This message is for pre-merger Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants

Your AFA Alaska 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.  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 and grievances that have been recently resolved.

Recent and Upcoming Arbitration/Mediation

Arbitration	October 11, 2017	Flight Attendant disciplinary case
Arbitration	November 21, 2017	Flight Attendant disciplinary case
Mediation	January 22, 2018	Contractual issue
Arbitration	January 31, 2018	Contractual issue
Arbitration	February 21, 2018	Flight Attendant disciplinary case
Arbitration	March 8, 2018	Flight Attendant disciplinary case

Recently Settled Grievances/Mediations

Arbitration Scheduled for September 13, 2017— Grievance No.:  36-99-2-50-17-Violation of §10.X.9 Meals While Deadheading on Alaska Air Group Flights.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.X.9 [Scheduling: Deadhead], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to provide a deadheading Flight Attendant with one (1) complimentary meal on board any flight when there is a food option available for purchase on Alaska Air Group flights operated by Horizon Air, (QX), SkyWest Airlines (OO) and Virgin America (VX).  Addendum: The provisions of this Agreement will be extended to pre-merger Virgin America Flight Attendants, and reimbursement will occur using the appropriate pre-merger Virgin America pay request process above until such pay process has been migrated to Alaska Airlines.

Details:  Effective January 1, 2018, Flight Attendants who deadhead on QX and/or OO, will receive $5.00 in lieu of a complimentary meal, if food was available for purchase on such flight.  Flight Attendants must submit an activity claim form showing the date of the flight, the flight number and the city pairs.

Flight Attendants who deadhead on VX (Airbus aircraft) will receive one complimentary food item if one is available for purchase, just like when deadheading on AS (Boeing aircraft) flights. 

Arbitration Scheduled for January 31, 2018—Grievance No.:  36-99-2-40-16-Violation of §15.E.2 & §15.M Parental Leave of Absence.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.E.2 & §15.M [Parental Leaves of Absence], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow a Flight Attendant to utilize sick leave or vacation while on a parental leave of absence.

Details:  Management agrees that section 15.M of the CBA allows Flight Attendants to choose to coordinate sick/vacation pay with both a maternity and parental leave.  At one point in time, management interpreted the coordination of the leave provision to require a Flight Attendant to use sick pay and/or vacation pay and short-term disability (STD) benefits at the same time.  In that case, a non-birth parent would not be able to coordinate benefits because he or she would not have STD benefits.  However, after reviewing negotiation notes and discussing the issue with management, the coordination language as written does not require simultaneous use of both benefits.

Mediation Scheduled for January 22, 2018—Payroll Issues.  AFA and the Company mediated seven outstanding payroll issues and agreed upon the following resolutions:

1. An AFA payroll representative position will be established. This person will shadow payroll for a short period of time and will be responsible for reviewing Flight Attendant activity claim forms and other pay claims and working with payroll to ensure they are processed accurately.  The position will phase out after the Company implements new payroll software with a least six months’ transition after implementation of the new system (and at that time only by mutual agreement of AFA and the Company).  The Company will fund all flight pay loss to cover the position.  The positon will be filled by a candidate selected by the MEC, but feedback provided by the Manager of Crew Pay will be considered in the selection process.
2. Lineholders picking reserve days will always be paid the greater of the assignment or 5 TFP per day for the reserve day, evaluated on a day-for-day basis. This also applies to any days a Reserve picks up on day off that put her/him above original line value.  Also, lineholders will be paid 1 TFP above guarantee if a reserve day is converted to ER and they are subsequently not used.
3. JCTE is not paying the greater of actual or scheduled for trips scheduled to release after midnight but that subsequently release prior to midnight. This seems to happen mostly when the original trip contains minimum pay rules (MPRs). AFA is requesting that JCTE be programmed so that the value of the trip does not drop below the original value.
4. The Company will request that Jeppesen allow crew members to see rosters going back three months from current month, as well as the current and upcoming months. This is a core change to JCTE programming that will take time to implement.  The Company will post an alert on inflight website notifying Flight Attendants that a roster is scheduled to drop off so that they may print or download the roster.  For the first six months, notification will also be sent to all Flight Attendants by company email.
5. JCTE is incorrectly applying and/or removing minimum pay rules (MPRs) on trips that have been split at a SIP point. The Company will investigate whether this issue has been fixed by the latest release of the program.
6. Multiple JCTE programming errors have resulted in scheduling errors and other payroll issues. AFA believes appropriate resolution of these errors is addressed in section 10.W of the CBA.  Many errors are due to discrepancies in value of the trip between the bid packet and values listed in the JCTE system.  If a Flight Attendant submits an activity claim form to recover a difference in trip value due to a scheduling error, payroll will pay Flight Attendants the value requested on Activity Claim Form.  Activity Claim Forms will not be disputed by management if Flight Attendants provide a screen shot showing the TFP value being requested.  If a screen shot is not provided, the Company reserves the right to research the underlying error and recover any overpayment form the Flight Attendant.  This research must be completed, and a decision reached, within 90 days of the pay date in dispute.
7. The Company will report back to AFA within four weeks on their position on disputed pyramiding pay issues.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-6-15- Incorrect Assessment of a No Show.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 32 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it incorrectly assessed a No Show to a Flight Attendant on November 30, 2014.

Details:  The company removed the No Show for the affected Flight Attendant, and put out a bulletin on December 27, 2017, reminding Flight Attendants that if they are on a turn or the last day of a multiday sequence and if they believe the last flight of their sequence is cancelled or will be cancelled, then they must have their release confirmed by Crew Scheduling.   

Grievances Filed and Awaiting a Response from Management

None

Grievances Recently Granted by Management

Grievance Nos.:  36-18/19/30/39-1-66-17-71-17 & 73-17-136-17 & 138-17-150-17 and 152-17- Confirmation of Oral Warnings, Written Warnings and 1 Day Suspensions issued to 84 Flight Attendants for Failing to Complete CBT by or on August 30, 2017.  These grievances allege the Company’s Violation of issuing without just cause confirmation of oral warnings, written warning and suspensions for failing to complete CBT.

Details:  The company rendered these grievances moot by the fact that it is impossible to comply with section 19.A.3 of the CBA, and therefore the discipline will be removed from the individual Flight Attendant’s file.     

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-204-17 Violation of §28.F.6 Failing to Evenly Distribute Sequences in ONT.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §28.F.6 [Domiciles:  Co-Terminals], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its December 2017 Flight Attendant bid packet for co-terminal Ontario (ONT) did not provided sequences on December 1^st-11^th, but only on 12^th-31^st, thereby not evenly distributing flying through the month.

Details:  The planners added a checkpoint for the optimizer runs to see if a similar issue occurs preventing the even distribution.  If they see the similar issue, they will override the optimizer and force the layover and/or longer trips to get the even distribution.  At this time, there are not any options to automate.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-208-17-Violation of §11.G.4 Compensation for Picked Up Reserve Days.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.G.4 [Reserve:  Reserve Compensation/Picking Up Reserve Day(s)], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to properly compensate Flight Attendants who picked up reserve days by the contractual day-by-day basis, regardless if the days picked up were consecutive or separate.

Details:  This was resolved in the payroll mediation session conducted on January 22, 2018.

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.:  36-99-2-15-15- 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 ½) 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 Violation of §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.

Questions or More Information

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact a member of your Local Grievance Committee.

In Solidarity,

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

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants

Social Media

AFA has noticed an increase in discipline derived from social media postings.  Please be responsible with your postings to protect yourself.  Even if you think your settings are private, posts are still making their way to supervisors—sometimes from other Flight Attendants.  Familiarize yourself with the Company’s social media policy so as not to put yourself at risk of possible discipline.  You can find a summary of this policy at http://splash.alaskasworld.com/documents/social_media_policy.asp (Alaska sign-on required).

Co-Worker Concerns

If you experience a concern or conflict with a co-worker, please contact your Employee Assistance Program (EAP)/Professional Standards Committee rather than management.  EAP/Professional Standards Committee Members are fellow Flight Attendants who receive special training on resolving these issues.  If the concern goes directly to management, it will almost always lead to discipline/termination for your fellow Flight Attendant.

You can always find Professional Standards contact information on the EAP/Professional Standards Committee page of the AFA Alaska website.

Union Representation

You are entitled to AFA representation when you have a discussion or meeting with management and the possibility of discipline exists for you, another Flight Attendant or another employee. If a supervisor contacts you, you have a right to ask, “Could this conversation result in discipline?”  If so, we recommend that you tell the supervisor that you would like an AFA representative before having any further discussion.  The supervisor should provide you with the name and phone number for your Local Executive Council (LEC) President.  Regardless of whether there is a possibility of discipline, you can always contact your Local Grievance Committee for AFA representation.  You can find contact information for your Local Grievance Committee on the AFA Alaska website.

Representation While on Probation

Probationary Flight Attendants may also ask for an AFA representative to be present in a supportive (non-representational) role.  Again, if you are asked to provide a written statement or account of events, you are always entitled to confer with an AFA representative prior to doing so; this is also true for probationary Flight Attendants.

Requests by Supervisors for Supporting Documentation

Recently, AFA has noticed an uptick in management requesting additional information to help support statements provided by Flight Attendants during investigatory meetings.  These requests by supervisors have included credit card or bank statements, phone or messaging records, and names/contact information of non-employees (babysitters, roommates, or others).

If at any time a supervisor or manager asks a Flight Attendant for additional documentation such as the items mentioned above, you should decline the request and contact a Grievance Committee Member or LEC Officer immediately.

DOT Drug Testing

Testing on Layovers

The Company has recently increased the amount of drug testing that is being conducted after completing a duty period mid-sequence/on layovers.  They are required to provide transportation to/from the hotel on a layover.  Drug abatement should be pre-arranging additional transportation for the Flight Attendant as they know they are going to be conducting the test in advance.

Proposed Changes to Drug Testing

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a notice that it is proposing to add four commonly prescribed medications to its testing program.  These 4 medications fall under a category of drugs known as opioids.   They include Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone , Oxycodone, and Oxymorphone.  The new DOT rule is projected to take effect sometime after October 1, 2017.  You can find more information about the proposed changes in a July 13 AFA communication entitled IMPORTANT: Changes To Airline Drug Testing.

Trip Trading

The Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system continues to experience programming challenges.  One ongoing issue with the system is the inability for Flight Attendants to see their own trip trade/grab post in the trip pool.  Because Flight Attendants cannot see their posted grabs or trades, sometimes the trips are unintentionally posted in the wrong trade classification (trade v. grab) with no way to verify that the post is incorrect.

Please note if a trip is posted for trade with no comments, common sense would dictate that it was likely intended to be posted as a grab.  If there is a question, please be considerate of your fellow Flight Attendants and reach out via phone or email before making a trade.

Questions?

For further questions, contact one of your LEC Officers.  Contact information for your LEC Officers can be found on your Local Council page of the AFA Alaska website.

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 Committee Chairperson Stephanie Adams