Master Executive Council (MEC)

• AFA has previously communicated several times regarding the Supreme Court ruling on Bernstein v. Virgin America, the potential impact, and how our perspective differs from that of management.
• To clarify, AFA did not initiate this lawsuit but did file an amicus brief in 2020 in support of upholding the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on the case. AFA has been and remains ready to negotiate solutions but will not agree to categorically undermine the rights of our members as it applies to benefits under state law.
• AFA International will be hosting a virtual union meeting on Wednesday, July 20^th to discuss the facts about how the ruling will affect Flight Attendants in California.

Alaska Airlines management hosted a series of webcast sessions last week for the Inflight division to discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling on Bernstein v. Virgin America (re: CA meal & rest breaks) and its potential impact

As previously communicated, AFA has a very different perspective than management. 

• Click here for “Part 1” (AFA Alaska – July 8, 2022) >
• Click here for “Supreme Court Ruling on Bernstein v. Virgin America” (AFA Alaska – June 30, 2022) >
• Click here for “Meals & Rest – Don’t Exempt, Negotiate” (AFA International – May 27, 2022) >

AFA’s formal involvement in Bernstein v. Virgin America

AFA did not file this lawsuit. Bernstein was initiated years ago by several Legacy Virgin America (L-VX) Flight Attendants prior to the merger between Virgin America and Alaska Airlines. The case then wound its way through the court system for years. In January 2020, AFA filed an amicus brief* (technically a brief of amici curiae*) in support of upholding the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on Bernstein. 

Click here for AFA’s Ninth Circuit amicus brief in Bernstein v. Virgin America >

* In American law, amici curiae (Latin for “friends of the court”) typically refers to interested parties who request to provide legal submissions so as to offer relevant alternative or additional perspective regarding the matters in dispute; the legal submission by the amici curiae is often called an amicus brief.

A path forward

AFA has been and remains ready to negotiate solutions but will not agree to categorically undermine the rights of our members as it applies to benefits under state law. However, there is potential for targeted legislative fixes or clarifications to California meal and rest requirements that do not neatly fit into the unique circumstances of Flight Attendant duties on commercial aircraft. AFA remains willing to work with the airline industry and other labor stakeholders to achieve a mutually agreeable path forward.

Get the Facts: Bernstein and California Meal and Rest Break

AFA International will hold a virtual union meeting for Flight Attendants only on Wednesday, July 20th at 2 PM Pacific time. Hear from AFA International President Sara Nelson, AFA General Counsel Joe Burns, and other experts on the facts surrounding the Bernstein case and what it means for Flight Attendants in California.

Click here to RSVP

Master Executive Council (MEC)

• Alaska Airlines management held a series of webcast sessions for Flight Attendants to discuss possible impacts of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Bernstein v. Virgin America case.
• AFA believes that management’s intent of the sessions was to motivate Flight Attendants to pressure lawmakers to pass laws that exempt the airline industry from applying worker-friendly state and local labor laws to flight crew.
• At the same time, AFA is willing to work with the industry, other labor unions, and additional stakeholders to address the challenges presented by California meal & rest break laws through legislative clarification and/or alternate solutions.

AFA Alaska has a very different perspective than that being offered by management

Alaska Airlines management hosted a morning and afternoon webcast session yesterday for the Inflight division about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision on Bernstein v. Virgin America, and AFA Alaska leadership participated in both sessions. The webcasts mainly focused on the implications of the ruling for California meal and rest break laws and management’s plans to comply with the law. Not surprisingly, AFA has a very different perspective than that being offered by management. 

Why such dire warnings about potential base downsizing or closures?

In our opinion, it is extremely premature and unnecessarily anxiety-provoking of management to suggest that downsizing or closing California domiciles is anything but a worst-case scenario. The reality is that it’s anyone’s guess what actual compliance with the law will look like at this juncture, so why would management “go there” with such dire warnings about potential base downsizing or closures in California? Or to even go so far as to suggest that this may happen in Washington and/or Oregon in the future? 

Management’s ulterior motives – and why AFA opposes these efforts

Management is citing transparency about the growing challenges of operating an airline in certain localities as “the” reason. Coincidentally, those same localities have very worker-friendly labor laws on the books. Although management’s desire for transparency may indeed be a factor, the MEC believes there is also an underlying ulterior motive: to motivate you – especially CA-, OR-, and WA-based FAs – to pressure your legislators to pass laws that completely exempt airlines from applying state and/or local laws to flight crew. Management was certainly keen to encourage Flight Attendants to lobby their legislators accordingly during yesterday’s webcasts!

From our point of view, if Alaska Airlines and the other Airlines for America (A4A) management groups had their way, then only federal laws and collective bargaining agreements would apply to flight crew. Although we acknowledge that management has some legitimate concerns, those concerns do not justify sweeping general exemptions from all state and local laws for all airline flight crew. Consequently, AFA will continue to oppose management’s efforts to categorically undermine worker’s rights laws in this regard.

Where AFA and management are potentially aligned

However, AFA is not opposed to the airline industry seeking reasonable and specific waivers or variances to California meal & rest break laws where applicable. AFA has also previously signaled our willingness to work with the airline industry and other labor stakeholders on potential legislative clarifications and/or fixes to problematic provisions in the California meal & rest break laws. AFA remains willing to do so. 

Labor and management have a mutual interest in maintaining a heathy airline industry and to not unnecessarily disrupt the lives of our flight crews. By working together, we are confident that all parties can achieve a mutually agreeable path forward. 

The MEC will communicate more details in Part 2 next week.

Master Executive Council (MEC)

• AFA Alaska leadership is participating in the Company’s webcasts today about California meal and rest break laws.
• It is extremely premature and unnecessarily anxiety-provoking to suggest that downsizing or closing California domiciles is anything but a worst-case scenario.
• Management is mischaracterizing AFA’s involvement in the Bernstein v. Virgin America case.  The MEC will communicate more details tomorrow after coordinating with the AFA International officers and with AFA Legal.

Alaska Airlines management is hosting a morning and afternoon webcast session today for the Inflight division about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision on Bernstein v. Virgin America, the implications for California meal and rest break laws, and management’s plans to comply with the law. AFA Alaska leadership is participating in both sessions and based on this morning’s session alone we will definitely share a different perspective with our members than that being offered by management. 

In the meantime, we offer these initial observations/opinions: 

(1) It is extremely premature and unnecessarily anxiety-provoking of management to suggest that downsizing or closing California domiciles is anything but a worst-case scenario when the reality is that it’s anyone’s guess what actual compliance with the law will look like; and 

(2) Management is mischaracterizing AFA’s involvement in the Bernstein v. Virgin America case.

The MEC will communicate more details tomorrow after coordinating with the AFA International officers and with AFA Legal.