In the Matter of Arbitration Between__ 

 ) 

Melissa Chinery ) 

Sandra Lee ) RE: Article VII Charges

 ) Violations of APFA Constitution 

APFA Charging Party Members ) and APFA Policy Manual 

 (Plaintiff) ) 

 ) 

And ) 

 ) 

Robert Ross, Former APFA National ) 

President ) 

 ) 

APFA Charged Party Member ) 

 (Defendant) ) 

 ) 

__________________________________ 

Before: Alternate Article VII Arbitrator Ruben R. 

Armendariz

Place and Dates of Hearing: The Westin Irving Convention Center at Las 

Colinas, 400 West Las Colinas Boulevard, 

located in the City of Irving, Texas.

June 16, 2021, continued to November 17 and 18, 

2021 

Appearances:

For Charging Party Members: Melissa Chinery, Representative

(Plaintiff’s) Sandra Lee, Representative

 

For Charged Party Member: Kit Gomez Alba, Esq.

(Defendant) Gina Guidry, Representative

 Robert Ross, Representative

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 24 PageID 35
Exhibit C 2

INTRODUCTION

This is an Article VII Hearing that was heard at the Westin Irving Convention Center at 

Las Colinas, Irving, Texas on June 16, 2021 and continued to November 17 and 18, 2021. The 

arbitration hearing was transcribed by Carson Reporting & Associates. 

Charging Party Melissa Chinery and Sandra Lee, will be hereinafter referred to as the 

“Plaintiff.” Charged Party Robert Ross, will be hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant.”

Plaintiff presented for testimony Cathy Lukensmeyer, Erik Harris, Michael Trapp, John 

Nikides and Melissa Chinery. 

Defendant presented for testimony Casey Veloso, Anthony Thuriault and Robert Ross. 

All of these witnesses were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to be examined, and to 

be cross-examined. The parties were allowed to introduce evidence on the issues. Based on the 

entire record, my observation of the witnesses, examination of the evidence, exhibits presented, 

post-hearing briefs1 submitted, and arguments presented therein, this arbitrator makes the 

following findings and renders the following Discussion, Opinion, and Award. 

THE ISSUES

Plaintiff submits the issue to be addressed by the Alternate Article VII Arbitrator is stated 

as follows: 

Did Bob Ross, the Defendent herein violate the APFA Policy Manual and the

APFA Constitution by engaging in malfeasance, fraud, misappropriation of funds 

while he was in office during the term of April 1, 2016 to March 2, 2018. If so, 

what shall be the appropriate remedy? 

Defendant submits the issue to be addressed by the Alternate Article VII Arbitrator is stated as 

follows: 

Whether the Plaintiff’s allegations raised against him are true or false? Did former 

National President Ross knowingly or “willfully” violate any express Article of the 

APFA Constitution or Policy Manual? If so, what is the appropriate remedy? 

FACTS

The facts in this matter center on Defendant Ross assuming office as the APFA National 

President and moving to Dallas, TX during the months of April 2016 through October 2016.

1 The parties agreed to submit post-hearing briefs by e-mail to arbruben@gmail.com on January 31, 2021 and extended 

to February 18, 2021. The post-hearing briefs were timely emailed and received. Thus, the arbitrator finds the record 

in this matter closed on February 18, 2021. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 24 PageID 36
Exhibit C 3

Defendant Ross is alleged to have misused the APFA credit card on several matters during his 

term in office. 

Plaintiff alleged in the Article VII grievance and heard are described as follows:

Defendant is charged with eight (8) specific violations of the Policy Manual and the APFA 

Constitution. 

(1) Misuse of Credit Card:

As APFA National President, Plaintiff Ross was provided an APFA credit card. 

a. Defendant Ross spent thousands on purchasing sheets, blankets, pillows, 

mattresses, furniture as well as smaller items such as toilet paper and candy. 

b. Defendant Ross purchased over $3600 in furniture on his APFA credit card and had 

it delivered to his personal residence in South Lake, Texas. 

c. Defendant Ross charged an APFA rental truck in August 2016. 

(2) Rental Car: 

Defendant Ross is charged with billing APFA for a rental car for six months at a cost of 

over $6200.00 Ross was considered living in the DFW area and was not entitled to a 

rental car. 

(3) Reimbursement: 

Defendant Ross claimed mileage that he was not entitled to, including the period when he 

had a rental car. 

(4) SAF/MEA and meal expenses--Change of formula to include Meal Expense 

Allowance (MEA) and Special Assignment Fee (SAF): 

Defendant Ross and his fellow officers changed the longstanding formula for Vacation 

reimbursement. Defendant Ross also violated the detailed language of the APFA expense 

policy by charging thousands of dollars of unauthorized meals to his APFA credit card. 

(5) Payout of Vacation-Change of Formula to include MEA and SAF and an office stipend 

in with wages when considering the reimbursement of sick and vacation time. This was 

discovered when the pay for the Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer was looked at 

more closely by the next administration long after the Ross Administration had left office.

(6) Maintaining an Office: 

Defendant Ross claimed thousands for maintaining an office he was not entitled to. 

(7) Payout of Vacation Days: 

Defendant Ross received compensation for expense payments beyond his term in office. 

(8) Buyout: Defendant Ross collected compensation in two forms. (1) MEA and SAF (2) 

Maintaining an office outside Residence. 

Defendant argued at the hearing that these Article VII charges were filed by the Charging 

Party (Plaintiff) as a weapon against Ross and the Officers of the Ross Administration. 

This matter was submitted to this Alternate Article VII Arbitrator to make a decision on 

the charges cited herein.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 24 PageID 37
Exhibit C 4

THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE APFA CONSTITUTION AND POLICY 

MANUAL

THE APFA CONSTITUTION 

Article I. Section 7. DEFINITIONS: 

As used in this Constitution, the following words or terms shall mean: 

E. "Duty" means an obligation of performance, care or observance 

which rests upon a person in any position or fiduciary capacity with 

or as a member of the APFA.

M. "Privilege" means a benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person in 

any position or fiduciary capacity with or as a member of the APFA. 

O. "Responsibility" means an obligation to answer for a duty to act or a 

failure to act by a person in any position or fiduciary capacity with or as 

a member of the APFA.

Q "Rights" means those powers and/or privileges inherent to a person 

in any position or fiduciary capacity with or as a member of the 

APFA.

Article II. Section 2. OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS: 

Members of the Association do accept and agree to abide by this Constitution 

of the APFA as it is in force or as it may be altered, added to, deleted from, or 

amended in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. Ignorance of 

this Constitution will not be considered a proper excuse for any violation of the 

provisions contained herein. Inherent in the rights, privileges, duties, and 

responsibilities of membership in the APFA is the obligation to responsibly 

exercise these rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities.

Section 3. BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS

B. All members of the APFA shall have access to all administrative and 

financial reports and records except as provided in Section 5.B(1) of 

this Article II.

Article III, GOVERNMENT OF THE APFA

Section 3 Board of Directors

A. The Board of Directors is authorized and empowered to take any and all 

lawful action consistent with this Constitution to safeguard and protect 

the APFA, and the rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities of 

the officers, representatives and members of the APFA. The Board of 

Directors is authorized to interpret this constitution and to establish, 

prescribe and adopt such other policies which may be consistent with 

this constitution as required for the direction and management of the 

affairs of the APFA.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 24 PageID 38
Exhibit C 5

L. Jurisdiction and Duties: The Board of Directors shall have the following rights, 

privileges, duties and responsibilities;

1. Set policy for the APFA;

2. Modify the APFA Policy Manual as it deems appropriate;

3. Approve the annual budget;

4. Set annual goals for the APFA as it deems appropriate;

5. Assign to each Ad Hoc Member of the Executive Committee those Presidents 

with whom s/he shall maintain regular contact and communication;

6. Determine the number of administrative, committee, and support positions as 

may be required under Article IX of this Constitution to meet the needs of the 

membership;

7. Nominate and appoint members of the National Balloting Committee and 

Budget Committee when appointments are appropriate;

8. Review the base assignment of any OAL Operation or satellite and, when 

necessary alter operation or satellite assignments.

While not limited to the following, the Board of Directors may:

9. Review the dues structure of the Association;

10. Override the Executive Committee rejection of a proposed Collective 

Bargaining Agreement;

11. Establish the Regions and the National Vice President will assign the 

Regional Representatives;

12. Establish, combine, delete or change the duties, responsibilities and specific 

job descriptions of administrative, committee and support personnel in 

accordance with the provisions of Article IX of this Constitution for budgetary 

or policy reasons, taking into consideration the recommendations of the 

National Officers;

13. Direct special mailings to the membership;

14. Recognize the accomplishments and achievements of members of the APFA;

15. Give annual awards;

16. Confer Honorary membership;

17. Approve hardship dues forgiveness and review other hardship requests that 

may be brought before the Board;

18. Appoint special committees;

19. Appoint or change the Article VII Arbitrator or Alternate Article VII 

Arbitrator(s);

20. Approve Article VII administrative changes;

21. Suspend officers or representatives pursuany to Article VII;

22. Take any and all appropriate action deemed necessary by the Board and in 

accordance with this Constitution to promote the welfare of the members of 

the APFA, and this shall include the right to reverse an action or decision of 

the Executive Committee, National Officers or other representatives, except as 

provided in this Article III, Section 4.J.11 or Article VIII, Section 6.Bof this 

Constitution.

Article VII. Section 1. Grounds For Charges: 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 24 PageID 39
Exhibit C 6

Any member is subject to fine, suspension or expulsion, or suspension from or 

removal from office, for any of the following acts:

A. Failure to pay dues, assessments or penalties levied by the Association. 

B. Advocating, or working toward, the displacement of the APFA as 

bargaining representative (providing that advocating, or working toward an 

affiliation, merger or federation of the APFA pursuant to Article XII of this 

Constitution shall not be grounds for discipline); 

C. Willfully acting as a strike breaker during any work stoppage duly 

authorized by the Association; (1) Notwithstanding Section 1.C., above 

(which provides as a grounds for charges willfully acting as a strike breaker 

during any work stoppage duly authorized by the Association) APFA shall 

not process any charge of willfully acting as a strike breaker during the 

November 1993 strike against American Airlines. 

D. Willful violation of a Flight Attendant's Collective Bargaining Agreement

E. Theft or embezzlement of Association monies or property

F. Willful violation of an express Article of this Constitution, or of a proper 

and express written resolution or policy of the Board of Directors or the 

Executive Committee 

G. Willfully acting in a manner that causes the Association to violate its legal 

obligations; or

H. Willfully bringing charges without reasonable basis against another 

member, officer, or representative of the Association, should such charges 

be dismissed for any reason by the Article VII Arbitrator designated herein, 

or should such charges not be sustained by the Article VII Arbitrator. 

APFA POLICY MANUAL

Section 5.G.1. Trip Removal and Expense Policy – Other Expenses

1. Actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a member in conducting APFA 

business will be reimbursed to the extent provided in this policy. In all cases, 

receipts must be submitted to verify the expense and to substantiate 

reimbursement. Expense reimbursement is not intended to be for the 

personal profit of the APFA member, but to compensate him / her for actual 

expenses and losses and is exclusive of other applicable reimbursement 

provisions in this policy.

Section 5.F.5.a. Trip Removal and Expense Policy–Meal Expense/Allowance

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 6 of 24 PageID 40
Exhibit C 7

a. Representatives are authorized to pay for and to be reimbursed for the meal, 

snack or beverage of a guest(s) or other business associate(s) on those 

occasions when the representative would reasonably be considered the host 

of an authorized APFA function or meeting. 

(1) Discretion and good judgment should be used when exercising this privilege 

and when incurring such legitimate and necessary Business-Related 

Expense. Abuse, as determined by the Executive Committee, may lead to 

limitation or revocation of this privilege. 

 

(2) The reimbursement of a Business-Related Expense shall not count against 

a representative's MEA.

Section 5.H. Relocation 

1. Upon assuming office/appointment, National Officer(s)/Chairs shall 

be expected and, for the purpose of this policy, shall be considered 

to reside in the DFW area. The DFW area, for purposes of this 

policy, shall not exceed a seventy-five (75) mile radius from APFA 

Headquarters. 

2. If, on the date of his/her election, a National Officer does not reside 

in the DFW area, s/he shall be reimbursed for actual moving 

expenses for relocation from/to his/her place of permanent primary 

residence by a certified mover as a condition of employment with 

the APFA, to a maximum of ten thousand ($10,000) per round trip 

move. 

a. The provisions of H.2 above must be exercised within six (6) 

months following the end of the last term of office of the 

National Officer and must be substantiated by invoice or bill.

3. A National Officer may choose not to relocate to the DFW area but 

may, instead, choose to accept suitable furnished accommodations 

paid for by the APFA as provided in H.7. below. If a National 

Officer accepts such accommodations in lieu of relocation expenses 

as provided in H.2. above, the following will apply: 

.... 

7. Incoming National Officers incoming and other Representatives 

shall normally be able to use outgoing National Officers or 

Representatives furniture and furnishings rather than replace these 

items with each change of National Officer or Representative, 

subject to the right to reasonably refuse furniture and furnishings. 

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 7 of 24 PageID 41
Exhibit C 8

Plaintiff argued the violations center on Defendant Ross assuming office as the APFA 

National President and moving to Dallas, TX during the months of April 2016 through October 

2016. Defendant Ross misused the APFA credit card on several matters during his term in office. 

The APFA Policy Manual provides that National Officers will be provided up to $10,000 in 

moving expenses or, provided they can demonstrate a permanent residence outside of DFW, the 

officer can get a corporate apartment furnished by APFA. Defendant Ross leased an apartment at 

the Bear Creek complex on June 1, 2016, thus he chose both options for relocation when he is only 

to choose one option. Defendant Ross purchased $3600 of furniture from Ashley Furniture to be 

delivered to his home in South Lake, Texas. Defendant Ross had a rental car for six months at a 

cost of $6,200.00. He was living in the DFW area and was not entitled to a rental car. Defendant 

Ross claimed mileage when he was not entitled to claim mileage. Defendant Ross and his fellow 

officers changed the longstanding formula for Vacation reimbursement. Defendant Ross violated 

the detailed language of the APFA expense policy by charging thousands of dollars of 

unauthorized meals to his APFA credit card. The change of formula to include MEA and SAF with 

an office stipend in wages when considering the reimbursement of sick and vacation time. This 

was discovered when the pay for the Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer was looked at more 

closely by the next administration long after the Ross Administration had left office. Defendant 

Ross claimed for maintaining an office he was not entitled to. Defendant Ross received 

compensation for expense payments beyond his term in office. Defendant Ross collected

compensation in two forms. (1) MEA and SAF (2) and maintaining an office outside Residence

when he was not working. 

DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT

Defendant Ross argued the alleged violations were the direct result of the “Ross Transition 

Agreement.” Defendant argued that charged violation No. 5: Payout of Vacation, Charged 

Violation, No. 6: Maintaining an Office, Charged Violation No. 7: Payout of Vacation Days and 

Charged Violation No. 8: Buyout are a part of the Transition Agreement (TA). 

Defendant Ross argued the “Ross Transition Agreement” was deemed to be a legally 

authorized by Arbitrator Valverde in the Arbitration case, Moyer vs BOD (2018) dated September 

21, 2021. Arbitrator Valverde ruled the dispute that Ross received a benefit was “without merit.” 

The charges in that case were dismissed. Defendant argued that it stands to reason the accusers

(Plaintiff) would have no claim that Defendant Ross received a benefit from the “Ross Transition 

Agreement” that he was not entitled to and any alleged violation stemming from his acceptance of 

the agreement, should be dismissed. 

Defendant Ross argued the arbitrator, designated in these Article VII proceedings, has the 

jurisdiction and authority to rule on the validity of charges and the remedy sought by the Plaintiff 

to the allegation. Did former National President Ross knowingly or “willfully” violate an express 

Article of the APFA Constitution or Policy Manual, and did Ross “willfully” violate any express 

Article of the Constitution and/or Policy Manual when he accepted the terms of the “Ross 

Transition Agreement”? The arbitrator also has the jurisdiction and authority to dismiss the Article 

VII Charges against the Defendant. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 8 of 24 PageID 42
Exhibit C 9

Defendant Ross argued with respect to the misuse of the APFA credit card that multiple 

alleged purchases violated Policy Manual 5.G – Business Related Expenses. Defendant argued 

Business Related Expenses are actually defined in Policy Manual Section 5.F.5. Section 5.G, 

“Other Expenses” where it states, 

5.G Other Expenses – Actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a member 

conducting APFA business will be reimbursed to the extent provided in this policy. 

In all cases, receipts must be submitted to verify the expense and to substantiate 

reimbursement. Expense reimbursement is not intended to be for personal profit of 

the APFA member, but to compensate him/her for actual expenses and losses and 

is exclusive of other applicable reimbursement provisions in this policy. 

Defendant Ross argued the Plaintiff cited the wrong policy in their support of these charges, 

evidence of their lack of understanding the process and policy. No purchases were made on the 

APFA union credit card were submitted for reimbursement on the weekly/monthly expenses. 

Receipts were submitted for each credit card charge and reviewed per policy by the appropriate 

accounting and legal departments. Plaintiff admitted they did not review any other administrations 

union credit card charges for similar purchases or past practice or for expenses when said officers 

relocated to DFW. 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to the misuse of a Rental Car was billed to the National 

President’s department during the timeframe according to the Plaintiff allegation, is coincidental 

to the timeframe of the Ross relocation, but was not as a condition of the relocation. 2016 APFA 

Policy Manual Section 5.H – Relocation – was silent on the use of rental cars in connection with 

or during the timeframe of a relocation. This issue was previously reviewed by the APFA BOD at 

the time the email was sent to the National Treasurer in March 2019. The APFA BOD and Budget 

Committee members tasked with this review took no action on this matter and the issue was closed. 

Defendant argued that several rental cars were rented through the President’s office for numerous 

representatives during this time frame and not specifically to Bob Ross for personal use. 

Department representatives having access to rental cars during this timeframe included, but is not 

limited to, uniform committee members, toxic fume events and other committee representatives. 

At no time did the Plaintiff cite evidence that a rental car was provided for Ross’ sole personal use. 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to mileage the following that he did not fail in his 

responsibility to act in accordance with the APFA Policy Manual by citing a violation of Section 

5.G. – Other Expenses / Mileage. 

5.G.1.b. (1).(a) Mileage:

[2]. Mileage shall not be reimbursed for travel between the representatives’ residence and 

an APFA office that has been provided for the primary use of the representative for a 

period in excess of 31 days. 

Defendant Ross states that the Plaintiff have formed their own theory and alleged that 

former APFA National President, Bob Ross is in violation for claiming mileage for attending 

meetings with the Company or claiming mileage for any event outside of APFA headquarters 

while conducting APFA business while using a rental car. At no time did Ross file for 

reimbursement for mileage from his residence to the APFA headquarters. The Plaintiff did not 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 9 of 24 PageID 43
Exhibit C 10

present evidence that Ross claimed a mileage reimbursement while using a rental car and not his 

own vehicle. Defendant Ross submits Section 5.G.b.1.a.1., is silent on a specific vehicle to be used 

in the reimbursement of mileage. At any given time, an APFA Representative could be subject to 

using their personal vehicle or a “Rental Car” for conducting APFA business. 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to SAF/MEA and meal expenses that he did not fail in 

his responsibility to act in accordance with the APFA Policy Manual by citing a violation of 

Section 5.F: Business Related Expenses. He states that the APFA had no policy on how to 

differentiate or separate any amounts from the guaranteed MEA/SAF totals when National 

Officers, Regional Representatives, National Chairs, or other Representatives, who are authorized 

a full month trip removal pay and are receiving guaranteed stipends of MEA/SAF and are 

considered a host of an authorized APFA meeting. APFA also had no policy in place until 2021, 

for a National Officer in relation to one’s union credit card practice. 

Special Assignment Fee (SAF) Policy:

The intent of the SAF is explained in Section 5.E.1 

5.E.1.a. – The intent of the Special Assignment Fee (SAF) is to offer payment to the representatives 

for the days that they conduct APFA business in excess of their normal scheduled bid line. 

Amounts paid under this arrangement are reportable as wages on the representative’s W-2 and are 

subject to withholding and payment of employment taxes. 

5.E.4.a.(1) – If a Representative performs work for the APFA, and is not otherwise paid for that 

day’s work by means of an APFA Paid Trip Removal.......such representative shall receive the 

Daily SAF for work performed in accordance with the following schedule. 

Calculation for the National Officers’ SAF is specifically delineated in Section 5.E.4.c – SAF 

Rates – Monthly –

(c)National Officers and Regional Representatives: $400 minimum, but not to exceed $500 

maximum. 

Meal Expense/Meal Expense Allowance (MEA) 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to the payout of vacation that he did not fail in his 

responsibility to act in accordance with the APFA Policy Manual by citing a violation of 5.E.4 

Special Assignment Fee (SAF) above and 5.F.1 Meal Expense Allowance (MEA) rates.

Guaranteed MEA at Residence is explained in Section 5.F.3.a 

5.F.3.a – On days a representative is both trip removed and performing work for the APFA at 

his/her residence city, such representative will receive a “Guaranteed MEA at Residence” in lieu 

of any actual MEA at residence as provided in F.2. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 10 of 24 PageID 44
Exhibit C 11

5.F.3.d – National Officers, Regional Representatives, National Chairs and other representatives 

who are authorized full month trip removal or the equivalent shall receive a “Guaranteed MEA at 

Residence” of Three Hundred dollars ($300) per month. 

Section 5.F.4.a – Calculation of MEA

National Officers, Regional Representatives, National Chairs and other representatives who are 

authorized full month trip removal or the equivalent (e.g. “Payback as provided in D above) shall 

receive a minimum MEA of Three Hundred dollars ($300) per month 

Maintaining an Office Outside of Residence (MOOR) 

Maintaining an Office outside of residence is required of APFA President, as the office is located 

and maintained at APFA Headquarters and is paid in addition to SAF. 

5.E.4.c.(3).(a) – A National Officer, Regional Representative, National Chair, Base President 

and/or Base Vice-President who is required to maintain an APFA office outside of his/her place 

of residence shall be paid an additional two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per month over and above 

the minimum monthly SAF provided above, or the actual SAF subject to reimbursement, 

whichever is greater. 

5.F.1.a.(1) – Per Diem Rate (Accountable Plan)

(1) All members shall be entitled to an APFA Meal Expense Allowance (MEA) while 

performing work for the APFA. Also required for the purposes of calculating how much Special 

Assignment Fee (SAF) an officer receives, it is imperative that the officer fill out the required 

weekly paperwork that would ascertain how many hours were worked for the APFA. 

Defendant Ross argued that all payouts and formula used to calculate the payout for 

vacation, sick and end of term buyout of accrued and unused Sick and Vacation days occurred 

after former APFA President Ross had left office and was the product of a Transition Agreement 

and not specific to APFA Policy. Through sworn testimony, former APFA National Treasurer, 

Eugenio Vargas, used full salary vs basic salary in these calculations, which include MEA and 

SAF in compliance with the terms of the controlling document, the Ross TA. 

Defendant Ross argued that a National Officer or Regional Representative on a full month 

trip removal shall receive per policy a $500 maximum of SAF payment. National Officers, 

Regional Representatives, National Chairs and other APFA Representatives on a full month trip 

removal shall receive a minimum Guaranteed MEA of $300 per month. Each National Officer, per 

policy, each month received the guaranteed amount of $1050 ($500 SAF, $300 MEA and $250 

MOOR) in addition to basic salary. This amount was determined by the APFA Accounting 

Department. and was the combined stipend included as Salary and Benefits per the Ross TA used 

by the former APFA Treasurer, after Ross left office, to calculate the daily rate of unused Sick and 

Vacation Days that Ross was not allowed to use during his final 5 months as National President to 

“make him whole.” These amounts were paid after Ross left office and as a condition of the Ross 

TA. It is irrational for the Plaintiff to request that weekly timesheets were required to receive these 

payments for the months after Ross left office. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 11 of 24 PageID 45
Exhibit C 12

Defendant Ross argued that on January 14, 2022, an APFA document surfaced that was 

withheld from document retrieval that corroborates the Policy Manual was not the controlling 

document to the Ross TA and therefore Ross was paid in compliance with the TA. This document 

would have been exculpatory to the defense of Mr. Ross on this and other matters pertaining to the 

Ross TA had it been provided.

Defendant Ross with respect to “maintain an office outside of residence” that he did not 

fail in his responsibility to act in accordance with the APFA Policy Manual by citing a violation 

of Section 5.E.3 Maintaining an Office Outside of Residence. The maintaining an office outside 

of residence is required of APFA President, as the office is located and maintained at APFA 

Headquarters and is paid in addition to SAF. 

5.E.4.c.(3).(a) – A National Officer, Regional Representative, National Chair, Base President 

and/or Base Vice-President who is required to maintain an APFA office outside of his/her place 

of residence shall be paid an additional two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per month over and above 

the minimum monthly SAF provided above, or the actual SAF subject to reimbursement, 

whichever is greater. 

Defendant Ross argued that each National Officer, per policy, each month received the 

guaranteed amount of $1050. This amount included $500 for SAF, $300 for MEA and $250 for 

office outside of residence. This amount was determined by the APFA Accounting Department 

and provided to all National Officers as part of their salary. This charge also should be dismissed 

as Ross did not pay himself the payments under the terms of the Ross TA. 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to the payout of vacation days that he did not fail in 

his responsibility to act in accordance with the APFA Policy Manual by citing a violation of 

Section 6.B.1: National Officer Salary and Benefits. Defendant Ross states that any change to the 

formula used to calculate the payout for vacation, sick and end of term buyout occurred after 

former APFA President Ross had left office. Through sworn testimony, former APFA National 

Treasurer, Eugenio Vargas, used full salary vs basic salary in these calculations, in compliance 

with the Ross TA. 

Defendant Ross argued the Ross Transition Agreement stated Ross would be paid any 

and all accrued and unused sick and vacation from April 1, 2016 – July 31, 2018. The calculation 

of the unused days was to be paid as though Ross was able to use any of those days while in 

office as President for his remaining 5 months had he not resigned. There was no agreement that 

these days were to be paid per Policy as the Plaintiff insists. An investigation into the payout of 

the Sick and Vacation days paid, brought about by Plaintiff’s allegations that it was discovered 

Ross was not properly paid “All” of his accrued and unused Sick days from April 1, 2016 – July 

31, 2018. Ross earned and did not use 18 Sick days in each of the fiscal years April 2016-March 

2017 and April 2017-March 2018. Ross was only paid Per Policy 6.B.3.d Offset/Loss of Sick 

Time, of 12 days for each fiscal year. The additional 12 days, (6) days Apr. 2016-2017 and (6) 

days Apr. 2017-2018 have still not been acknowledged or paid to Ross in accordance with the 

Ross TA. The value of these lost Sick days, depending on the calculation used, is in excess of 

$3400 still owed to Ross. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 12 of 24 PageID 46
Exhibit C 13

Defendant Ross argued that he received a buyout but it is cited as the Ross Transition 

Agreement. The charging party submits that Ross collected more money than if he had remained 

in office for the four (4) months left in his term. However, once Ross left office, he asked for and 

collected from the APFA compensation in two forms he was not entitled to per the “agreement.” 

One form of compensation which he received every month was MEA and SAF and Maintaining 

an Office Outside Residence. Mr. Ross continued to collect one thousand and fifty dollars ($1050) 

a month.” 

“He collected these payments for the months of: March, April, May, June and July of 2018. This 

stipend is clearly hinged on reimbursement related to work and not part of the National Officer 

salary. To accept this money is in clear violation of the intent of the Policies written that allows a 

representative extra compensation for working hours above and beyond their scheduled workload. 

By taking this money this is another violation of the Section 5 policies outlined above.” 

Defendant Ross argued in Item no. 3 of the Ross Transition Agreement states “APFA 

agrees that Ross will continue to receive from APFA his current full salary and benefits, including 

full insurance coverage, through July 31, 2018. Full Salary for a National Officer, per the APFA 

Policy Manual, Section 5 entitles the officer to receive guaranteed MEA, SAF, and Office Outside 

of Residence payment. This guaranteed payment is $1050, which is considered gross wages and 

recorded in “Box 1” of the National Officers W-2 tax form. 

Defendant Ross argued that former APFA National Treasurer Vargas has stated in sworn 

testimony he used full salary vs basic salary for all calculations in compliance with the Ross 

Transition Agreement. This full salary calculation would include the benefits of MEA, SAF and 

any accrued and unused sick and vacation that he would have coming to him as President for those 

5 months (4/1/16-7/31/18), as if he remained in office. 

DISCUSSION AND OPINION 

Defendant Ross assumed office on April 1, 2016 as National President of the APFA. In 

that position he is entrusted with a Fiduciary duty to the APFA for cost and expenditures. This 

report revealed that Defendant Ross abused his fiduciary duty to the members of the APFA. The 

arbitrator has consolidated certain violations in this report. 

1. Misuse of the APFA Credit Card and 

2. SAF/MEA and Meal Expense Policy

Plaintiff argued in these allegations that Defendant Ross moved into the South Lake home 

during the week of August 11, 2016. Defendant Ross used the APFA credit card for his personal 

use and was not for any Union related business activities and abused his fiduciary duty to the 

APFA. He charged the renting of a moving truck on August 20, 2016 to move furniture after being 

reimbursed for moving his belongings from Sacramento. He has purchased tools, sheets, blankets, 

pillows, mattresses, furniture and even smaller items such as toilet paper and candy. None of the 

larger items were ever inventoried or returned to the APFA upon cessation of his term of office. 

Defendant Ross elected to relocate to the DFW area and was afforded a moving expense 

reimbursement, he was not entitled to buy any furnishings using APFA funds. Plaintiff argued 

Defendant Ross violated Section 5.G. Other Expenses of the Policy Manual. Kim Ross, wife of 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 13 of 24 PageID 47
Exhibit C 14

the Defendant packed up the California house in August 2016. Defendant Ross’s wife and kids 

stayed in 5 different hotels as they drove across the country, including vacation stops at the Grand 

Canyon and Flagstaff. They used the union credit card for these hotels, except for one hotel stay 

on August 2nd that Ross expensed in his weekly report to the APFA. It also appears in the 

documentation that APFA paid for all of Ross’s family meal expenses. (CLX-17, CLX-37, and 

CLX-42) All of these expenses were billed to APFA as part of the cost of moving the Ross family 

from California to Texas. Defendant Ross was not present for any of these hotel stays. 

The arbitrator finds that if his family was driving directly from California to Dallas, Texas, 

the APFA would not have incurred additional costs for hotels, meals and mileage. It appears APFA 

paid for Ross’s family vacation in the Grand Canyon with Defendant Ross’ APFA credit card. The 

cost of this vacation to include meals and hotels should be borne by Defendant Ross. This is an 

abuse of Ross’s fiduciary duty to the APFA membership. This is a per se violation of the Policy 

Manual. 

On August 9, 2016 Defendant Ross bought tools at Home Depot on the APFA credit card. 

On this same date, the APFA handyman delivers APFA furniture to the South Lake home. (CLX4). On August 12, 2016 the moving pods that Ross had rented arrived to the South Lake house. On 

this same date, Defendant Ross charges $64.30 for gas at Shell Oil in South Lake on the union 

credit card and bills it to the move but he also claimed mileage and was paid. On August 13, 2016 

Defendant Ross purchased $3,637 in furniture on the APFA credit card from Ashley Furniture

(CLX-40) and had it delivered to his personal residence at the South Lake home. The furniture 

was delivered to Kim Ross at the South Lake home in two installments – on August 18, 2016 and 

August 25, 2016. Defendant Ross claimed the family did not move until September 2016 but the 

record evidence clearly revealed they actually moved in August, 2016. A couple of bed frames and 

small items were returned costing $331.28 to Ashley Furniture on August 24, 2016 (CLX-40). 

John Nikides testified that Defendant Ross was ordered by APFA to repay $3600.00 to APFA for 

this furniture and he did so through payroll deduction. Here, Defendant Ross abused his fiduciary 

duty to the members of the APFA.

Plaintiff argues Defendant Ross used the APFA credit card for his own personal use. 

Several meals were charged on the credit card and the participants were National Officers, the 

Officers and their Regional Representatives as well as himself eating alone. This violates Section 

5.F. Meal Expenses/Meal Expense Allowance (MEA), 5. Business Related Expenses, a.1.2.

Plaintiff argues this violates the following:

Section 5 Business Related Expenses:

a. Representatives are authorized to pay for and to be reimbursed for the meal, 

snack or beverage of a guest(s) or other business associate(s) on those 

occasions with a representative would reasonably be considered the host of an 

authorized APFA function or meeting.

1. Discretion and good judgment should be used when exercising this privilege and 

when incurring such a legitimate and necessary business-related expense. Abuse, 

as determined by the executive committee, may lead to the limitation of revocation 

of this privilege.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 14 of 24 PageID 48
Exhibit C 15

2. In no case may an individual who is otherwise receiving an APFA MEA in any 

manner be considered the “guest” for the purposes of this provision. 

Section 5.G of the Policy Manual provides the following: 

Actual out-of- pocket expenses incurred by a member in conducting APFA business 

will be reimbursed to the extent provided in this policy. In all cases, receipts must 

be submitted to verify the expense and to substantiate reimbursement. Expense 

reimbursement is not intended to be for the personal profit of the APFA member, 

but to compensate him /her for actual expenses and losses, and is exclusive of other 

applicable reimbursement provisions in this policy. 

Additionally, the items Defendant Ross purchased were for his personal benefit such as dry 

cleaning, trips to the gas station, 7-eleven, and a monthly GOGO internet subscription. 

Plaintiff argued Defendant Ross violated the Meal Expense provisions of the APFA Policy 

Manual during his term in office. Ross claimed per diem and actual meals. He used the APFA 

credit card for meals at fast food restaurants by himself. As a National Officer Defendant Ross 

received a guarantee MEA ($300.00 per month). The APFA Policy Manual does not permit 

National Officers to charge actual meals in their city of residence. National Officers are provided 

Guaranteed MEA instead of actual meal expense. There are no provisions for National Officers to 

receive actual meals. Actual meals are covered in F.2 of the Policy Manual and do not include the 

National Officers or other full-time representatives nor is there a working lunch exception. The 

only time an APFA National Officer can purchase actual meals is the hosting exception. 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to SAF/MEA and meal expenses that he did not fail in 

his responsibility to act in accordance with the APFA Policy Manual by citing a violation of 

Section 5.F: Business Related Expenses. He states that the APFA had no policy on how to 

differentiate or separate any amounts from the guaranteed MEA/SAF totals when National 

Officers, Regional Representatives, National Chairs, or other Representatives, who are authorized 

a full month trip removal pay and are receiving guaranteed stipends of MEA/SAF and are 

considered a host of an authorized APFA meeting. APFA also had no policy in place until 2021, 

for a National Officer in relation to one’s union credit card practice. 

Defendant Ross additionally argued the parties cited the wrong policy in support of these 

charges, evidence of their lack of understanding of the process and policy. No purchases were 

made on the APFA union credit card were submitted for reimbursement on the weekly/monthly 

expenses. Receipts were submitted for each credit card charge and reviewed per policy by the 

appropriate accounting and legal departments.

The arbitrator finds the Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to establish merit and a 

violation of the Policy Manual to reveal Defendant Ross abused his fiduciary duty to the 

membership of the APFA. Under these circumstances, the APFA will hire an Independent Auditor 

to perform the task of auditing Defendant Ross purchase of meals and other items on the APFA 

credit card from April 1, 2016 through July 31, 2018. Record evidence revealed that he had 

purchased meals and used the APFA credit card for a personal vacation for his family at the Grand 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 15 of 24 PageID 49
Exhibit C 16

Canyon and other items that are not business related. The Independent Auditor will have to 

determine if such meal(s) or other purchases were for conducting union business or not. Defendant 

Ross as the National President was required to submit documentation to support all credit card 

expenses for meals as well as other expenses. If no documentation was provided to support the

expenses were for union related business, then Defendant Ross will be required to repay APFA for 

all of those expenses not substantiated. Moreover, the audit must comply with federal income tax 

guidelines which distinguish between personal and nonpersonal expenses. Additionally, 

Defendant Ross is hereby Ordered to repay all of the Independent Auditor’s fee to the APFA. 

3. Rental Car

Plaintiff argued Defendant Ross violated the APFA Policy Manual by having a rental car 

in DFW for six months. The Policy Manual in Section 5.G.1 does not allow a National Officer to 

have a rental car in base. Defendant Ross upon assuming office is considered for all expenses to 

be living in Dallas. The only way a rental car would be approved is if the APFA Representative 

was renting it away from their city of residence per 5.G.1.b. If it is used for personal reasons, it is 

considered income. Moreover Section 8.D governs the use of APFA provided vans and cars, 

“Automobiles owned or leased by the APFA are to be used primarily to conduct APFA business 

during normal business hours. After hours, they may be reserved on a first-come, first served basis 

for the use of representatives who reside outside of the DFW metropolitan area,” Section 8.D.1. in 

Section 8.D.2 a Regional Representative whose residence is outside of DFW may get a rental car 

when leased cars are not available. Cathy Lukensmeyer testified that National Officers should not 

be getting a rental car in Dallas for their personal use. Defendant Ross received a rental car from 

March 2016 until October 16, 2016. He booked a rental on March 28, 2016 for 24 days. On May 

5, 2016, Defendant Ross upgraded the car to a luxury car. The car rentals were updated several 

times into October 2016. At hearing, Defendant Ross denied having a rental car but when 

confronted with rental car receipts, he then claimed it was for his department and not for him. 

Several emails (June 16, 2016 extended the rental to July 29, 2016, July 18, 2018, September 30, 

2016 extended to October 3, 2016) from APFA secretaries disclosed it was for Bob’s rental car 

(CLX-45). Additionally, ross did not have a personal car in DFW to commute to APFA 

headquarters. Here, the arbitrator finds Defendant Ross abused his Fiduciary duty to the 

membership of the APFA by renting cars for his personal use to commute to work. 

Defendant Ross did not move his wife's car to Dallas until August, 2016 so Ross was using 

APFA rental cars exclusively during that period. He charged APFA for the mileage, hotels, gas 

and meals. Ross admitted he did not have a vehicle to get to work so he used the rental car. Plaintiff 

argued that if an Employer provides an automobile to an employee, including for commuting to 

and from work, that is considered a fringe benefit and is considered taxable income by the IRS. 

(26 CFR § 1.61-21(a)(1) - Taxation of fringe benefits.) Under the LMRDA the governing body is 

the APFA Board of Directors and they have an obligation to recover the money. (29 U.S.C. 501) 

So Defendant Ross saying the Board looked into the matter in 2019 does not resolve the matter. If 

it is determined Defendant Ross received over $6200 in unlawful compensation in the form of a 

rental car he was not entitled to under federal labor law, the money must be paid back to the APFA. 

Defendant Ross argued with respect to the misuse of a Rental Car was billed to the National 

President’s department during the timeframe according to the Charging party’s allegation, is 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 16 of 24 PageID 50
Exhibit C 17

coincidental to the timeframe of the Ross relocation, but was not as a condition of the relocation. 

2016 APFA Policy Manual Section 5.H – Relocation – was silent on the use of rental cars in 

connection with or during the timeframe of a relocation. 

The arbitrator finds the Plaintiff has supported their charge to establish merit and a 

violation of the Policy Manual over the use of rental cars, thus, Defendant Ross abused his 

Fiduciary duty to the membership of the APFA. the Independent Auditor will audit Defendant 

Ross’ use of a rental car from April 2016 through October 2016 and determine the cost of the 

rental from April 2016 through October 16, 2016. If Defendant Ross did not support the use of a 

rental car with documentation for Union related business matters, Defendant Ross will be required 

to repay APFA for the use of the rental cars. Whatever the amount of dollars the Independent 

Auditor has determined Defendant Ross owes for using a rental car for his personal use in lieu of 

a union business, he shall be Ordered to repay that amount to the APFA. 

4.Mileage

 Plaintiff argued Defendant Ross claimed mileage that he was not entitled to, including the 

period he had a rental car. The AFPA Policy Manual has detailed language to a National Officer 

assuming office. 

Relevant Provisions 

Upon assuming office/appointment, National Officer(s) / Chair(s) 

shall be expected and, for the purposes of this policy, shall be 

considered to reside in the DFW area per 5.H.1. 

5.G.1.b. Ground Transportation

“[1] A representative shall be reimbursed for mileage at the IRS 

standard mileage rate for travel to conduct APFA business, not to 

exceed a monthly maximum of one thousand (1000) miles. All 

mileage must be recorded on an “APFA Mileage Log” and 

submitted per Section 5.I.5. of this Policy Manual,” per Section 

5G.1.b.1. 

“ S/he is not authorized to claim any other expenses as provided in 

this policy for the purpose of personal travel between DFW and 

his/her permanent residence,” per Section H.5.c. 

The mileage logs are included in CLX-13-19 and specify that Ross drove the following 

mileage: 

 March 2016 336 miles 

April 2016 294 miles 

May 2016 294 miles 

June 2016 336 miles 

July 2016 294 miles 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 17 of 24 PageID 51
Exhibit C 18

Plaintiff argued Defendant Ross violated the APFA Policy Manual by claiming mileage to 

and from his permanent residence in Sacramento and the Sacramento airport. He claimed mileage 

between his Sacramento permanent residence and the Sacramento Airport at 42 miles each way. 

The APFA Policy Manual states that a National Officer may not claim expenses for his commute 

home. All commuting back to your home city is on your own money. But Defendant Ross charged 

mileage, parking and meals at the airport. Defendant Ross also charged APFA $105 a month for 

parking his vehicle at the Sacramento Airport. This is not an authorized expense as no additional 

expenses for commuting home were authorized. All of this occurred at the same time Defendant 

Ross had a rental car. 

Defendant Ross states Plaintiff’s have formed their own theory and alleged that former 

APFA National President, Bob Ross is in violation for claiming mileage for attending meetings 

with the Company or claiming mileage for any event outside of APFA headquarters while 

conducting APFA business while using a rental car. At no time did Ross file for reimbursement 

for mileage from his residence to the APFA headquarters. The Charging Party did not present 

evidence that Ross claimed a mileage reimbursement while using a rental car and not his own 

vehicle. Defendant Ross submits Section 5.G.b.1.a.1., is silent on a specific vehicle to be used in 

the reimbursement of mileage. At any given time, an APFA Representative could be subject to 

using their personal vehicle or a “Rental Car” for conducting APFA business. 

The arbitrator finds the plaintiff has supported their charge to establish merit and a violation

of the Policy Manual. Thus, Defendant Ross abused his Fiduciary duty to the membership of the 

APFA by claiming mileage to and from his residence and parking his personal vehicle in the 

Sacramento Airport. The arbitrator requests the Independent Auditor to look at the mileage logs 

or statements from April 1, 2016 through October, 2016 and determine the amount of money 

Defendant Ross was paid for claiming mileage from the Sacramento airport and return. Defendant 

Ross’ claimed 42 miles from the Sacramento airport to his residence and 42 miles to return to the 

airport on weekends. Additionally, Defendant Ross charged $105.00 a month for parking his car 

at the Sacramento airport and claimed this cost to APFA for payment. The Independent Auditor 

shall investigate the claims for parking his car and determine how much he claimed and received 

payment from the APFA Whatever dollar amount the Independent Auditor has determined for 

mileage and parking, Defendant Ross is hereby Ordered to repay the APFA. 

5. Maintaining an Office

Plaintiff withdrew this charge in their post-hearing brief.

6. Charges related to Ross Leaving Office as National President (Buyout)

7. Sick and Vacation Payouts 

8. Receiving MEA and SAF when Performing no work.

Defendant Ross left office on March 1, 2018 in the face of a DOL ordered rerun election. 

He was elected to a four-year term but he voluntarily resigned and negotiated a Transition 

Agreement to leave. The economic terms of the Transition Agreement are as follows: 

3. APFA agrees that ROSS will continue to receive from APFA his current full salary and 

benefits, including full insurance coverage, through July 31, 2018. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 18 of 24 PageID 52
Exhibit C 19

4. APFA agrees to pay ROSS all of his accrued and unused sick and accrued and unused 

vacation time, from April 1, 2016 through July 31, 2018. 

5. APFA agrees to pay ROSS, upon his request, a one-time lump sum in the total amount of 

ten thousand dollars ($10,000), which represents ROSS’s moving expenses. ROSS shall 

present the moving expenses to a APFA for payment through 2019. 

Plaintiff argued that nowhere in the exit package language does it specify that Defendant 

Ross should get paid MEA and SAF expense payments for the months he is not working in March, 

April, May, June and July 2016. Yet, Defendant Ross received $1050 a month in these payments 

for five months for a total of $5250. MEA and SAF are considered expenses. Salary is included in 

Section 6-National Officer Salary and benefits. In Section 5-Trip Removal and Expense Policy is 

where SAF and MEA are located and discussed. The APFA Constitution defines salary in Section 

6.A which provides, “The salary of the National President shall be equivalent to the highest purser 

flight attendant pay rates, including international override pay, for a flight attendant based on 116 

hours monthly.” 

Section 6: National Officer Pay and Benefits 

B.1: Vacation 

a. National officers shall be entitled to thirty-five (35) days of paid vacation 

to be taken in each fiscal year while in office or the seniority respective 

vacation allowance s/he is contractually entitled to as a Flight Attendant, 

whichever is greater. This calculation will not be based on the Article 6.H 

of the Collective Bargaining Agreement referring to “trips missed.” This 

vacation allowance may be taken at the discretion of the National Officer, 

however, not more than fourteen (14) consecutive days taken at any one 

time. 

b. National Officers should schedule their vacations so as to avoid the 

simultaneous absence of more than two (2) National Officers. In no case 

shall the National President and the National Vice President be on vacation 

simultaneously. 

c. At the end of a fiscal year, up to fourteen (14) days of any unused APFA 

vacation allowance, as provided in B.1.a above, will be paid to the National 

Officer at a rate prorated on the National Officers’ annual salary for the 

period of APFA vacation allowance owed, less applicable state and federal 

taxes. If the National Officer is entitled to more than thirty-five days 

vacation, up to twenty-one (21) days will be paid as stated above. 

d. At the beginning of a term, the National Officer should be paid by the 

Company for any vacation allowance accrued as a flight attendant.

e. At the end of the term, the APFA will ensure that the departing National 

Officer is provided with the vacation time to which s/he would ordinarily 

be entitled as if the National Officer had been an active Flight Attendant for 

the previous and current calendar years. If the company does not provide 

the out-going officer with the appropriate vacation allowance accrued for 

the previous and current calendar year the APFA will:

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 19 of 24 PageID 53
Exhibit C 20

1. Provide payback of accrued vacation allowance to be taken in 

corresponding consecutive vacation days in a block(s) that is seniority 

respective at his/her domicile per Article 6.1 of the AA/APFA 

Collective Bargaining Agreement, within 13 months following the end 

of the applicable term; or

2. The APFA will provide the departing National Officer with the 

appropriate Flight Attendant vacation by means of cash reimbursement 

at a rate prorated on the National Officers annual salary for the period 

of APFA vacation allowance owed less applicable state and federal 

taxes.

Plaintiff argued that Defendant Ross was paid 14 days of vacation for fiscal year 2017 

which ran from April 2016 and through March 2017. Ross used four vacation days and was entitled 

to be paid out 14 of the remaining 31 days. Ross was paid that amount in 2017. In fiscal year 2018 

Ross was entitled to be paid out an additional 14 vacation days as he used 6 days and should have 

received the maximum 14 days. Ross was also entitled to his end of term vacation which provides 

that he can receive vacation he would have accrued during present and previous year. For bidding 

purposes as a Flight Attendant, he should have received 35 days of vacation. So, the total amount 

Ross should have received in 2018 was 49 days which would have been 35 days for the end of 

term and 14 days maximum payout for fiscal year 2018. This is on top of the 14 days Ross already 

received for fiscal year 2018. 

Plaintiff additionally argued that Ross received 101.44 days paid out in the amount of 

$38,574.68. Part of this payment includes the inflated pay which is the subject of a separate 

violation. Ross was overpaid 52.44 hours of vacation. 

Defendant Ross argued the Ross TA is controlling. Defendant Ross would be paid any and 

all accrued and unused sick and vacation from April 1, 2016 – July 31, 2018. The calculation of 

the unused days was to be paid as though Ross was able to use any of those days while in office 

as President for his remaining 5 months had he not resigned. There was no agreement that these 

days were not to be paid per Policy as the Charging Party insists. An investigation into the payout 

of the Sick and Vacation days paid, brought about by the Charging Party’s allegations, revealed

Ross was not properly paid all of his accrued and unused Sick days from April 1, 2016 – July 31, 

2018. Ross earned and did not use 18 Sick days in each of the fiscal years April 2016-March 2017 

and April 2017-March 2018. Ross was only paid Per Policy 6.B.3.d Offset/Loss of Sick Time, of 

12 days for each fiscal year. The additional 12 days, (6) days Apr. 2016-2017 and (6) days Apr. 

2017-2018 have still not been acknowledged or paid to Ross in accordance with the Ross TA. The 

value of these lost Sick days, depending on the calculation used, is in excess of $3400 is still owed 

to Ross. 

The arbitrator finds that MEA and SAF is guaranteed to the National Officers to 

compensate them for not working as a Flight Attendant. The TA provides for “Full Salary” 

including benefits. While one can argue that MEA and SAF is a guaranteed benefit, the Policy 

Manual states it is not wages or benefits but rather are expenses as stated in Section 5 of the Policy 

Manual. The TA does not mention MEA and SAF as a benefit but the purpose of providing a 

guaranteed MEA and SAF to the National Officers so they would not suffer monetarily. MEA and 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 20 of 24 PageID 54
Exhibit C 21

SAF is a guaranteed expense to be paid monthly to the National Officers. If Defendant Ross did 

not receive the MEA and SAF that he was guaranteed as a National Officer, it would then be

reasonable to assume that he would suffer monetarily. The TA states he will continue to receive 

his current full salary and benefits. The language regarding benefits in Section 6 of the Policy 

Manual and expenses in Section 5 of the Policy Manual is clear and unambiguous. However, if the 

BOD enters into a TA with an employee to pay his full salary for an additional 5 months without 

working then the TA language would be in conflict with the language over expenses (guaranteed 

MEA and SAF for National Officers) in Section 5 of the Policy Manual. During these five months 

of the TA that Defendant Ross was paid his full salary, no evidence was introduced that Defendant 

Ross worked as a Flight Attendant while receiving guaranteed MEA and SAF. Under normal 

circumstances, expenses are listed in box 1 of a W-2 but they are not considered wages or salary. 

It is therefore, the Opinion of this arbitrator the intent of the TA reached between Attorney Mark 

Richards, Robert Ross and the 2018 BOD was for the purpose of maintaining the “status quo ante”

for Defendant Ross. Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude Defendant Ross received MEA and 

SAF for the months of March through July 2018 as a guaranteed expense benefit. However, it 

should be noted that MEA and SAF are expenses and are not to be included in or considered with 

his full salary for use in the payout determination of accrued sick and vacation leave. For these 

reasons, the arbitrator is of the Opinion this charge over MEA and SAF should be dismissed. 

With respect to sick and vacation payout, the APFA Board of Directors has determined 

that Defendant Ross was overpaid in the amount of $5,436.47 in 2018. “The Board’s finding was 

based on the results of a review from an independent accounting firm which determined that the 

formula used to determine the daily rate for your sick and vacation payout was incorrect.” Record 

evidence revealed National Treasurer Vasquez admitted he had changed the formula without the 

approval of the BOD or the EC. 

Moreover, it is the arbitrator’s understanding that Defendant Ross has refused to repay 

$5,436.47 to APFA and is presently in litigation to recoup the money owed to APFA. The arbitrator 

finds this is very troublesome in view of the fact that he is a standing Board member and the other 

National Officers have acknowledged the computation of their debt and has either paid their debt 

in full or have arranged to pay off their debt. As National President, Defendant Ross was elected 

to a position of trust with the responsibility of protecting APFA assets. Ross has a Fiduciary duty 

to the membership of the APFA and this arbitrator finds that he has abused this trust. 

It is therefore arbitrator’s Opinion, Defendant Ross has failed and abused his Fiduciary 

Duty. The non-payment of these monies reveals Defendant Ross is not accepting this 

responsibility. Thus, it is this arbitrator’s Opinion that Defendant Ross should be and is hereby 

Ordered to immediately repay the APFA $5,436.47. 

Leasing an Apartment at the Bear Creek Complex

The APFA provides National Officers two choices for relocating to the Dallas metroplex. 

They can either accept a corporate apartment or they can accept the relocation moving expense 

entitling them up to $10,000 in moving expenses. But they are required to select their choice before 

they move. Here, the record evidence revealed Defendant Ross accepted both choices. Plaintiff 

argued that Defendant Ross leased an apartment at the Bear Creek Complex on June 1, 2016. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 21 of 24 PageID 55
Exhibit C 22

Defendant Ross testified and denied leasing an apartment at the Bear Creek Complex but after 

Plaintiff showed him documentation, Defendant Ross then admitted that he had leased the 

apartment at the Bear Creek Complex for one year to be paid by APFA. 

On Defendant Ross’s weekly report, he claimed that he was house hunting on June 7 and 

8, 2016. Defendant Ross explained that his children’s school in California ended in June 2016. 

Kim Ross, packed household items into pods without furniture because their furniture was too 

large for the South Lake home and was delivered in August 2016. Defendant Ross decided to order 

furniture from Ashley furniture and ordered $3,637.00 worth of furniture on August 13, 2016 with 

the APFA credit card. Defendant Ross denied that he had ordered the furniture for his residence, 

that it was ordered for the corporate apartment because it had no furniture. Documentation was 

presented to Defendant Ross revealing he had the furniture delivered to the South Lake residence

on August 18 and 25, 2016. Thus, Defendant Ross chose both options for his own personal benefit

and was not looking out for APFA’s benefit. He also acquired APFA furniture to be moved to his 

his residence per Mike Trapp’s testimony when he was not entitled to do so. As a result of his 

actions, the corporate apartment he leased for his own personal benefit at the Bear Creek Complex 

cost APFA $8,106.13 which is an unnecessary expense for the APFA. 

Thus, it is the arbitrator’s Opinion, that Defendant Ross abused his Fiduciary duty to the 

membership of the APFA and should be assessed the cost of leasing that apartment in the amount 

of $8,106.13. 

 

Conclusion:

The arbitrator finds that throughout this proceeding, Defendant Ross intentionally and

willfully ignored the provisions of the APFA Policy Manual and thus, has violated and abused his 

fiduciary duty entrusted to him by the APFA membership. Ross’s testimony was inconsistent and 

not forthright. Because Ross abused his position of trust as well as his fiduciary duty to the 

membership of the APFA, he can no longer hold a position of trust with the APFA. Moreover, 

Article VII, Section 1 of the APFA Constitution provides that: 

1. Any member is subject to fine, suspension or expulsion, or suspension from or removal 

from office, for any of the following acts: 

...... 

F. Willful violation of an express Article of this Constitution, or of a proper and express 

written resolution or policy of the Board of Directors or the Executive Committee; 

Here, Defendant Ross has overwhelmingly violated the APFA Policy Manual and APFA 

Constitution. Ross has refused to repay APFA for an inappropriate overpayment in the amount of 

$5,436.47. The Union has been forced to put the matter in collections after Ross refused and is 

now forced to commence a lawsuit against Ross. The policy manual has a procedure for APFA 

representatives to follow if they disagree with the determination on any expenses which is to appeal 

to the APFA Executive Board and Board of Directors per Section 5.B. Ignoring the Board of 

Directors is not an option, especially for a sitting Board member. John Nikides testified that Ross’s 

refusal to repay APFA as a sitting Board member undermines the Union, and the memberships 

faith in its officers.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 22 of 24 PageID 56
Exhibit C 23

Plaintiff argued that Defendant Ross should be expelled from membership. It is the Opinion 

of this arbitrator that Defendant Ross should be prohibited from serving in any official position 

for life within the APFA organization that is set forth and included in the APFA Constitution and 

Policy Manual that is covered or identified. Additionally, if Ross currently holds any official 

position presently, he is to resign said position. This is to bar Ross from any official position for 

life other than that of member.

REMEDY

1. The APFA will hire an Independent Forensic Auditor to audit Robert Ross’ weekly 

reports, monthly reports and APFA credit card charges from April 1, 2016 through July, 

2018 and perform the following tasks:

Specifically:

a. The Auditor shall inspect the receipts for the Ross family vacation taken in the 

Grand Canyon in August 2016. Ross claimed all of hotel stays, meals and 

mileage charges as relocation moving expenses when some are for a personal 

vacation. Please determine what costs should not have been claimed as 

relocation moving expenses. Ross is liable for the excess cost and is hereby 

Ordered to repay APFA for all inappropriate charges!

b. The Auditor shall inspect Ross’ APFA credit card usage for personal and group 

meals and purchases for personal items such as tools, toiletries, bath towels, and 

candy from April 1, 2016 through July 2018 and determine the cost of all 

inappropriate charges. If no documentation was provided to support each 

purchase was a union related business cost, then Ross is liable for all 

inappropriate charges and is hereby Ordered to repay the APFA for all 

inappropriate charges!

c. The Auditor shall inspect all of Ross’ rental car usage from April 1, 2016 

through October 16, 2016 and determine if these rentals were for union related 

business. APFA paid for the rental cars but there should be documentation to 

show if it was for union related business. If not, Ross is to be assessed the cost 

of the rental cars during the above period and is hereby Ordered to repay APFA 

for inappropriate rental car usage!

d. The Auditor shall inspect all of Ross’ claimed mileage from the Sacramento 

Airport to his residence (42 miles) and return (42 miles) as well as all monthly 

parking of his personal car. He claimed $105.00 per month from April 1, 2016 

through July 2016 to park his car at the Sacramento airport. Ross is to be 

assessed the mileage and monthly parking he claimed and Ross is hereby 

Ordered to repay APFA for all of these inappropriate charges! 

2. Ross is hereby Ordered to immediately repay the APFA $5,436.47 per the finding of the 

APFA Board of Directors. An independent accounting firm determined the formula used 

to determine the daily rate assessed for sick and vacation payout was incorrect.

3. Ross is hereby Ordered to repay the APFA $8,106.13 for leasing an apartment at the Bear 

Creek Complex where he had no intention of occupying.

4. Ross is hereby fined and Ordered to repay the APFA for all of the Arbitrator’s Fee for 

this arbitration.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 23 of 24 PageID 57
Exhibit C 24

5. Ross is hereby ordered to repay the APFA the full cost of hiring the Independent Forensic 

Auditor. 

6. Ross is hereby Ordered to repay $3,637.00 to the APFA for all of the furniture he had 

purchased and delivered to his residence located in South Lake, Texas. 

7. Ross is prohibited from serving in any official position within the APFA organization 

that is set forth and included in the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual that is covered 

or identified. If Ross currently holds any official position presently, he is to resign said 

position. This is to bar Ross from any official position for life other than that of member. 

8. The APFA if it hasn’t done so, must create a separate body of trained forensic 

accountants to oversee the annual audit and to create procedures and recommendations to 

preclude fraud for the BOD’s review and action to be included within the Policy Manual. 

National Officers or Officers who have the authority to extend APFA to credit or use of 

an APFA credit card must be held economically responsible. The language created must 

be very clear and unambiguous. Training over the LMRDA must be a requirement for all

National Officers or any person who can extend APFA to credit and whom is given an 

APFA credit card. These individuals must sign a document declaring and attesting that 

they have read and understand their responsibilities in using an APFA credit card or 

extending credit to the APFA for rental cars, apartments, etc., and that negligence will not 

be tolerated and will be dealt with severe penalties. 

9. The arbitrator shall retain jurisdiction over any issue involving this remedy only. Moreover, 

if the Independent Auditor determines any monies are due from Ross, that will be the 

amount to be assessed or due for repayment to the APFA. The APFA shall either Order 

said repayment from Ross or submit the Independent Auditors findings to have this

arbitrator issue a Supplemental Decision and Remedy. 

AWARD

The grievance is sustained in part and denied in part. 

Issued in San Antonio, Texas the 19th day of March, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-3 Filed 04/20/22 Page 24 of 24 PageID 58