By: Debora Sutor AFA MEC Grievance Chair

Email:Sutorafa@aol.com

MEC Grievance Update March 2007

Dear AFA Member,

 There are two new MEC Grievances that have been filed on behalf of all American Eagle Flight Attendants in order to protect your rights. Please read on to determine if you have been affected and if so, how you can help.

MEC Grievance #22-99-2-12-07 OT Replacement Flying

This grievance challenges the company’s action of requiring a flight attendant to accept a replacement OT trip in order to receive compensation, when swaps/drops has first awarded an OT trip and then taken it away.  Sometimes, the OT is taken from the flight attendant wrongfully and sometimes it is taken because a mistake was made in the first place and it never should have been awarded (i.e. legality problems). Nonetheless, past practice has shown us a line-holding Flight Attendant need only be awarded the time, in order to receive credit for the trip. If a trip had been removed, whether rightfully or wrongfully in the past, the flight attendant would still receive credit for the trip and was not required to accept any substitute flying in order such credit. AFA believes that this new condition the company has imposed is in violation of Section 4.F and past practice.

If you have been required to accept a new or replacement OT trip sequence (this does not include those instances in which you have lost all or a portion of a sequence and thus have an obligation to accept assigned new flying pursuant to Section 8.D.2.)  in order to receive proper credit following the removal of an OT trip, previously awarded, please gather the following evidence and remit it to your Local Union Representatives:

1)     Copy of your HI1 showing original OT trip awarded

2)     Copy of the HI3 for the original OT trip awarded

3)     Copy of any e-mail or other correspondence between you and Swaps/Drops

4)     Copy of HI3 for new/replacement OT trip

5)     Name of Flight Attendant who was assigned to your originally awarded OT trip

6)     Write up giving a brief description of the events that transpired

MEC Grievance #22-99-2-13-07 Assigned New Flying Later Than Originally Scheduled Check Out Time

This grievance challenges the company’s position that Section 8.D.2.a. is intended to mean that assigned new flying received pursuant to this section, must have a check out time that is 2 hours from the original trip’s scheduled or the actual delayed check out time whichever is later. 

AFA’s position is that the assigned new flying must be completed by 2 hours after the originally scheduled check out time. 

For example, Flight Attendant Smith’s last leg of her sequence was cancelled. She is now subjected to receive assigned new flying pursuant to Section 8.D.2.a. Smith’s original trip was scheduled to end at 2:00 PM. However, it had a delayed departure which resulted in a new end time of 3:00 PM. As stated earlier however, the roundtrip ultimately cancels. Smith is now assigned to new flying. This new roundtrip is scheduled to be done at 5:00 PM. 

The Company believes this to be legal as 5:00 PM is two hours later than the delayed departure time at 3:00 PM, of the original trip. 

However, AFA believes that the assigned new flying must be scheduled to end by 4:00 PM, which represents 2 hours later than the originally scheduled end time 2:00 PM. 

If this has happened to you, please gather the following pieces of evidence and remit them to your Local Representative. 

1)     Copy of your original trip sequence or HI3

2)     Copy of your revised HI3

3)     Copy of HI1 for the month in which the incident occurred

4)     Write up giving brief description of the events that transpired

MEC Grievance Update December 2006

By: Debora Sutor MEC Grievance Chair

The Following MEC (Master Executive Council) Grievances have recently been filed to uphold the rights of all American Eagle Flight Attendants system wide. If your rights have been violated under one of the challenges listed below, you will need to contact your Local Council President and provide the appropriate documentation/evidence. Should AFA prevail in arbitration, you may be entitled to relief, but the Union must have been made aware of the fact that your rights have been violated.

22-99-2-93-06

Requirement to be Scheduled as Both

a Lineholding and Reserve Flight Attendant

This grievance challenges the Company’s action of requiring Flight Attendants to perform duties as both a Lineholder and a Reserve Flight Attendant within the same duty period without benefit of a contractual rest period. This seems to occur primarily over transition when a Flight Attendant is a lineholder in the current month and is awarded a reserve line the following month. The Company is requiring the Flight Attendant to finish the current month’s trip sequence and then, without placing her/him into rest, requiring them to begin serving reserve availability.  The computer is not capable of designating that a Flight Attendant is being scheduled for both a trip sequence and reserve availability. Thus, a Flight Attendant is vulnerable to receiving a MA for assignments that may be given while on the RAP, but after they have completed their trip sequence. ALPA currently has an arbitration pending on the same issue. The Union and the Company have agreed to hold this grievance in abeyance until such time as a decision has been rendered in the ALPA case. The parties will reevaluate the grievance at that time.

Should your rights have been violated, please provide your Local President with the following documentation:

1)      Copy of your current month’s HI1.

2)      Copy of your new month’s HI1

3)      Any e-mail messages or written documentation received from the Company that relates to this matter. (i.e. notification of responsibility to be available on Reserve)

4)      Any other documentation that may relate to this matter.

22-99-2-103-06

Section 10.M.1. 2% PO Daily Domicile Cap

This grievance challenges the Company’s method of calculating the 2% daily PO cap in each domicile as referenced in Section 10.M.1., of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Company’s position is that the overnighting leg back to base on the day following the actual date the PO was taken or the leg into an overnight prior to the actual date the PO was taken, will count as a PO for purposes of calculating the 2% cap. While this will continue to be documented as only one countable attendance occurrence towards your personal record as a Flight Attendant, it will count as two POs towards each day’s 2% cap for the domicile, even though it only constitutes one leg back to base. This could result in your being denied the right to take a PO on a specific date as requested.

AFA has challenged the Company’s position in the matter as we believe these incidental legs should not be counted for purposes of calculating the daily 2% PO cap per domicile.

Should you be denied the right to take a PO as a result of this violation, please contact your Local Council President and provide the following documentation:

1)      Copy of PO request form or e-mail message.

2)      If you do not have a copy of the form or an e-mail message, provide the date and time the request was submitted to the company.

3)      Copy of the Trip Sequence or Reserve Availability Periods that operated on the date(s) you requested the PO(s).

4)      Copy of any other written communication between yourself and the Company regarding the matter. For example, an e-mail of denial from the Company.

Fatigue Board Meeting

Please be advised that the next meeting of the Fatigue Board will take place in Dallas on January 24, 2007. Only cases that have been challenged via the form posted on the AFA American Eagle website will be discussed.