Master Executive Council

Member reports indicate a significant increase in the company’s failure to notify flight attendants of changes to patterns, hotels and other schedule adjustments. In other cases, notification takes place hours, or even days later. Crew members are reporting to gates with no aircraft and checking in for flights cancelled hours before. Some don’t receive trip trade notification until just hours before departure. AFA addressed this issue with management again last week. We attempted to resolve the difficulties with scheduling and notification errors amicably, without result.

Delta Air Lines recently republished its “Social Media Policy” on DeltaNet.  The policy provides guidelines for employees to follow when using electronic media formats, such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.  This is the same policy Delta first issued in December 2009, which was addressed in an eNews shortly thereafter.

The Social Media Policy does not, and cannot, curtail your right to discuss issues relating to wages, working conditions, and Union representation – or any Union issues.  All Flight Attendants are protected by the Railway Labor Act when discussing such issues, whether in person or on Facebook. Indeed, the Social Media Policy does not limit such communication.

However, as all Flight Attendants know, employees may not disparage the Company with the general public—particularly not with passengers—which was also Northwest Airlines’ policy.  As with all communications, Flight Attendants simply need to be aware of their audience and never profess to be a “spokesperson” for the Company.

Again, nothing has changed.  Flight Attendants should continue to have robust debates and discussions about Union issues with fellow employees and managers; passengers, however, are not an appropriate audience for such issues.

~ Submitted by Peter Swanson, AFA Staff Attorney (July 2010)

The company’s recently announced focus on uniform appearance and compliance this May calls to mind an important reminder. Regardless of where you encounter a manager, and whether they are PMNW or PMDL, CBA Section 21.F. provides AFA- represented Flight Attendants with the Right to Union Representation.

Remember, should any meeting, conversation or interaction take place between IFS management and AFA members over uniforms or any other issue that could lead to discipline, they are to provide our members with the opportunity to contact an AFA representative. If Union representation is requested by the Flight Attendant, the manager shall take reasonable steps to delay the meeting until a Union Representative of the Flight Attendant’s choice from his/her Local Executive Council can attend.

We are reminding all base management and field staff of their contractual obligations in this regard. Union representation is a fundamental right, as well as an expectation, for our members—one that we take to heart. We can appreciate the company’s need to uphold professional appearance standards. In the same spirit of professionalism, we expect the company’s compliance with our contractual provisions, and with the same degree of dedication.
~ Submitted by MEC Grievance Chair Greg Riffle

We are pleased to share the newly released ARBITRATION RESULTS from MEC Grievance Committee Vice Chair Patricia Reller’s “UNIFORM GRIEVANCE” (commonly called “The Vest Grievance”), an award finding strongly in our favor regarding the lack of a company-provided serving garment for BE. In short, the System Board award requires the company to:

✔ Provide all flight attendants with a serving garment that may be worn in Business Elite.
✔ Reimburse Flight Attendants for all costs associated with the previous purchase of an optional vest, if the   company determines the vest to be the appropriate BE serving garment.
  ●Alternatively, the Company may permit the previously prohibited apron to be worn in Business Elite, or   they may prescribe and provide an entirely different item to fulfill BE serving garment requirements.
✔ Reimburse Flight Attendants for incurred cleaning costs directly associated with the wearing of the dress,   vest or jacket as a BE serving garment, beginning with the launch of the Richard Tyler Collection in April   2009 until a new serving garment is provided.
✔ Meet with the Union to resolve the calculation of cleaning costs, with the matter to be determined by the   Board if no agreement is reached.

Not surprisingly, the company balked at the award, issuing THIS DISSENTING OPINION, which states, among other things, that the “analysis is fatally flawed” and “the remedies ordered are improper.” Considering company claims that an improved economy merits billion dollar customer enhancements befitting the legendary service we purport to provide and new jets to new cities with newly hired pilots—isn’t it hard to imagine they would truly shrink from removing a few coffee stains and dried chocolate sauce off your jacket, dress or vest?
MEC President Janette Rook sent THIS LETTER to the company, requesting a joint meeting to resolve dry cleaning reimbursement methods, as the arbitration award requires.

November 27, 2009 -Your MEC was notified last week by our Union System Board member for the LOA 35 “me too” arbitration that the arbitrator, Dana Eischen, decided to rule against the Union in this case.  This week MEC President Janette Rook provides some perspective on the the LOA 35 arbitration, and information about our grievance process.  To read Janette’s letter, click HERE.  Arbitrator Eischen’s decision was a blow to all of us, but especially to those who worked diligently for months, researching and presenting this case.  We will continue on with our unwavering fight for fairness in our workplace - not because it’s always easy or because we know we will always win, but because it’s the only way to go.  Your MEC has heard your frustration on this issue and we share in the disappointment about this decision.  The Legal and Grievance department have gathered all updates with background information about LOA 35: HERE.  The final decision from the arbitrator was received this week and is available: HERE. 

Grievance Filed - RIA & Your Reserve Guarantee Last week, MEC Grievance Chairperson Greg Riffle filed an et al MEC Grievance over the Company’s announcement, in the September PBS cover letters, that the loss of a Reserve Increase Adjustment (RIA), due to sick or leave, would cause your Reserve Guarantee to be reduced as well.

Although there is contract language that says your Reserve Guarantee will be reduced for any flight time lost, that language has historic content and application. As we all know and are familiar with, a reserve line is made up of a series of duty days and off days. If you lose flight time due to unavailability on your reserve duty days, your guarantee has always been reduced.

However, an RIA is not a reserve trip assignment given to you by a crew scheduler on your duty days. By our contract, it must operate wholly on your days off, and the hours are isolated from your guarantee and most legalities. Therefore, we disagree with the Company’s decision to reduce your Reserve Guarantee for unavailability for an RIA picked up on your days off, and believe that should have no impact on your Reserve Guarantee. We will keep you posted on the progress of this grievance.

Delta’s Conflict Resolution Procedure Vs. NWA AFA Grievance/Arbitration Process You may have recently seen an article on the DeltaNet website written by Sandy Gordon, Delta’s Vice President of Inflight Services, which attempts to favorably compare Delta’s Conflict Resolution Procedure (CRP) to the contractual Grievance and Arbitration process.
To begin, Delta flight attendants are severely limited in the scope of issues which can be brought forward under the Delta CRP process. Only issues involving discipline issued by a manager and termination cases can be addressed. This stands in stark contrast to our ability to file grievances over past practice, policies which harm our members, as well as contractual violations and disciplinary issues.  Ms. Gordon suggests that the Delta CRP process is designed to be “handled more quickly” than the grievance process. It’s a little difficult to believe that when the Delta process calls for 5 steps before possibly achieving any resolution of your issue. 

Delta CRP has a proceeding called the “Employee Review Panel” (ERP), which is step #4 in their process. It was designed as an alternative to the Arbitration proceeding (System Board of Adjustment) provided to us in our contract. However, the ERP is anything but an alternative to arbitration.  In the ERP, a flight attendant “gatekeeper” asks you for a summary of your testimony in advance.  They determine which witnesses you can and can’t utilize, and they decide which pieces of evidence are “appropriate” for the hearing. You can’t use anyone other than a Delta employee as a witness - no experts, no attorneys. There is no transcript of the proceeding taken, meaning that you won’t be able to prove who said what. Finally, you present your case to a panel of Delta employees, not a neutral arbitrator with years of experience chosen jointly by the Union and the Company.
Finally, if you disagree with the findings of the panel of Delta employees who are judging your fate at the ERP, you are entitled to one more step – step #5: You get to present your case to a Delta Vice President.
- Submitted by MEC Grievance Chair Greg Riffle

Printable version: OPRMgrFlyingGrievance.pdf

24 July 2009

AFA this week filed two new MEC Grievances that we want you to be aware of. The first MEC Grievance has to do with Inflight Managers working on flights or entire trips - as a part of the minimum crew, or in addition to the minimum crew. Some bases are even going so far now as to conduct raffles, or lotteries, with the prize being a manager buying your trip and replacing you. Sounds like a pretty good proposition, doesn’t it?

Although there are contractual guidelines for when and how a manager can replace you on a trip – those guidelines also make it clear that they are not to be a part of the working crew. To allow for that to happen, unless it is an emergency situation such as system wide shortage of immense proportions, or a sudden downline sick situation where the Company is facing the prospect of canceling the flight, amounts to giving away the contents of our Section 1 Scope provisions, which limits the Company from using anyone to perform our duties unless they are on our System Seniority list.

Of course, we all get excited at the prospect of an Inflight Manager “feeling our pain” by being in the aisle and on one of our monster carts. However, by doing that, we are essentially giving away our work. If management does replace one of us in a non-emergency situation, it should only be in situations where there is staffing beyond minimum crew, and at that point, our language in Section 3 prohibits the manager from actually performing our duties.

The second MEC grievance has to do with the Company’s failure to provide separate quiet room facilities for OPR Reserve flight attendants at certain of our bases, and failing that, by not providing quiet room facilities at a nearby hotel, or providing day rooms.

In some bases, the Company is using the existing quiet room facility as the quiet room for OPR’s. In all of these cases, the Union believes that the language in Section 7 describing OPR facilities is very clear; in that it describes those facilities being provided specifically, and only, to OPR Reserves.

Our OPR Reserves arrive at the airport knowing that they may be sitting for up to 6 hours, and in some cases beyond that. As such, they should not have to compete for lounge chairs, desks, pillows, etc., with the remainder of our flight attendants who may simply be commuting in or out of base, or other members who may have an “airport sit”. Nor should we have to allow for the Company’s interpretation of this language to pit our OPR Reserves against non-OPR flight attendants in a clash over competition for scarce resources

We will keep you informed of the progress of these important MEC Grievances as they proceed through the necessary processing steps. - Submitted by MEC Grievance Committee Chair Greg Riffle

On April 7th I filed the first of several grievances which pertain to The Richard Tyler Collection.  To date there are 6 open grievances with several other issues that are outstanding and have not been grieved. Two safety concerns are the lack of a clip on tie and no pocket in the dress where females can put their cockpit/XMK key.  The press chose to sensationalize the red dress grievance and there was considerable backlash from both the public and our flying partners.  As we stressed in a previous MEC Hotline, the dress is only a very small part of a much larger collection of uniform grievances that the company is not willing to settle.

Most recently we have had a response to the grievance which speaks to the poor quality of the vest and the company’s slow response in replacing them.  We now have an official response from Lion Uniform Group signed by Lion and Delta Air Lines.  The response says in part “the vest is a delicate fabric requiring extreme care and caution when wearing…the pilling is not a defect…we are unable to accommodate your request of exchange.  ...to maintain a professional image we recommend carefully using a sweater pill and ball remover and to follow care instructions.”

This manifests the attitude that we have been dealing with when trying to correct some of the glaring uniform defects.  This is a uniform, not fashion statement, and flight attendants do not have the liberty of exercising extreme care and caution when serving hundreds of customers a day.  The uniform should be able to withstand the rigors of a 16 hour duty day.  Unfortunately many are deteriorating in as little as 6 weeks.  The cost of the optional vest is nearly $50.00 dollars - the total amount of which is borne by the flight attendants.  Those that chose payroll deduct cannot dispute the charge as one may do when a credit card is used. This grievance, as all the uniform grievances, has been denied and the next step is mediation.  We will continue to update you on the status of all these grievances as more information becomes available.  - Patti Reller, MEC Grievance Vice Chair .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

There have been some questions regarding the current status of LOA 35, often referred to as the “me too” clause. On May 5th, there was an additional day of testimony and cross-examination in MSP.  At the end of the testimony, the record in the case was closed, and no further evidence can now be introduced.

It will now take approximately two weeks for the court reporter to produce a transcript of the entire proceeding, complete with all the exhibits, of which there were several.  Once the attorneys from both sides are in possession of the entire transcripts, they will be allowed to submit their closing briefs. Typically, the arbitrator will allow 30 days to elapse as sufficient time for briefs to be submitted by both parties.

Once the closing briefs have been received by the Arbitrator it will typically take 6-12 weeks to draft his decision in the matter. Looking at the timelines present in our case, it is probably safe to assume that we can look for a decision sometime in mid-August to mid September. - Submitted by MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Gregory S Riffle

The System Board of Adjustment, chaired by Arbitrator Dana Eischen and members Scott Goodman (AFA Staff Attorney) and David Driscoll (NWA Labor Counsel), heard three days (March 31-April 2) of testimony from witnesses appearing on behalf of AFA and Northwest Airlines.  David Borer (former AFA General Counsel), Dan Akins, and Greg Riffle (MEC Grievance Chair) testified on behalf of AFA.  Northwest Airlines called Robert Brodin (former NWA Senior Vice President of Labor Relations), Daniel Kasper (LECG, LLC), two ALPA staff attorneys, and Ryan Gilman (NWA Finance) as witnesses.  Over 50 pieces of evidence were introduced into evidence, including video clips of news reports about the cancellation of flights during the summer of 2007, AFA Hotlines, and Excel spreadsheets of financial reports.  During the next four weeks further evidence will be exchanged and possibly more witnesses will testify.  The bulk of the testimony during the three days focused on the valuation of different contracts and grievance settlements.  We will update you after all the witnesses have testified and all the evidence has been introduced.—Submitted by AFA Staff Attorney

In a recent bulletin to all flight attendants, DL/NW announced several changes to our existing uniform language which are meant to coincide with the introduction of the DL uniform to the pre-merger NW flight attendants on March 31st, 2009. Some of these planned changes directly contradict existing contract language from our Section 19 Uniform language. At this point, the two most important changes which were announced are; no summer shirt option for males or females, and the combination name/wingbar which cannot be removed once off the aircraft.

Our contract is clear when it comes to the summer shirt option for men and women, and our negotiated ability to leave our blazers at home during the hot summer months. Our contract is also clear that our namebars can be removed when we are off the aircraft. For unknown reasons, DL has chosen to completely ignore our summer shirt language and instead implement DL uniform policy instead of honoring our current uniform language. Similarly, DL claims that they also have the right to combine our namebar and wings into one combination, and implement the policy that if this item is removed, that you are non-compliant in regards to uniform appearance.

Our MEC Uniform Committee is attempting to address these issues both with NW and DL management. A conference call occurred earlier in the week where these items, along with other items such as making the vest a basic item and not an optional item in light of the DL policy regarding uniform appearance in Business Class (Elite), as well as a break-away tie option for the men, were discussed at length.

However, little progress was apparently made on the call, and there were no specific answers in regards to our concerns about the two most glaring examples of contract violations in regards to the summer shirt and name/wingbar issues. As such, it was determined that the best course of action was to file an MEC Grievance to protect our rights under the contract in regards to these two uniform items. Read Grievance Here: MEC Uniform Grievance Sec.19 Posted by NWA Webmaster on 03/19 at 12:47 PM

The 2007 NWA-AFA collective bargaining agreement contains Sideletter 35 which provides that all of the NWA labor agreements re-negotiated during the NWA bankruptcy could not take effect until the Company had achieved labor cost savings of $1.126 billion.  NWA further promised that it would not provide any additional compensation or financial benefits to any other labor group without providing a comparable benefit to all labor groups.

In August 2007, AFA learned that the NWA pilots had been given pay increases which, according to the Company, were in exchange for the pilots’ withdrawal of several outstanding grievances.  In other words, the pilot pay raises were of equal value to the grievance withdrawn. Therefore, the Company argued, it really wasn’t a pay increase.  AFA objected and, along with the IAM, filed a grievance pursuant to Sideletter 35.  After waiting several months, NWA finally released financial data about the pilot raise which was examined by AFA’s financial consultants.  They concluded that the raise did exceed the potential monetary value of the withdrawn grievances.  AFA then made repeated attempts to have the grievance scheduled for arbitration. Initially, NWA was open to arbitrating the AFA and IAM grievances together, but have subsequently insisted that the two grievances be arbitrated separately.

Thus far, the Company has failed to schedule a date for arbitration despite repeated requests by AFA to do so.  On January 6, AFA sent an email to NWA’s legal counsel proposing dates for the arbitration along with a demand for a response by January 9.  If the Company refuses to agree to arbitration dates by that date, then AFA will be taking the appropriate legal action to compel arbitration of Sideletter 35.

In addition, a second grievance under Sideletter 35 was filed last week to include the additional pilot raises and benefits awarded in the contract ratified by the NWA/Delta pilots in June 2008.  AFA will propose that the second grievance be consolidated and argued before the System Board along with the initial Sideletter 35 grievance.

On November 19, 1008, the Bankruptcy Court’s approved the disbursement of money for certain pre-bankruptcy grievance settlements.  The initial appropriation was approved by the Bankruptcy Court during bankruptcy.  Our total sum was the same as ALPA and IAM.  Some of these payouts will begin being paid to flight attendants with the December 12th paycheck.  These payouts include:

*Individuals who paid more than $66 for Atlas who were on employment or furlough status as of December 22, 2005 and who remained employed on November 19, 2008; and

*A few individual grievance settlements.

In addition, those individuals who did not benefit from the original 70-75 hour Grievance Settlement Agreement will be made whole.  If you were not on the Active List on July 31, 2008, you would not have been given the option of an additional 2 vacation days (either to use in 2009 or for cash payout).  With the money set aside from the Bankruptcy Court, your AFA MEC is disbursing a cash equivalent of two (2) vacation days, at the appropriate individual hourly rate, to all those flight attendants who did not benefit from the Settlement Agreement.  This will be paid out in the December 12th paycheck.

In addition, those individuals who worked 70 hours or more but less than 75 hours and experienced proration of sick and vacation during the August 2007 - February 2008 time period will be paid $16.  That payment will be made in the December 26th paycheck.

Finally, the remaining money will be distributed equally to all flight attendants who were on payroll December 31, 2006 and who were still employed on November 19, 2008.  This payment will made in the December 26th paycheck.

As many of you know, the Pilots have been getting improvements in their contract with the Company that none of the other labor groups have.  During bankruptcy, all employees were forced to take cuts to their pay and benefits in an equal proportion.
These forced cuts were supposed to be felt equally by all employees.  Yet, we have seen that the Company, on more than one occasion, has improved the Pilots pay and benefits without giving the same to all the other employee groups.  As such, we have been working with the IAM in preparation for arbitration with the Company to get our fare share of improvements.  We will update you on the progress of this arbitration in the weeks to come.