The Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf.  Section 20.N.2 of the Flight Attendant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allows for 10 arbitration dates per year to argue discipline/termination cases and contractual issues.  The newly ratified Joint CBA increases this amount and provides for 13 dates that will be incorporated into our 2019 schedule.  AFA typically prioritizes termination cases 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. The following is a list of open contractual grievances.

Recent and Upcoming Arbitration/Mediation

Arbitration April 26, 2018—Disciplinary Grievance

Arbitration May 30, 2018—Cancelled due to management witness hospitalized.  An additional date was added in August 2018.

Arbitration July 18, 2018—Disciplinary Grievance

Recently Settled Grievances/Mediations       

None

Grievances Filed and Awaiting a Response from Management

None

Grievances Recently Granted by Management

Grievance No. 36-99-2-130-18 Violation of §12.C.3 Trading Procedures.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.3 [Exchanges of Sequences:  Trading Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) Open Time Trading System failed to synchronize time across the system, resulting in some users being able to complete their tasks while others are temporarily blocked from trades, pick-ups and/or drops.

Details:  The interim solution has been delivered and installed into production Wednesday June 13. AS received the permanent solution for testing.  AS looked at the permanent solution yesterday, June 14, 2018, and have a question out to Jeppesen because we are not seeing a message prior to Open Time opening that we had understood would be seen.  It is AS’ intent to bring JCA into compliance with the CBA as soon as possible.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-131-18 Violation of §12.F.2 Threshold Sequence Number ANC.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.F.2 [Exchanges of Sequences:  Methodology for Counting Sequences Toward the “threshold sequence number”], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about April 24, 2018, in Anchorage its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) Open Time Trading System failed to calculate the appropriate threshold sequence number therefore limiting the Flight Attendants’ ability to drop trips.

Details:  As of the release deployed into production on May 23, when flight legs are removed from a trip leaving an empty shell, the trip shell does not count towards limiting the day.  If the flight legs are added back to that same shell, the trip will again count toward limiting the day.

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 28^thweek of pregnancy.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-15-15- Limiting Access to the SAN Domicile.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.I [Company Provided Computers and Printers at Domiciles], when it limited access to the SAN Domicile including contractually required resources to only those Flight Attendants based in SAN.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-29-15-Commuter Boarding Priority. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.G.6. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it allowed Company employees (and their dependents) on pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-32-15- Concourse Uniform Shoe Standards.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 25.B. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and past practice when it issued Revised Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) requiring Flight Attendants to wear concourse shoes:  With a defined heel between a half inch and three inches in height; with added restrictions, i.e., solid black in color, single functional strap with a plain silver or gold buckle, button, or snap smaller than a quarter, and no textured leather, suede, cloth fabric, color threading, or separate colored trim styles; and during boarding up until the aircraft door closes.  These restrictions essentially limit Flight Attendants to wear a pump type shoe only, and unlike past practice eliminates many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos, Naot, and makes them non-compliant.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-33-15- In-Flight Uniform Shoe Standards.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 25.B. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and past practice when it issued Revised Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) requiring Flight Attendants to wear in-flight shoes with all concourse shoe requirements except the defined heel (with at least half inch height) requirement until the aircraft door closes.  Unlike past practice these restrictions eliminate many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos and Naot, and makes them non-compliant. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-34-15- Uniform Luggage Standards.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it issued Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) which says:  Designated “Crew” luggage tag and/or Company-approved recognition luggage strap is the only permitted accessory/adornment that may be attached on luggage items; recreational equipment must fit into company issued luggage; and individual or union lanyards with personal pins may not be worn.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-15- Section 34.C.3. Alternative Hotel Selection/Site Visit.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 34.C.3. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to include the hotel committee in the selection of alternate hotels; and when it failed to provide site visits on alternate hotels.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-2-16- Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement:  ASAP and Discipline July 2006 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow the ASAP process to complete prior to disciplining and terminating a Flight Attendant.  The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to discipline.  Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-5-16- Non-Negotiated Compensation.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21 [Compensation] and Section 32 [Attendance Policy], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it awarded, without prior consistent notice, policy and application, $5 gift cards to all Anchorage based Flight Attendants for meeting the daily attendance goal.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-31-16- Benefit Re-enrollment-Failure to Provide Insurance.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 23 [Insurance Benefits], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it:  Intended to deny insurance to Flight Attendants who fail to reenroll following any duration leave of absence; and failed to provide sufficient notice regarding insurance reenrollment following any leave of absence.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-32-16-Automation of Stranded and Delay Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21 [Compensation], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it continues to automate its payroll system yet failed to include automated stranded pay for the entire crew.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-43-16-Violation of §11.H.8. Failing to Allow Trades.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.H.8. [Reserve/Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow Reserve Flight Attendants, [Flight Attendant Names], to trade on December 18, 2016, and December 30, 2016, under its provisions; it failed to allow other Flight Attendants to do trades on other various dates as well.

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 (2.5 points) 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.:  36-99-2-3-17-Violation §30.A.3.c. Failure to Pay for Lodging for Recurrent Training. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 30.A.3.c. [Reserve/Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to pay for a Flight Attendant’s lodging when she came to Seattle to attend required Recurrent Training.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-52-17-Violation of §§11.H.3.b & 11.H.4 JCTE Denying Unlimited Trading of Reserve Days Due to Classification as a Reserve Block Split.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §§11.H.3.b & 11.H.4 [Reserve:  Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades/Reserve Day/Blocks], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system denied unlimited trading of reserve days pursuant to §11.H.4 due to JCA incorrectly classifying such trade as a reserve block split pursuant to §11.H.3.b.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-54-17-Violation of §23.A.1 Flight Attendants Incurring a 3% Fee for Online Payments to COBRA Management Services.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §23.A.1 [Insurance Benefits:  Flight Attendant Insurance Plans], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when for the convenience of the Company it used a third-party vendor to administer collection of healthcare premiums for Flight Attendants on leaves of absence; and the Company allowed their third-party vendor to charge the Flight Attendants a 3% fee for online payments to COBRA Management Services (CMS).

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.:  36-99-63-17 Violation of §11.C.3.c & §12.E.1.c-d Withholding Sequences From Open Time. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.C.3.c [Reserve: Classifications of Reserves/number of Extended Days (ER) and Conversion to ER/ER Conversion Contactability] & §12.E.1.c-d [Exchange of Sequences:  Open Time], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it removed pairings from Open Time and placed them on Reserve Flight Attendants’ lines for more than 15 minutes, outside of the time period 2pm-6pm, and hid the pairings from view on the Reserves’ schedules until the Reserves became available for contact or Extended Reserve (ER) conversion.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-64-17 Violation of §27.P.1.f-h Company Business Flight Pay Loss.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §27.P.1.f-h [General-Association:  Company Business Flight Pay Loss (CB)/Company Meetings], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it requested Flight Attendants attend an Inflight Announcement Focus Group on or about August 7, 2017, without compensating for company meeting pay nor the five percent (5%) override and “A” pay, and without regard to contractual duty day applications; alternatively it provided non-negotiated compensation.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-137-17-Violation of §19.A.1.a Failure to Conduct a Full Investigation with Union Representation and Contractual Pay Provisions.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1.a [Grievance Procedures:  Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-10-16 [Mandatory Attendance Counseling Violation Section 32], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related section of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about September 1, 2017, it issued approximately 80 Confirmation of Oral Warnings and/or Written Warnings via certified mail without performance supervisors first conducting an investigation, issuing an actual oral warning and/or providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions.  See Grievances Recently Granted by Management for information on related disciplinary grievances.

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.:  36-99-2-205-17 Violation of §19.A.1.a Failure to Conduct a Full Investigation with Union Representation and Contractual Pay Provisions.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1.a [Grievance Procedures:  Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about November 7, 2017, and November 8, 2017, it issued approximately 41 Confirmation of Oral Warnings via certified mail without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation, issuing an actual oral warning and/or providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-104-18 Violationof §19.A.1. Imprecise Charges and Failure to Conduct a Full Investigation with Union Representation and Contractual Pay Provisions.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1. [Grievance Procedures: Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 3-5, 2018, it issued approximately 103 confirmations of oral warning (I-6s) with inaccurate information and imprecise charges via certified mail without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation, issuing an actual oral warning and/or providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-109-18-Violation of §32 Attendance Policy.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 32.C.1.a. and Addendum to Section §32 question #6 [Attendance Policy], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargain Agreement when on December 21, 2017, it issued 3 points for a no show without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation for contractual performance provisions resulting in a Flight Attendant receiving a no show for an unapproved trade placed on her schedule without mutual consent. In the spirit of the Attendance Policy it is important to note the Attendance Policy is not about finding fault with anyone.  It is a tracking system to show whether or not you were at work when you were scheduled to be there.  In this case the Flight Attendant was not aware of the scheduling obligation placed on her line by another Flight Attendant.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-116-18-Violation of §10.J.4 Bidding Timelines.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 10.J.4 [Scheduling:  Bid Packets and Bidding Timelines], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about March 13, 2018, management re-opened its Preferential Bidding System (PBS), NavBlue, for a full bid re-award for April 2018 because it was not programmed to match the bid “duty on” preference on the new web application user interface.  However, due to system limitations the re-award required the PBS to reopen which allowed access for Flight Attendants to submit new bids after the contractual bid submission deadline.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-120-18-Violation of §32.C.1 Attendance No Shows.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.1 [Attendance Policy:  Attendance Policy Definitions/No Show], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when due to a no show it assigned three (3) attendance points to a Flight Attendant for a trip in February 2018.

Grievance No.:  36-18-2-121-18-Violation of §32 Attendance Policy.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.1.a and Addendum to Section §32 question #6 [Attendance Policy], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on March 5, 2018, it issued to a Flight Attendant a no show with three (3) attendance points for a trip picked up on his schedule without his knowledge.  It is important to note the Attendance Policy is not about finding fault with anyone; it is a tracking system to show whether or not you were at work when you were scheduled to be there.

Grievance No.:  36-35-2-122-18-Violation of AFA VX LOA Virgin America Flight Attendant Commuter Policy.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Virgin America Work Rules (WR), AFA VX Letter of Agreement: Virgin America Flight Attendant Commuter Policy (9.14.17), and any applicable sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, when on or about March 18, 2018, it denied non-probationary Flight Attendants from class hire date July 10, 2017, a Stuff Happens Pass (SHP), while it allowed other Flight Attendants from the same class the ability to use the pass.  This is in contradiction to the WR which state, “a SHP is given at 90 days after initial employment and available for use once the Flight Attendant passes probation.”

Grievance 36-99-2-129-18 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement: Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Additional Provisions (October 2017) and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on April 27, 2018, it failed to follow the ASAP provisions and suspended a Flight Attendant.  The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to disciplinary actions.  Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

Grievance No. 36-99-2-132-18 Violation of §19.A.1 Disciplinary Timeline.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1 [Grievance Procedures: Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when in May 2018 it disciplined Flight Attendants outside of twelve (12) days from the date the Company reasonably had knowledge of the incident giving rise to the disciplinary action in direct contrast to contractual language and long standing past practice.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-133-18 Violation of §19.A.1 Failure to Conduct a Full Investigation with Union Representation, Contractual Pay Provisions and Violation of Timeline.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1. [Grievance Procedures:  Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about May 30, 2018, it untimely issued approximately 154 confirmations of oral warning and/or written warnings (I-6s) via certified mail without providing adequate notice of the training required, without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation, without issuing an actual oral warning and/or without providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions; such discipline was issued for failing to complete Computer Based Training (CBT).

Grievance No.  36-99-2-135-18 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement:  Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Additional Provisions (October 2017) and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on March 21, 2018, it failed to follow the ASAP provisions and issued an oral warning to a Flight Attendant.  The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to disciplinary actions.  Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

Grievance No.  36-99-2-136-18 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement:  Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Additional Provisions (October 2017) and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on February 27, 2018, it failed to follow the ASAP provisions and issued an oral warning to a Flight Attendant.  The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to disciplinary actions.  Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

Grievance No.  36-99-2-137-18 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement:  Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Additional Provisions (October 2017) and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on February 27, 2018, it failed to follow the ASAP provisions and issued an oral warning to a Flight Attendant and removed pay from her.  The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to disciplinary actions.  Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”  Additionally, while the Company did render her discipline moot since it added an IMD loaner program after the fact, it failed to pay protect her for their failure to not have a loaner program initially.

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Linda Christou, Lisa Pinkston, Terry Taylor, Mario de’Medici, Melissa Osborne, Tim Green, Brice McGee; and MEC Grievance Chairperson, Stephanie Adams