the Company. The arbitrator did recognize the merits of the Union’s case; however, the CBA did not provide for the decision for which we hoped.
Recent Grievance Settlements
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-45-17-Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling: Pre-Cancellation], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it altered Flight Attendant schedules due to a schedule change/flight retiming using inapplicable Pre-Cancellation language without prior notice to or approval from AFA.
Details: All pre-cancellations, retimes, flight routing changes and aircraft downgrades that occur in advance of the day of departure of a sequence will be handled under §10.S [Pre-Cancellations] beginning Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 12:01 AM Pacific Time. Click here to read the settlement agreement.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-144-19-Violation §13.D.1 Uniform Allotment and Optional Pieces. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §13.D.1 [Uniforms: Uniform Allotment/Credits], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to give Flight Attendants the ability to purchase Luly Yang inspired by Alaska Airlines optional uniform pieces (which are or will be available for purchase at the Alaska Airlines Company store) with their contractual uniform allotted funds.
Details: The Company is not obligated to sell Luly Yang items at the Company Store; however, if it does, all Luly Yang items will be sold at cost to all Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants. Click here to read the settlement agreement.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-165-19- Violation of Vacation Trading Past Practice. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement § 14 [Vacation], an established past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it violated an established past practice for a real-time, electronic vacation trading system and the subsequent failure of that system to allow SEA-based Flight Attendants to access and trade vacation at the established start time.
Details: On or about October 28, 2019, the Company’s Flight Attendant vacation trading system went down for 20 minutes affecting many Flight Attendants’ ability to trade their vacation. Approximately 57 Flight Attendants contacted AFA due to the outage. The Company agreed to pay each of those 57 Flight Attendants 1.0 TFP no later than their March 19, 2021, paycheck. Click here to read the settlement agreement.
Grievances Recently Filed and Denied
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-384-20-Violation of §10.S Scheduling Notifications. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling : Pre-Cancellations], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent to Flight Attendants via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign alternate flying or an obligation to call Crew Scheduling within a specific window of time. If a Flight Attendant accepts such non-contractual scheduling notification(s), which is neither contact by Crew Scheduling via Company email nor via primary phone contact as defined in §10.S.1.a, the scheduling notification(s) violates the contract by abrogating the Flight Attendant’s ability to: (1) decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection (§10.S.2.b), (2) decline the “out of original footprint by more than two hours” alternate assignment and call Crew Scheduling between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM (local domicile time) the night prior to the start of the original sequence (§10.S.2.c), or (3) waive pay protection and be relieved of any further scheduling obligation (§10.S.3).
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-386-20-Violation of §8.Q & §8.R Contactability and Notification of Delay or Cancellation. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.Q [Hours of Service: Contactability] and §8.R [Hours of Service: Notification of Delay or Cancellation], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign revised flying to Flight Attendants who were off-duty on a remain overnight (RON). Such scheduling notifications are in violation of the contractually defined means of contact and/or the Flight Attendant’s obligation to respond pursuant to these provisions.
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.: 36-99-2-1-17- Violation of §32.C.5. Assessing Short Sick Call Points to Flight Attendant on FMLA. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.5 [Attendance Policy: Short Sick Call], past practice, all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Federal Law when it assessed short sick call points (2½) to Flight Attendants on qualified Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) status when they called in sick within two hours of scheduled check-in.
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.: 36-99-2-56-17-Violation of §15.C.4 Medical Leave of Absence. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.C.4 [Leaves of Absence: Medical Leave of Absence], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when in December 2016 it denied [a Flight Attendant’s] medical leave of absence (MLOA) because she did not also qualify for FMLA and because the MLOA was less than 10 days in duration.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-159-17-Violation of §12.A & §12.E Withholding Trips from Open Time and Suspended all Trading due JCTE Issues. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.A & E [Exchange of Sequences: Unlimited Trading/Open Time], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about September 30, 2017, to October 1, 2017, for approximately 8 hours, it either withheld all trips in open time or suspended all trading due to an issue with its Jeppesen Crew Tracking system.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-321-18- Violation of §§21, 24, 30 & 34 Hotel at Domicile for Transition Training. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21 [Compensation], §24 [General and Miscellaneous], §30 [Training] and §34 [Hotels], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when some Flight Attendants requested and were provided hotel rooms at base for Transition Training while others who requested a room were not provided one.
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.: 36-99-2-41-20-Violation of §30.A.2 Training Hours Over Eight Hours. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §30.A.2 [Training: Hours], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 24 and 25, 2020, it required at least three Flight Attendants to attend Recurrent Training (RT) in Long Beach (LGB) in excess of eight hours.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-201-20-Violation of §10.Q & §11.E.4.d Violation of Reserve Assignment List Order. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.Q [Scheduling: Low-Bid Option] and §11.E.4.d [Reserve: Order of Assignment, Assignment of Open Sequences/Assignments], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system places low-bid option and no-bid lineholder Flight Attendants who pick up reserve days and opt out of the Reserve Assignment List (LTFA) at the top of the list rather than listing them in inverse seniority order following all other Reserves within the same classification (AM/PM/ER) and with the same number of days of availability.
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.: 36-99-2-301-20-Violation of §3.D Scope of Agreement. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §3.D [Scope of Agreement: Scope], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it announced beginning October 2020 through July 2021, it will operate flights with cargo in cabin seats; although such flying will occur without passengers, the Company intends to staff the flights with non-Flight Attendant employees, who will be trained to perform Flight Attendant duties, specifically including but not limited to: Firefighting duties, cargo stowage in the passenger cabin and aircraft door operation in normal and emergency mode.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-320-20-Violation of §30.C.4 Computer Based Training (CBT). This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §30.C.4 [Training: Training Pay/Computer Based Training (CBT)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about September 28, 2020, it added a 5th Computer Based Training for Flight Attendants to complete for 2020. Prior to adding the 5th CBT, it issued Quarter 1 CBT, training videos CBT, Quarter 2 CBT and Quarter 3 CBT.
