Grievance Committee
MEC Grievance Chair Greg Riffle
griffle@nwaafa.org or 952-241-4105
MEC Grievance Vice Chair Patti Reller
preller@nwaafa.org or 952-241-4109
MEC Grievance Member Kaki Androsiuk
kandrosiuk@nwaafa.org or 602-300-7989
General MEC Grievance Voice Mailbox: 866-795-4232 or 952-241-4100
MEC Grievance Update
MEC Grievance has recently filed 5 MEC-Level grievances. Please click HERE to review.
Posted by dgrey on 01/08 at 04:02 PMMEC President Responds to LOA 35 Decision
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.
Posted by jrook on 12/04 at 08:05 PMOPR Lounge Grievance Settlement - 09NOV09
Click HERE for OPR Lounge Settlement.
For a printable version of below hotline piece click HERE.
This week, your AFA-MEC Grievance Committee reached a settlement with the Company over the issue of providing dedicated OPR (On Premise Reserve) lounges at each of our domestic bases. In brief, the Union has secured OPR-only lounges at all NWA bases.
An MEC grievance had been filed earlier this year over the Company’s failure to provide for OPR-only lounges at all of our bases. While some bases did provide dedicated OPR-only lounges, other bases did not. The lack of OPR-only space created a hardship for OPRs at those bases.
This issue was mediated in front of an arbitrator earlier this year, and based upon the outcome of that mediation session, the AFA slated this issue for arbitration. Although the grievance did not go to arbitration, we did meet with arbitrator assigned to the case, Margie Brogan, who assisted the parties in crafting an interim settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement provides for the Company to continue the practice of providing for OPR-only lounges in those bases where the practice was already established. In addition to continuing the practice in those bases, the Company has agreed to establish an OPR-only lounge in LAX, and at both DTW and LGA, in conjunction with a refurbishment and redesign of the existing in-flight facilities at both of those bases.
The Company agreed to offer JFK based OPR flight attendants the option of using the existing JFK OPR-only lounge, or using the JFK Delta In-Flight Services lounge. Also, in MEM, the OPR-only lounge, recently created as a part of the refurbishment of that base’s Inflight Service facilities, will be more clearly marked. The Company also committed to providing adequate, comfortable furniture in each of the lounges.
If all goes according to plan, all of the new and renovated OPR-only lounges at all bases should be available to our Reserves by January, 2010. The AFA reserved the right to have arbitrator Brogan retain jurisdiction over the implementation of this agreement, and to be available to the parties should a dispute arise before the Company fully implements the terms of the agreement.
The Union is happy that it was able to urge the Company to provide OPRs with the facilities necessary for them to properly and confortably perform their duties. - Greg Riffle, MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson
RIA & Delta CRP Comparison - August 21, 2009
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
MEC Grievances Filed - OPR & Manager Flying
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
July 16, 2009 Grievance Update
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
LOA 35 ARBITRATION - May 22 Update
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
LOA 35 Arbitration March 31 - April 02 2009
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
Posted by rtaylor on 04/03 at 05:08 PMMEC Uniform Grievance Sec.19
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
LETTER OF AGREEMENT 35 UPDATE - JANUARY 2009
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.
Posted by rtaylor on 01/09 at 02:26 PMLETTER OF AGREEMENT 35 UPDATE - DECEMBER 2008
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.
PRE-BANKRUPTCY GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT UPDATE - DECEMBER 2008
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.
Posted by NWA Webmaster on 12/10 at 01:41 PMMEC Grievance Update 23SEP08
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 - MEC GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE UPDATE
The MEC Grievance Committee would like to update you on a few issues which are of importance to everyone. First, you should know that a grievance initiated by LAX AFA Council 98 President Les Meeks was recently settled in favor of the Union. The grievance challenged the Companys recent change to the wording in the Flight Attendant manual in Sec. 120.10.10 regarding the responsibilities of all flight attendants in regards delivering UM/UADTs to a waiting adult in the gate area.
The Company had removed the word If from the beginning of that sentence, implying that it was now our specific responsibility to deliver UM/UADTs to an adult in the gate area, as well as check and verify identification in order to sign over the escorted party to a waiting adult. Indeed, in discussions with the Company over this issue, it was clear that their expectations had changed in regards to this issue.
The grievance charged the Company with a violation of our Section 1 Scope provisions by assigning additional duties to flight attendants off of the aircraft. In addition, as was discussed with the Company in settlement discussions, it is impractical, and almost impossible at best, to charge flight attendants with being solely responsible for the performance of these duties. Many times, our schedules prevent us from being able wait in a gate area till the responsible adults are identified, IDs checked, and paperwork signed off.
Eventually, the Company agreed with the Union position, and has agreed to re-insert the word IF back into the sentence in 120.10.10 as follows: If FA delivers UM/UADT to waiting adult. The impact of this is that the Companys expectation is that the flight attendant now has a choice of whether or not to deliver the UM/UADT to a waiting adult in the gate area, depending on whether or not your schedule permits you to engage in that activity. Many thanks are due AFA Council 98 LAX President Les Meeks for pursuing this issue.
In other areas of interest, you should also be aware that the AFA has filed an MEC grievance over the fact that Inflight managers are beginning to show up for trips and participate as a working crew member during the course of that trip. Of course, many of you know about Sr. VP Julie Showers recent trips. The Company, however, has decided to go beyond merely asking the Union to allow a senior management official the opportunity to see our workplace up close and personal.
NWA has now decided that it would be a good idea for a full range of upper Inflight management to come out and work on the carts with us. The problem with that idea is the fact that the managers are performing duties which are contractually reserved for flight attendants on the NWA AFA System Seniority list. The MEC grievance which was filed on September 3 of this year charges the Company with violating our Section 1 Scope provisions by allowing non-seniority list managers to perform flight attendant duties inflight and on-board the aircraft. We will keep you up-to-date on how this grievance progresses.
In other grievance related news, the AFA has scheduled an arbitration date with arbitrator Fred Horowitz on December 10th and 11th, in order to arbitrate the MEC grievance which was filed late last year alleging that the Letters of Agreement which NWA entered into with the ALPA in 2007 which resulted in among other things, increased pay for flying above 85 hours, constitute a violation of the AFA Letter of Agreement 35. LOA 35, which was LOA 29 in the Green Book, is essentially a Me-too agreement, which is to be used for the purpose of enabling the AFA to participate in any modifications of any other Union agreements on the NWA property which result in improvements to pay or working conditions which have the effect of reducing the Companys so- called take, or concessions, which are valued on an annual basis for each employee group.
This issue is fairly complex, so look for more updates in the future as we try to make clear the AFAs position in regards to this MEC grievance.
Printable version:
MEC_Grievance_Committee_Update_23SEP08.pdf