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 two 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.  

Subject of Most Recent Discipline

• Theft.  Removing anything from the aircraft other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food removed will result in termination.  
• 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.  
• 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 FA is in base for her/his RAP period.  If not, they will terminate on a first offense.
• 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 being used for researching whether commuting
• 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.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

Recent Contractual Arbitration Awards

None

Recent Grievance Settlements

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.   

Details:  

1. On or about August 7, 2017, approximately 24-30 Flight Attendants attended a Flight Attendant announcement focus group.  The above-referenced grievance was filed on their behalf.   The names of the Flight Attendants are not currently known. The Company will exercise all avenues to identify them  If they become known at any time, each of those Flight Attendants will be paid 4 TFP for their attendance at a work event.  
2. On a go forward basis, the Company will follow the best practice of alerting AFA prior to publicizing work and/or volunteer opportunities to the Flight Attendants.  The Company will inform AFA whether the Company will compensate Flight Attendants who attend the event, or if the event is intended as a volunteer opportunity only.  If the parties disagree, AFA may file a grievance based on that event.   

Grievances Recently Mediated 

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.  

Details:

1. When a Flight Attendant applies for a medical leave, the Company will process all such leaves according to the same criteria, regardless of the requested length of such leave. 
2. FMLA will be granted if all applicable requirements are met. If the leave qualifies for FMLA, FMLA and contractual medical leave will run concurrently to the extent required by law. 
3. If the Flight Attendant otherwise meets the requirements for having a serious health condition but the condition is not expected to meet the minimum number of days of incapacity as required by the FMLA definition of continuing treatment in 29 CFR § 825.115(a), the Company will grant a contractual medical leave. 
4. If the Flight Attendant has a serious health condition as defined by the FMLA or by Paragraph 3 but does not qualify for FMLA for any other reason (e.g., the Flight Attendant has exhausted their FMLA; the Flight Attendant does not have enough qualifying hours for FMLA, etc.), the Flight Attendant will be granted a contractual medical leave. 
5. If Matrix (or successor leave administrator) denies a contractual medical leave because the Flight Attendant does not supply adequate medical information to determine if the Flight Attendant has a serious health condition, the Company will review the request for a medical leave under Section 15.C.1 of the collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and either grant the leave or exercise its rights under Section 17 of the CBA. 

Grievances Recently Granted by Management 

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. 

Details:  As June 15, 2021, I am amending the prior grievance response on behalf of the Company. The prior grievance response dated March 10, 2017, is still accurate with respect to the Company’s position as of today, except for one small caveat. The caveat is as follows – if a Flight Attendant makes it known to the Company at the time of the short sick call that unusual circumstances related to their FMLA qualifying medical condition occurred such that they couldn’t have reasonably complied with the normal two-hour notice requirement for their sick call, the company will evaluate that information. If Employee Medical Relations determines that the unusual circumstances are consistent with the Flight Attendant’s FMLA qualifying medical condition, the Company will reduce the point value of the short sick call to zero. This is consistent with 29 C.F.R. 302(d) which requires employees on FMLA to “comply with an employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave, absent unusual circumstances.” This small portion of grievance 36-99-2-1-17 is now sustained; however, the rest of grievance 36-99-2-1-17 is still denied for the original reasons dated March 10, 2017. 

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.

Details:  As of today’s, date [June 18, 2021], I am amending the prior grievance response on behalf of the Company and sustaining the violation of §11.E.4.d [Violation of Reserve Assignment List Order]. The parties continue to work the issue through a mutually agreeable manual workaround that has been implemented and the “Known Crew Access Issues” document. 

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.  

Details: One TFP for two Flight Attendants who released after 4pm.

Grievances Recently Withdrawn

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 5^th Computer Based Training for Flight Attendants to complete for 2020.  Prior to adding the 5^thCBT, it issued Quarter 1 CBT, training videos CBT, Quarter 2 CBT and Quarter 3 CBT.  

Grievances Recently Filed and Awaiting Management Response

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.

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. 

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.

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

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.

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.

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^th 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.:  36-99-2-159-17-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.:  36-99-2-207-20-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.:  36-99-2-384-20-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.