MEC Grievance Update

By: MEC Grievance Chair Debora Sutor

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.

22-99-2-55-07 Policy of Ignoring 8.M.2.

This grievance challenges the company’s action of ignoring Flight Attendant requests to resolve transition conflict by adjusting the current bid award rather than the new bid period.

AFA’s position is that when a Flight Attendant submits a request to resolve the conflict in the current month, it should be honored and not simply ignored because it is not convenient for the Company to resolve it in the current month.

The Company’s position seems to be that the request to resolve the conflict in the current month will only be honored if it is more beneficial to the operation to do so, otherwise the request will be ignored and the conflict will be resolved in the new bid period. In other words, they will do what they want.

Following two examples of this practice, an MEC Grievance was filed on July 11, 2007. The grievance was denied on July 23, 2007. The grievance was then petitioned to the System Board of Adjustment on July 25, 2007.

If you believe this has happed to you, please obtain the following documents and submit them to you Local Council President who will forward them onto the MEC Grievance Chair.

1. Copy of your current months schedule (HI1)
2. Copy of your next months schedule (HI2)
3. Copy of your “RF 200 TL” request in which you notified the Company of your desire to resolve transition conflict by removing flying on the last trip sequence of the current month.
4. Copy of any other correspondence you may have in which you attempted to remedy the situation.

22-99-3-68-07 Improper Use of Substance Abuse Rehab Benefit

This grievance challenges the Company’s action of requiring a Flight Attendant to agree to a Last Chance/Career Decision Day status if she/he has voluntarily self-referred and utilized her/his contractually provided health benefits prior to testing positive in any random or reasonable suspicion test. This practice is disparate in that pilots are not required to agree to use up their “one time-conditional reinstatement” when voluntarily entering rehabilitation.

In addition, Flight Attendants who voluntarily enter rehab and do not use the Company’s insurance benefit to cover the expense, are not required to give up their “one time-conditional reinstatement”.

If a Flight Attendant tests positive for drugs or alcohol following a random or reasonable suspicion test, they may be required by the Company to enter rehab. They will be conditionally reinstated provided, they comply will all instruction given them by the Company’s EAP through their monitoring program.

The Company is now denying Flight Attendants undergoing voluntary rehab, from receiving this “conditional reinstatement” should they test positive in a random or reasonable suspicion test following voluntary entrance into rehab when the Company’s insurance benefits are being used to cover the cost.

Our goal should be to encourage and assistance Flight Attendant’s to receive the help they may need to get well, not deter them from seeking out such help.

The MEC grievance was filed September 17, 2007.

Please contact your Local Council EAP Representative if this has happened to you.