AFA Alaska

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA Alaska Airlines Master Executive Council

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Archives for grievance

COVID-19 Schedule Changes

The drastic changes to April flying have resulted in an unprecedented number of ongoing systemwide disruptions to Flight Attendant schedules: pre-cancellations, flight time changes (“re-times”), flight routing changes, et cetera. Flight Attendants are often given revised flying with completely different flight numbers and/or flight routing and initial report times that are many hours earlier than their original report time.

Crew Access notifications

Multiple ‘bundled’ notifications

Multiple ‘bundled’ Crew Access notifications have made the situation even more confusing. Flight Attendants are being inadvertently stuck with unwanted alternative assignments because they acknowledged a Crew Access notification for pay protection. However, they later realize that same “good news” notification was bundled with other notifications for undesirable alternate assignments such as re-times reporting way earlier than originally scheduled. Acknowledging Crew Access notifications is “all” or “nothing.” Consequently, AFA filed a contractual grievance on this issue yesterday.

Confusing contractual citations

Additionally, AFA has become aware that Crew Access notifications have included confusing references to what appear to be contractual citations that are not related to our contract. AFA has confirmed these citations are from the pilot contract, and we have addressed this concern with management. Pilot crew schedulers have been advised by management to stop including the contractual references in the notifications effective immediately.

Disputing re-times and reassignments

AFA filed Grievance No. 36-99-2-45-17 “Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes” regarding re-times between 15 and 21 minutes back in June 2017 (click here for the July 2017 Grievance Report >). Management sustained the grievance (meaning they agreed the contract was violated) shortly thereafter in July 2017. However, AFA and management disagreed with the remedy (i.e. the “fix”) for the violation, and we have been in negotiations over the remedy since then.

Unfortunately, other developments and shifting priorities continually complicated our efforts: ongoing Crew Access violations, payroll issues, a merger, Open Time negotiations, Recurrent Training and management leadership changes all along the way. We know this sounds like AFA leadership is making excuses, but we want to be transparent about how long we’ve known about the issue, and why it’s still not resolved.

In the meantime, AFA also added several other contractual disputes related to reassignments to the Alternate Dispute Resolution (i.e. pre-grievance) process. The parties have continued to negotiate over a long-term remedy to all the reassignment-related disputes, including re-times. We had been making more progress towards a mutually acceptable solution lately…but then the COVID-19 pandemic happened. The parties will continue to work towards a long-term resolution to the disputes, but AFA and management agree that Flight Attendants need at least a temporary solution in place now.

COVID-19 Schedule Changes Letter of Agreement

Starting tonight at midnight Pacific Time, AFA and management have agreed to temporarily administer all Flight Attendant schedule changes that occur in advance of the day of departure of a sequence just like pre-cancellations under Section 10.S [Pre-Cancellations] with the exception of §10.S.1.c (re: cancellations reported between 8pm and midnight the day prior). This would include flight time changes (i.e. re-times), flight routing changes, etc. This temporary letter of agreement is not a permanent change to contract and will be in effect through the end of May.

Click here for the COVID-19 Schedule Changes LOA (04/17/2020-05/31/2020) >

Summary of provisions

  • Re-times, flight routing changes and other schedule changes that occur in advance of the day of departure of a sequence will be treated just like pre-cancellations except under §10.S.1c. All scheduling obligations and scheduling and pay protection options pursuant to §10.S except for §10.S.1.c apply to pre-cancellations as well as re-times, flight routing changes, et cetera. This includes but is not limited to the following:
    • The Company may offer an alternate assignment to open positions that may include multiple sequences on the same day(s) as the original assignment. The Flight Attendant may (1) accept the alternate assignment or (2) decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection.    
    • However, if the alternate assignment contains a check-in that is more than two hours earlier and/or a release time that is more than two hours later than the original assignment (“footprint + 2 hours”), then the Flight Attendant may decline and agree to call Crew Scheduling between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the night prior to the day of departure of the original assignment.
    • If the Flight Attendant calls back Crew Scheduling between 6 PM and 8 PM local domicile time the night prior to the day of departure of the original sequence, then the alternate assignment offered must operate within the check-in and release times (“exact footprint”) at domicile of the original sequence. If no such alternate assignment exists, then the Flight Attendant will be pay protected and relieved of further scheduling obligation.
  • “I didn’t mean to acknowledge the Crew Access scheduling notification and/or I don’t want the new assignment” provision
    • A Flight Attendant who acknowledges a Crew Access notification for an unwanted schedule change occurring in advance of the day of departure of the sequence may re-establish her/his scheduling obligations and scheduling and pay protection options under §10.S [Pre-Cancellations].
    • The Flight Attendant must call Crew Scheduling prior to 6 PM local domicile time on the day prior to the day of departure of the sequence in order to be eligible for this provision.
  • Extension of the “Pre-Cancellations Due To COVID-19 Schedule Changes” LOA (executed 3/28/2020) through May 31, 2020
    • Please do not call Crew Scheduling until the day prior to the day of departure of the sequence.
    • You may waive pay protection and be relieved of further scheduling obligation by emailing Crew Scheduling (“CrewSked FADesk” <CrewSked.FADesk@alaskaair.com>) no later than one day prior to the date of departure of the sequence.

We know that is a lot of information for one update. The Master Executive Council (MEC) hopes this temporary LOA will provide at least some short-term relief to all the confusion and disruption caused by the COVID-19 schedule changes. As your direct representative on the MEC, your LEC President is available to answer questions that you have about the LOA or the information above. You can find contact information for your LEC President by clicking here. 

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Linda Christou, Matt Cook, Terry Taylor, Mario de’Medici, Melissa Osborne, Tim Green and Brice McGee

AFA Update – November 22, 2019

In This Edition

  • Changes to 2020 Recurrent Training
  • Violation of Cancellation of Open Time Trial and Back to Book Grievance Sustained
  • FINAL REMINDER: MEC Committee Chairperson & Appointed Position Interviews

Changes to 2020 Recurrent Training

Master Executive Council (MEC)

On Wednesday, November 20, management announced changes to how Recurrent Training (RT) will be conducted in 2020.  For many years, RT has been conducted in a single day and was supplemented by home-based study in the form of a workbook and, more recently, a computer-based training (CBT).  Based on new FAA guidance, management has determined that they are unable to contain all of the required elements of RT in a single day and will begin conducting RT as two full, 8-hour days of training in 2020.

Though this change is a shift in practice, it is intended to allow more time to address the necessary regulatory and safety components required by the FAA.  Management has also stated that they will be including some additional service-related content in RT including a follow-up module to the company’s latest Flight Path training held in 2018.

PBS Bidding Credit

Since the inception of PBS in 2007, Recurrent Training has always carried a credit of zero (0) toward PBS line awards.  This means in a bid month containing RT, PBS views RT as having a value of 0 TFP and builds your line accordingly.  Under the language in the collective bargaining agreement, RT carries a value of zero without mention as to the number of days the class itself covers.

We are happy to announce that your Master Executive Council (MEC) was able to reach an agreement with management to provide partial credit for RT for the purposes of line construction.  For RT 2020, the first day of RT will continue to credit toward your line in PBS at 0 TFP, but the second day will credit at the full value of 6 TFP.  During a month that you have RT, PBS will read the 6 TFP value for RT and credit that toward your line award accordingly.

Hotels

The MEC is calling on inflight management to “own safety” and “do the right thing” by providing each Flight Attendant with a hotel room during RT in 2020.  

During Transition Training (TT) in 2018, many of us experienced having to attend two full days of training and then deal with the associated logistics of braving multiple rush hour commutes in some of the worst cities for traffic in the nation.  Those who commute were left to fend for themselves and find a place to stay for the evening as TT did not allow for any possibility of same-day commuting.  Your AFA leaders received reports of exhaustion, fatigue, and stress from numerous Flight Attendants in relation to these and other factors from TT.  

These issues fresh in mind, your MEC is extremely disappointed and outraged to hear that management has refused to provide hotels for Flight Attendants between the two days of RT.  Even when not contractually required to do so, the Company has previously provided Flight Attendants with hotels during multi-day training activities such as Beyond Service in 2015.  Just as we are constantly told to use the “service framework” to assess each situation when dealing with passengers and make a decision accordingly, management has the opportunity to live up to their own expectations and do the same in this case.

The MEC is calling on inflight management to “own safety” and “do the right thing” by providing each Flight Attendant with a hotel room during RT in 2020.  Just like when we are out flying, we need a training environment that sets us up for success by allowing us to get proper rest and focus on safety.  The responsibility for providing this environment falls on the shoulders of management and it’s time for them to step up and act on the same values they expect us to live by every day that we come to work.

Questions?

If you have questions about the changes to Recurrent Training in 2020, please contact your LEC Officers.

Violation of Cancellation of Open Time Trial and Back to Book Grievance Sustained

Grievance Committee

On October 31, 2019, your MEC Grievance Committee filed grievance number 36-99-2-163-19, for the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 12.F.9.a [Exchange of Sequences: Open Time Trial], past practice, its sustained response to grievance 36-99-2-35-17 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on July 7, 2017, it sustained grievance number 36-99-2-35-17 (Violation of §12.F.9.a Cancellation of Open Time Trial and Back to Book); however it has continually failed to provide sufficient Information Technology (IT) resources for reverting to the Open Time System in place in the 2006-2010 Flight Attendant Agreement as modified by the arbitration award (AFA No. 36-99-2-18-11) [“Withholding Open Time” award]).

In summary, the Company sustained (admitted to the violation) the original grievance (number 36-99-2-35-17) and should have prioritized with IT to program the back to book language, but it did not.  Management has admitted that the current system stayed in place rather than prioritizing resources within IT to make the necessary programming changes to revert to the language outlined in Section 12 as back to book.   Since it failed to prioritize the IT resources, AFA filed the present grievance, which the Company also sustained.  

As a result of your MEC Grievance Committee filing the grievance, the Company is now making immediate efforts to program the back to book trading rules with IT.  The project kicked off on November 4, 2019, and IT is currently developing the technical requirements for the system to provide to Jeppesen by early January 2020.  Jeppesen will then be providing a timeline for implementation by mid to late January 2020.

As of right now, your MEC is presuming that we will have more information regarding Open Time back to book programming to pass along to you by late January 2020.

Questions?

Please feel free to contact your LEC President with any questions that you might have about this grievance or Open Time back to book programming.

FINAL REMINDER: MEC Committee Chairperson & Appointed Position Interviews

Master Executive Council (MEC)

As a reminder, the term for those currently serving in MEC Committee Chairperson roles and other appointed positions will end on December 31, 2019.  Your MEC, of which the six directly elected Local Executive Council (LEC) Presidents are voting members, will be conducting interviews for these positions during the December MEC meeting.  The October 4, 2019 AFA Update contained the initial announcement of these upcoming interviews including a list of positions, information about qualifications and duties, and a link to the online expression of interest form.  The deadline to submit an expression of interest is Monday, November 25, 2019 at 5 PM Pacific time.

If you have questions about MEC Committee Chairperson or MEC-level appointed positions or the interview process, please contact MEC Vice President Brian Palmer at brian.palmer@afaalaska.org.

AFA Update – August 2, 2019

In This Edition

  • Where Do My Dues Go?
  • MEC Human Rights Committee Chairperson Interviews
  • Withholding Trips from Open Time Grievance Settlement

Where Do My Dues Go?

AFA International Secretary-Treasurer’s Department

The Dues Pie Chart depicts where all funds at AFA are budgeted. About 80% of dues dollars are directly allocated to fund the work at each airline, i.e. Local Councils, Master Executive Councils, Negotiations, and System Board.  The remaining budgets at the International Office support Government Affairs, Air Safety, EAP, and Communications Departments, each of which provides expert services that are Flight Attendant focused and provide resources for the local leaders and committees of Flight Attendants at each airline. 100% of our dues dollars are allocated to priorities that provide Flight Attendant representation.

There are four distinct areas where dues money is spent:

1. Local and Airline-Specific

Each base has a Local Executive Council (LEC) with elected Officers who provide direct representation and deal with local grievances and other issues. These Local Officers will answer your phone calls and make sure member interests are represented in front of management. For example, in the event of discipline or a contract violation, Local Officers will address the issue where it happened and work to get swift resolution. Additionally, elected Master Executive Council (MEC) Officers provide representation at the corporate level. At both the LEC and MEC, there are committees that solve problems in areas such as safety, schedules, hotels, grievances, etc. These committees also enforce the contract specific to their area of expertise, produce newsletters, and participate in union meetings. The role of your LEC and MEC Officers and committee representatives at each airline is to ensure you are represented by Flight Attendants who know your job because they share it with you at your airline. AFA promotes this autonomy at each airline where your representatives, assisted by experts, negotiate with management and develop and maintain the relationship between airline management and the Union.

2. Negotiations

Bargaining for pay and working conditions is one of the core representation activities performed by the Union. We start with a membership survey, schedule meetings with management, conduct caucuses with the committee, develop contractual language, support membership engagement and information programs, and we work with AFA-CWA professional negotiators throughout the process including all direct negotiations/mediation with management. The end result is improved contractual language with higher pay, better working conditions, and improved benefits.

3. System Board (Grievances)

The first step in any grievance is to try to resolve the matter locally. Some airlines have negotiated an alternative dispute process for a faster, collaborative resolution. If that fails, then the final stage for resolution, whether disciplinary or contractual, is an appeal to a neutral arbitrator. An AFA-CWA attorney will work with our Grievance Committee to present our case to the neutral arbitrator. We defend the contracts we negotiate.

4. International Office Support

While your LEC is the face of the Union to local management and the MEC to corporate management, the International Office is the public persona and brand of the Union. Our presence and name recognition can legislate or improve federal regulations, remove obstacles from the bargaining table, better our position in negotiations and improve our experience on the job across the profession. The International Office maintains the professional staff of attorneys, negotiators, and other personnel that provide administration, accounting and membership services to members and elected leaders. We all work together to support the programs that encompasses our profession.

If you have any questions, please contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) Officers.

MEC Human Rights Committee Chairperson Interviews

With the recent introduction of the Human Rights Committee, the Master Executive Council (MEC) is seeking a Member in good standing to fill the position of MEC Human Rights Committee Chairperson. 

Background

The MEC Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee is responsible for leading the committee’s effort to promote activities that foster greater understanding of one another and the diversity of our membership in order to build the strength of our Union through our common struggles and goals rather than allowing others to divide us by our differences.

Additional Information from the MEC Policy Manual

1.         SCOPE

a.         The Human Rights Committee will build the strength of our Union through fostering understanding of our shared struggles and goals; building partnerships with progressive community allies; and taking action to promote the ideals of economic and social justice for all workers.

2.         POLICY/RESPONSIBILITIES

a.         The MEC Human Rights Committee shall consist of the MEC Human Rights Committee Chairperson and the Local Human Rights Committee Chairperson from each council.

b.         The Committee will actively work to educate Flight Attendants and the community about the strength of our diverse membership through the sharing of personal experiences and open dialog about racism and discrimination.

c.         The MEC Chairperson shall:

(i)         Work closely with the Government Affairs Committee to collaborate on items of mutual interest to both committees

(ii)        Work with other AFA committees as needed to accomplish assigned tasks and responsibilities

(iii)       Compose informational and educational articles of interest to the membership and provide them to the MEC Communications Chairperson to be included in MEC communications and posted to MEC electronic communications platforms

d.         The Committee shall:

(i)         Act in an advisory role to the MEC on matters related to human rights and worker’s rights

(ii)        Maintain an involvement in the human rights activities sponsored by local and central Labor Councils with which the MEC is affiliated

(iii)       Maintain an involvement in the CWA Women’s Committee and Committee on Civil Rights and Equity

(iv)       Maintain in involvement in AFL-CIO workplace constituency groups

Qualifications

  • Previous political, legislative, or community activist experience helpful
  • Knowledge of current political climate and issues affecting Flight Attendants and the labor movement
  • Ability to attend meetings as required, including occasionally being present in Seattle
  • Ability and willingness to participate in action events 
  • Ability to attend AFA International and other required training as needed
  • Strong computer skills.  Excellent working knowledge of Google email and Microsoft Office.
  • Strong written and verbal communication skills.  Ability to write communications, respond professionally to internal and external e-mail, prepare reports, and take meeting minutes.
  • Ability to meet deadlines and follow up on assigned tasks

Duties

  • Act on and follow through on directives as established in the AFA-CWA Constitution & Bylaws and AFA Alaska MEC Policy & Procedure Manual 
  • Represent the MEC with local and central Labor Councils
  • Coordinate MEC representation with the CWA Women’s Committee and Committee on Civil Rights and Equity.
  • Coordinate committee participation in action events
  • Correspond with the Local Human Rights Committee Chairpersons and MEC regularly to provide status updates.  Prepare and send a monthly committee report to the MEC.

Time Commitment and Flight Pay Loss Reimbursement

  • This position is eligible for Flight Pay Loss (FPL) reimbursement by AFA.  Union Business (UB) FPL is compensated at 0.75 TFP per hour when participating in pre-approved meetings or activities.
  • Time commitment is highly variable depending on the work to be completed each week and month. Workload will likely be higher when participating in activism related to key issues.  Most work can be accomplished remotely.  

Working Relationships

With The Human Rights Committee

Regular interaction with the Local Human Rights Committee Chairpersons and Local Human Rights Committee Members.

With The Master Executive Council             

This position reports to the Master Executive Council. The MEC executive sponsor for the committee is the MEC Vice President.

With AFA International

Occasional interaction with AFA-CWA International staff.

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

The MEC will hold interviews during the September MEC meeting on Tuesday, September 17.  Bid around the interview date or plan to arrange your schedule accordingly to accommodate.

Interested candidates should submit an expression of interest and resume online at https://forms.gle/bns2FHqC11PLe3889.  The deadline for submissions is 5 PM Pacific time on Tuesday, September 10.  After that time, MEC Secretary-Treasurer Linda Christou will contact qualified candidates to schedule a specific interview time.

Please note that in order to submit an expression of interest, you must have a Google account.  If you do not have a Google account, you can create one for free at https://accounts.google.com/signup.

Withholding Trips From Open Time Grievance Settlement

AFA reached a settlement with the Company prior to arbitration of grievance 36-99-2-63-17 Withholding Trips from Open Time.  We believe we achieved great benefits for our Reserve Flight Attendants in this settlement. The following are the terms of the settlement:

For a Reserve Flight Attendant who is on duty (e.g. on a flight), s/he can be converted to ER and assigned a trip if Crew Scheduling sends an email notifying of conversion and assignment (which the Reserve Flight Attendant is required to check upon completion of his/her sequence).

For a Reserve Flight Attendant who is on call and required to be contactable during her/his reserve availability period (RAP), s/he may be converted to ER in the following ways only:

  • Positive (person to person) contact by phone;
  • Crew Scheduling can send Crew Access notification for ER conversion to the Reserve Flight Attendant, and it must be accepted by the Reserve Flight Attendant prior to Crew Scheduling adding trip to the Reserve Flight Attendant’s line.  If the Reserve Flight Attendant doesn’t answer the phone, it is Crew Scheduling’s obligation to call the Reserve Flight Attendant.  If Crew Scheduling sends a Crew Access notification for ER conversion to the Reserve Flight Attendant, and it is not accepted by the Reserve Flight Attendant, and if Crew Scheduling does not call the Reserve Flight Attendant prior to the end of the RAP to advise of the ER conversion, then the Reserve Flight Attendant is no longer on call until her/his next RAP.  However, ER conversion counts towards the monthly maximum and for pay purposes.

For a Reserve Flight Attendant who is not required to be contactable (e.g. not on duty and not during her/his RAP or not on duty during her/his RAP but in ’silent rest’ during first nine hours domicile rest, 20:00-23:00 prior to the next RAP, etc.), s/he can be converted to ER with or without a trip assignment:

  • Must be positive contact by Crew Scheduling via phone or by Crew Access notification which may be sent out by Crew Scheduling no earlier than 20:00 the day prior to the conversion.
  • Reserve Flight Attendant is not required to answer the phone or acknowledge the notification from Crew Scheduling but is required to accept the assignment if contact is made.
  • Premium pay applies.  Crew Scheduling will add annotations stating the Reserve Flight Attendant was contacted outside her/his contactable period and s/he will be paid additional compensation as outlined in the CBA.
  • Reserve Flight Attendant will be contacted no more than one time during domicile rest (11:30)
  • Reserve Flight Attendant must receive 9 hours uninterrupted domicile rest or else premium pay applies (pyramids with other premiums, if applicable)
  • Crew Scheduling is not permitted to hold trips longer than 15 minutes as outlined in §12.E.1.d.  The process would not violate this section of the CBA

Crew Scheduling will no longer hide trips.  And an ER conversion cannot be rescinded once email and/or Crew Access (Crew Access) notification has been generated.

All currently employed L-AS Flight Attendants who were on Reserve from June 1, 2017 to present, and all currently employed L-VX Flight Attendants who were on Reserve from January 31, 2019 to present, will receive 1 TFP, paid above guarantee, if applicable, at today’s rate.   

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

Grievance 36-99-2-30-19 Violation of §28.G.2 Ground Commuting Policy

Management did not allow Flight Attendants to use the Ground Commuting Policy for the recent snowstorms

AFA filed Grievance 36-99-2-30-19 Violation of Section (§) 28.G.2 [Ground Commuting Policy] prior to close of regular business hours yesterday. This contractual grievance alleges the Company violated Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement §28.G.2 when management did not allow Flight Attendants to use the Ground Commuting Policy during the February 2019 Pacific Northwest snowstorms. Management’s stated reasoning for the denials is because apparently management does not consider snowstorm-related ground commuting failures to be unanticipated. 

AFA disagrees with management’s interpretation

AFA disagrees with management’s interpretation for all the reasons obvious to Flight Attendants. After AFA filed the grievance, AFA leadership requested that management provide notice to Flight Attendants by publicly disclosing its position on the issue. Management subsequently posted an alert on the World of Inflight homepage in response to that request.

The Master Executive Council (MEC) believes it was very short-sighted of management to deny Flight Attendant access to the ground commuting failure provisions for this weather event. A Flight Attendant who has experienced a ground commuting failure is contractually required to be utilized for other flying pursuant to the Commuter Policy recovery provisions in §28.G.3. How was it more beneficial to the operation to have Flight Attendants be granted Management Drops (§32.C.14) or charged with No Shows (§32.C.1)? Neither carries a subsequent scheduling obligation and Flight Attendants are assessed points for both under the Attendance Policy in Section 32. It’s a “lose, lose” for everyone.

Open a new ticket at the AFA Alaska Online Support Center for snowstorm-related concerns

AFA will be meeting with management in the near future to discuss various concerns related to the snowstorm operations. If you have any concerns related to the severe weather (e.g. transportation, hotels, irregular ops scheduling or pay inquiries, Attendance Policy points assessed as a result of ground commuting failures, et cetera), please open a new ticket at the AFA Alaska Online Support Center. Fill out the appropriate information, select “Feb 2019 Pacific NW Snowstorm” under the “Help Topic” dropdown menu and provide as much documentation as possible (including screenshots, pictures, etc.). We kindly request that tickets be submitted by 9am PT on Tuesday, February 19, so that AFA can present your concerns to management in a timely manner.

Be assured that AFA will continue advocating on behalf of our members and defending our contract!

In Solidarity,

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

MEC Grievance Update – Quarter 2, 2018

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 28thweek 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

Latest News

AFA Update – January 22, 2021

Leave a Comment

In This Edition Letters of Agreement and Memorandums of Understanding REMINDER: Reserve Availability & Commuting College Scholarship Opportunities Letters of Agreement and Memorandums of Understanding Grievance Committee Our Master Executive Council (MEC) occasionally enters into letters of agreement (LOAs) with management to address situations that were not anticipated or did not exist during contract negotiations.  The […]

Safety of Our Crews, Our Flights and Our Country

Leave a Comment

Safety of Our Crews, Our Flights and Our Country Safety Of Our Crews Recent events are potentially negatively impacting effective Crew Resource Management The Master Executive Council (MEC) feels compelled to address the potentially negative impact to effective Crew Resource Management (CRM) resulting from the events most affecting the country over the past year: the […]

Recurrent Training 2021

Recurrent Training 2021 Master Executive Council (MEC) + Inflight Training Committee + Air, Safety, Health and Security Committee (ASHSC) In This Edition Early Success Rates Look Promising COVID-19 Risk Mitigations Written Exam Practice Questions and Answers Adequate “Hands-On” Time Prior to Emergency Evacuation Evaluations Acceptable Deviations to Emergency Evacuation Commands Requalification Training (RQ) Early Success […]

AFA Alaska Negotiations Update – December 17, 2020

AFA Alaska Negotiations Update – December 17, 2020 Master Executive Council In This Edition Updated Contract Negotiations Timeline Negotiations Delayed Until September 1, 2021 Overview of the Railway Labor Act Updated Contract Negotiations Timeline 1st round Negotiating Committee interviews – March & April 2020 Full pay scale increase of 2.5% – December 17, 2020 – […]

AFA Update – December 11, 2020

In This Edition MEC Resolution on Gender Equality CALL CONGRESS: We’re Closer to #ReliefNow Than Ever Before Georgia Senate Runoff Election Community Resources for Those in Need MEC Resolution on Gender Equality Master Executive Council (MEC) AFA has long been a champion of equality both in and out of the workplace.  Over the course of many […]

Top Posts & Pages

News By Month

News By Category

Air Quality Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) AS/VX Merger Benefits Committee Committees Communications Committee Contract Contract 2014 Negotiations Blog Contract 2021 Council 15 SAN Council 18 LAX Council 19 SEA Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX EAP/Professional Standards Committee Featured Government Affairs Committee Grievance Committee Hotel Committee Human Rights Committee Industry News Inflight Service Committee Inflight Training Committee JNC Blog Latest News Local Councils Master Executive Council (MEC) 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?

The best way to stay connected with up-to-date AFA Alaska news and information is through a subscription to AFA Alaska emails!  Click the button below to sign up.  Already a subscriber?  You can make changes to your email by clicking below!
Sign Up