Source: https://afaalaska.org/category/committees/grievance
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:09:43+00:00

Document:
On October 25, 2018, the Company and AFA arbitrated Grievance 36-99-2-29-15 (Section 28.G.6 Commuter Boarding Priority). This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of the collective bargaining agreement when management allowed Company employees (and their dependents) on pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants. AFA is very pleased to inform you that a neutral arbitrator has found in favor of AFA’s position.
In 2015, AFA became aware that management had made changes to the employee travel program giving management employees at the director level and certain IT employees a boarding priority of D2 for space-available pleasure travel. D2 is above the boarding priority of D8 for space-available registered commuter travel and well above the boarding priority of E1 that most employees receive for space-available pleasure travel. Contract 2014-2019 Section 28.G [Commuter Policy] states that registered commuters will be given boarding priority over Company employees (and dependents) on pleasure travel and over all employees of other airlines on Alaska Airlines mainline flights.
The grievance was timely filed.
The Company violated Section 28.G.6 of the 2014-2019 Agreement when it allowed Company employees and their dependents on non-revenue pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.
The Company is prohibited from granting Company employees and their dependents on non-revenue pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.
Management estimates it will take approximately eight weeks to implement the required changes to Fly in order to become contractually compliant. When the changes are complete, the D2 boarding priority will be deactivated for Directors (and their dependents), and they will use the E1Y space-available pleasure travel boarding priority instead. This award decision is a very satisfying resolution for AFA. This award decision is a very satisfying resolution for AFA. The award restores the proper boarding priority for space-available registered commuter travel relative to all other employees on space-available pleasure travel. It also sends a clear message to management that proper notice must be given to the union for changes to Company Policy and that unilateral changes to policy in conflict with contract language doesn’t fly!
The MEC Grievance Committee Assistant is responsible for providing administrative support to the MEC Grievance Committee and Local Grievance Committees. The Assistant works closely with the MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson, Local Grievance Committee Chairpersons, Scheduling Committee, and Reserve Committee to ensure Flight Attendant receive the best possible representation.
Robust working knowledge of the Flight Attendant collective bargaining agreement, specifically the scheduling, reserve, grievance procedures, board of adjustment, and compensation sections.
Ability to maintain office hours in Seattle during the business week and attend meetings as required.
Strong computer skills. Excellent working knowledge of Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA), Google email, osTicket, and Microsoft Office preferred.
Strong written and verbal communication skills. Ability to write communications, respond professionally to internal and external e-mail, track issues, prepare reports, and plan meeting agendas and take minutes.
Ability to meet deadlines and follow up on assigned tasks.
Previous Grievance, Scheduling, or Reserve Committee experience strongly preferred.
Provide procedural assistance and administrative guidance to Local Grievance Committees in handling Flight Attendant concerns.
Maintain the grievance log. Assign grievance numbers when requested and log appropriately. File grievances as requested. Ensure copies of all filed grievances are received and filed appropriately.
Oversee the Scheduling Review Board (SRB) process. Facilitate SRB meetings. Maintain the SRB agenda, keep and distribute meeting minutes, update osTicket records with meeting outcomes, and post meeting notes for member review.
Participate in the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process as a notetaker. Maintain the ADR agenda, keep and distribute meeting minutes, update osTicket records with meeting outcomes, and post meeting notes for member review.
Serve as system administrator of the osTicket system. Set up new users, maintain user accounts, and conduct all new user training. Conduct daily and weekly reviews of the system to ensure all tickets are receiving proper follow-up. Coordinate with corresponding Committee Chairpersons or Officers to address and resolve open issues.
Maintain grievance files. Ensure each file contains all necessary documentation. Handle all requests for retrieval of files by authorized Committee Members, Officers, or AFA staff and provide requested files within established timeframes. Oversee and maintain electronic file system.
Maintain records of all memorandums of understanding, letters of agreement, and labor memorandums. Post newly executed documents to the AFA website and arrange for inclusion on the IMD.
Maintain the Grievance Committee calendar. Schedule and plan meetings and conference calls as needed.
Participate in meetings with management at the request of the MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson or MEC Officers.
Develop, write, and edit correspondence and other communications. Assist in preparation of monthly committee reports to the MEC and quarterly committee reports to the Members.
Other duties as assigned by the MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson or MEC Officers.
This position is budgeted for 60 TFP of Flight Pay Loss (FPL) per month, paid with a 5% override.
Time commitment is approximately two days per week in Seattle with additional work completed remotely or in the office as necessary. No relocation or accommodation expense is provided for this position.
The MEC Grievance Committee Assistant will have two pre-arranged, pre-planned absences (at 6.0 TFP credit per day) loaded into her/his schedule each work week for bidding purposes. Alternatively, s/he may be placed on “no bid” status with MEC approval.
This position works directly on a day-to-day basis with the MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson and Payroll Representative. Frequent interaction with Local Grievance Committee Members.
Frequent interaction with the MEC Committee Chairperson and Local Committee Chairpersons of the Scheduling and Reserve Committees. Occasional interaction with Local Committee Members of each committee.
This position reports to the Master Executive Council through the MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson. The MEC executive sponsor for the committee is the MEC President.
Constant interaction with management, particularly the Managing Director of Labor Relations—Inflight (Carmen Williams), Manager of Labor Relations (Mike Link), and Director of Inflight Crew Scheduling (Denia Pisia). Occasional interaction with Inflight Crew Scheduling Duty Managers and other members of management.
Submit a declaration of interest and resume to MEC Secretary-Treasurer Linda Christou at linda.christou@afaalaska.org no later than 5 PM Pacific Time on Tuesday, January 22, 2019. Linda will be able to provide additional information regarding transportation and booking of flights if necessary.
Initial interviews will be conducted by telephone or videoconference from January 28-30, 2019. Linda will contact eligible candidates to arrange a timeslot for an interview.
Final candidates will be invited to interview with the MEC by telephone or videoconference on Wednesday, February 13, 2019.
Please direct any questions about the position to MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Stephanie Adams at stephanie.adams@afaalaska.org.
The Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. Section 20.N.2 of the Flight Attendant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allows for 10 arbitration dates per year to argue discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. The ratified Joint CBA increases this amount and provides for 13 dates that will be incorporated into our 2019 schedule. AFA typically prioritizes termination cases in order to return a Flight Attendant back to work as soon as possible, however we seek a balance between discipline and contractual cases. AFA and management mutually decide which cases to arbitrate next based on many factors. The following is a list of open contractual grievances.
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.
Three disciplinary grievances were settled in quarter 3.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-321-18-Violation of §§21, 24, 30 & 34 Hotel at Domicile for Transition Training. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21 [Compensation], §24 [General and Miscellaneous], §30 [Training] and §34 [Hotels], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when some Flight Attendants requested and were provided hotel rooms at base for Transition Training while others who requested a room were not provided one.
Grievance No. 36-99-2-137-18 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement: Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Additional Provisions (October 2017) and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on February 27, 2018, it failed to follow the ASAP provisions and issued an oral warning to a Flight Attendant and removed pay from her. The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to disciplinary actions. Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.” Additionally, while the Company did render her discipline moot since it added an IMD loaner program after the fact, it failed to pay protect her for their failure to not have a loaner program initially.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-22-14-Violation of Required Maternity Leave. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 15.D. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to require Flight Attendants to begin Maternity Leave after the 28thweek of pregnancy.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-15-15- Limiting Access to the SAN Domicile. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.I [Company Provided Computers and Printers at Domiciles], when it limited access to the SAN Domicile including contractually required resources to only those Flight Attendants based in SAN.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-41-15- 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.: 36-99-2-5-16- 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.: 36-99-2-32-16-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.: 36-99-2-1-17- 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 Confirmations of Oral Warning via certified mail without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation, issuing an actual oral warning and/or providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-104-18 Violationof §19.A.1. Imprecise Charges and Failure to Conduct a Full Investigation with Union Representation and Contractual Pay Provisions. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1. [Grievance Procedures: Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 3-5, 2018, it issued approximately 103 confirmations of oral warning (I-6s) with inaccurate information and imprecise charges via certified mail without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation, issuing an actual oral warning and/or providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-109-18-Violation of §32 Attendance Policy. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 32.C.1.a. and Addendum to Section §32 question #6 [Attendance Policy], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargain Agreement when on December 21, 2017, it issued 3 points for a no show without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation for contractual performance provisions resulting in a Flight Attendant receiving a no show for an unapproved trade placed on her schedule without mutual consent. In the spirit of the Attendance Policy it is important to note the Attendance Policy is not about finding fault with anyone. It is a tracking system to show whether or not you were at work when you were scheduled to be there. In this case the Flight Attendant was not aware of the scheduling obligation placed on her line by another Flight Attendant.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-116-18-Violation of §10.J.4 Bidding Timelines. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 10.J.4 [Scheduling: Bid Packets and Bidding Timelines], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about March 13, 2018, management re-opened its Preferential Bidding System (PBS), NavBlue, for a full bid re-award for April 2018 because it was not programmed to match the bid “duty on” preference on the new web application user interface. However, due to system limitations the re-award required the PBS to reopen which allowed access for Flight Attendants to submit new bids after the contractual bid submission deadline.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-120-18-Violation of §32.C.1 Attendance No Shows. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.1 [Attendance Policy: Attendance Policy Definitions/No Show], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when due to a no show it assigned three (3) attendance points to a Flight Attendant for a trip in February 2018.
Grievance No.: 36-18-2-121-18-Violation of §32 Attendance Policy. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.1.a and Addendum to Section §32 question #6 [Attendance Policy], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on March 5, 2018, it issued to a Flight Attendant a no show with three (3) attendance points for a trip picked up on his schedule without his knowledge. It is important to note the Attendance Policy is not about finding fault with anyone; it is a tracking system to show whether or not you were at work when you were scheduled to be there.
Grievance No. 36-99-2-132-18 Violation of §19.A.1 Disciplinary Timeline. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1 [Grievance Procedures: Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when in May 2018 it disciplined Flight Attendants outside of twelve (12) days from the date the Company reasonably had knowledge of the incident giving rise to the disciplinary action in direct contrast to contractual language and long standing past practice.
Grievance No. 36-99-2-133-18 Violation of §19.A.1 Failure to Conduct a Full Investigation with Union Representation, Contractual Pay Provisions and Violation of Timeline. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §19.A.1. [Grievance Procedures: Dismissal or Disciplinary Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about May 30, 2018, it untimely issued approximately 154 confirmations of oral warning and/or written warnings (I-6s) via certified mail without providing adequate notice of the training required, without performance supervisors first conducting a full investigation, without issuing an actual oral warning and/or without providing Union Representation or contractual pay provisions; such discipline was issued for failing to complete Computer Based Training (CBT).
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-300-18-Violation of §30.C.4 Transition Training CBT Run Times. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §30.C.4 [Training: Training Pay/Computer Based Training (CBT)], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to determine run-times of the Transition Training CBT with AFA input.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-302-18-Violation of §34.A.2.a Hotel Requirements. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §34.A2.a [Hotels: Lodging/Hotel Selection Process/Hotel Requirements], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about June 28, 2018, its Detroit layover hotel, Doubletree by Hilton Detroit, assigned a Flight Attendant a ground floor hotel room, despite contractual language between the Association and the Company, and the Company and the hotel, specifying the hotel will avoid assigning ground floor hotel rooms to crew members.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-303-18-Violation of Airbus Transition Training Letter of Agreement CBT Pay. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §30.C.4 [Training: Training Pay/Computer Based Training (CBT)], Airbus Transition Training Letter of Agreement (2.8.18), principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Transition Training CBT was allocated for four (4) hours, however based on initial feedback, the Association believes it likely takes longer than four (4) hours to complete, and therefore Flight Attendants will need to be paid accordingly.
The Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. Section 20.N.2 of the Flight Attendant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allows for 10 arbitration dates per year to argue discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. The newly ratified Joint CBA increases this amount and provides for 13 dates that will be incorporated into our 2019 schedule. AFA typically prioritizes termination cases in order to return a Flight Attendant back to work as soon as possible, however we seek a balance between discipline and contractual cases. AFA and management mutually decide which cases to arbitrate next based on many factors. The following is a list of open contractual grievances.
Arbitration May 30, 2018—Cancelled due to management witness hospitalized. An additional date was added in August 2018.
Grievance No. 36-99-2-130-18 Violation of §12.C.3 Trading Procedures. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.3 [Exchanges of Sequences: Trading Procedures], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) Open Time Trading System failed to synchronize time across the system, resulting in some users being able to complete their tasks while others are temporarily blocked from trades, pick-ups and/or drops.
Details: The interim solution has been delivered and installed into production Wednesday June 13. AS received the permanent solution for testing. AS looked at the permanent solution yesterday, June 14, 2018, and have a question out to Jeppesen because we are not seeing a message prior to Open Time opening that we had understood would be seen. It is AS’ intent to bring JCA into compliance with the CBA as soon as possible.
Grievance No. 36-99-2-131-18 Violation of §12.F.2 Threshold Sequence Number ANC. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.F.2 [Exchanges of Sequences: Methodology for Counting Sequences Toward the “threshold sequence number”], principles of just cause and due process, past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about April 24, 2018, in Anchorage its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) Open Time Trading System failed to calculate the appropriate threshold sequence number therefore limiting the Flight Attendants’ ability to drop trips.
Details: As of the release deployed into production on May 23, when flight legs are removed from a trip leaving an empty shell, the trip shell does not count towards limiting the day. If the flight legs are added back to that same shell, the trip will again count toward limiting the day.
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.: 36-99-2-31-16- 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.: 36-99-2-43-16-Violation of §11.H.8. Failing to Allow Trades. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.H.8. [Reserve/Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow Reserve Flight Attendants, [Flight Attendant Names], to trade on December 18, 2016, and December 30, 2016, under its provisions; it failed to allow other Flight Attendants to do trades on other various dates as well.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-1-17- Violation of §32.C.5. Assessing Short Sick Call Points to Flight Attendant on FMLA. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.5 [Attendance Policy: Short Sick Call], past practice, all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Federal Law when it assessed short sick call points (2.5 points) to Flight Attendants on qualified Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) status when they called in sick within two hours of scheduled check-in.
Grievance No.: 36-99-2-205-17 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.
The MEC appointed a Payroll Representative who works under the MEC Grievance Committee, Kiara Jenkins. She began work on June 1, 2018 and is responsible for advocating for Flights Attendants in regard to payroll issues. Please contact her if it is believed there is an outstanding payroll issue that needs resolution.
Grievance 36-99-2-208-17: Violation of §11.G.4 Compensation for Picked Up Reserve Days, was retroactively sustained. AFA requested the payroll department audit the past three years of this violation and pay those wrongly denied 1 TFP if a reserve day is converted to ER, and s/he is subsequently not used. The payouts are being paid out periodically since May 2018 and will continue until the full audit is complete.
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. The fix is expected to be delivered to the payroll analysts for test next week. If the test goes well the fix will be released into production in early August 2018.
The ability for crew members to see rosters going back three months is still not programmed despite AFA’s continued requests. It is a core Jeppesen change which is taking time. Management advised that this correction should be made sometime in Q4 2018. Payroll is sending out notifications to all Flight Attendants’ company email to remind Flight Attendants to print her or his schedule prior to its disappearance.
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. Crew Scheduling is going to handle this manually until fixed. Management is researching a permanent fix date.
As published in the last update, Activity Claim Forms will not be disputed by management if the screen shot is not provided, however, the Company reserves the right to research the underlying error and recover any overpayment form the Flight Attendant. In Washington, this research mush be completed, and a decision reached, within 90 days of the pay issue date in dispute for funds to be returned to the Company. Presently we are in dispute over the other states; for instance, in California funds, once paid, cannot be required to be returned to the Company without the employee’s approval. There is a caveat for requesting pay however, if a Flight Attendant requests pay s/he is not due, s/he could be brought in for an investigation. To protect the Flight Attendant’s interests, if it is possible, we recommend keeping evidence which proves the request the Flight Attendant is making.
The Company was delayed in its reporting back on its position on pyramiding pay* issues. It eventually reported back on March 13, 2018, and agreed that all pay provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement pyramid** except for reassignments and over duty do not pyramid** with each other. Presently we are working on restitution based on this agreement. AFA is advocating for the quickest and most advantages outcome for all Flight Attendants. We will report back when a final resolution is decided.
* Pyramiding pay = A pay application in which hours (i.e. TFP credit) are counted more than once for the purpose of ‘overtime’ (i.e. premium pay).
** Pyramid (verb) = To pay more than one premium based on the same TFP credit (i.e. to stack more than one premium pay application on the same flying/TFP).
A Seattle Flight Attendant flies a San Diego turn worth 6.0 TFP on a holiday. Due to delays, the Flight Attendant experiences a 12:45 duty day.
Note that the pyramiding double time (2.0x) of holiday pay and double time (2.0x) of over-duty pay results in triple time (3.0x) and not quadruple time (4.0x) because the 1.0 TFP is paid only once at straight time (1.0x) but is counted separately for holiday premium and over-duty pay.
AFA is hearing chatter wondering why AFA isn’t filing lawsuits on the pay issues. The reason is two-fold: first, we use the arbitration process pursuant to our collective bargaining agreement and the Railway Labor Act; and second, most if not all, payroll issues AFA brought forward to the Company were agreed to by the Company and that continues to be the case.
If there are any additional payroll issues that come to light, please don’t hesitate to reach out to Kiara Jenkins at payroll@afaalaska.org.

References: §21
 §24
 §30
 §34
 §32
 §32
 §30
 §11
 §11
 §23
 §23
 §21
 §21
 §15
 §15
 §11
 §12
 §11
 §12
 §27
 §27
 §19
 §19
 §12
 §12
 §12
 §19
 §19
 §19
 §19
 §32
 §32
 §10
 §32
 §32
 §32
 §32
 §32
 §19
 §19
 §19
 §19
 §30
 §30
 §34
 §34
 §30
 §12
 §12
 §12
 §12
 §11
 §32
 §32
 §19
 §19
 §11