By: Debora Sutor MEC Grievance Chair

Many of you will remember receiving an MEC Grievance update in which I explained AFA’s position regarding the above referenced MEC Grievance and asked for your help in providing examples of the alleged violation. Before I launch into the details of the arbitration decision, I’d like to take a moment to thank all of the line Flight Attendants who provided examples of the alleged violation and to those who agreed to testify during the arbitration hearing. Your assistance and your interest in the issues that affect our workplace is greatly appreciated.

This grievance challenged 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 was that the overnighting leg, either 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. For example a Flight Attendant who has a scheduled two-day trip, requests and then takes a PO for only one of those days, and for operational reasons is unable to fly the incidental of connecting legs of the second day, that Flight Attendant is charged for one PO which, but the Company for cap purposes, applies the cap on both days.

In this instance, the Flight Attendant would be charged with only one countable attendance occurrence towards her/his personal records, however it would count as two POs towards each day’s 2% daily cap for that respective domicile.

AFA did not agree with the Company’s position and once we learned of how they were applying the language of Section 10.M.1. and calculating the 2% daily cap, an MEC grievance was filed challenging their actions, on behalf of all American Eagle Flight Attendants. An arbitration hearing, in the dispute, was held by the System Board of Adjustment on March 7 & 8, 2007. Written closing briefs were filed by AFA and Company attorneys on September 4, 2007.

The Arbitrator in this matter reasoned, the fact that incidental or connecting legs are not counted as separate occurrences for attendance purposes has no bearing on how the Company needs to deal with the effect of time actually taken off as a result of a PO.

He further reasoned that though Section 10.M.3 can be read in more than one way, in his view, given the context of the negotiations and the expression and understanding of the underlying concepts during those negotiations, its language supported the Company’s position. The provision is not directed at the effect a requested PO would have on the record of an individual Flight Attendant; that is governed by 10.M.8.

Finally, he reasoned, a Flight Attendant who cannot fly a leg beginning at the outstation, since she or he is not there, but on a PO, creates a scheduling gap that must be filled. When that absence is combined with the stated maximum of people system wide, the logic of counting the days against the cap is clear. If for example, 28 Flight Attendants had asked for a PO of one day, but could not work on the day before or the day after because, if they had, the start or end of the PO found them at an outstation, and 28 other Flight Attendants asked for a PO on either of those days, the number off would be 56; not 2%, but 4%.

For all of the above referenced reasons, the Arbitrator ruled that in his judgment, the Company’s position in this matter, was the correct one, that the contract had not been violated and the grievance was therefore, denied.