- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
OurAmerican Communications - September 11, 2014
It is with great disappointment that we inform you that Arbitrator Joshua Javits formally denied our pass travel grievance that was filed to challenge the companys unilateral change in determining boarding priority from a seniority based system to a system determined by time of check- in (First Come/First Serve). The ruling by Arbitrator Javits concluded that while Section 20.B of our CBA provides how the term seniority should be defined for passes, the language does not require the company to use a seniority-based boarding priority for Flight Attendants travel benefits. In his Award, Arbitrator Javits relied heavily on Section 20.E of the CBA which states that "Seniority shall govern all Flight Attendants in case of furlough, recall, vacation preferences, bidding rights and filling of vacancies." Because the parties did not include travel passes in this provision during the negotiation for the contract, Arbitrator Javits concluded that the Company was not mandated to use seniority for determining Flight Attendants travel benefits. Of course, we vehemently disagree with Arbitrator Javits' conclusion in light of decades of practice regarding a seniority based boarding priority, as well as the existence of numerous provisions of the 2013 CBA that are governed by seniority and do not fall within the categories listed in Section 20.E.
Arbitrator Javits also concluded that while the parties had a long history of using a seniority based system for Flight Attendants travel benefits, the Company had been very careful in preserving its right to change its travel benefits policy if required in the future. Per Arbitrator Javits, the addition of the substantially reduced language to Section 26G.1 was the companys way of preserving its right to make changes to its travel pass policy, which the company succeeded in obtaining during the negotiations for the 2013 CBA.
Mr. Javits recognized that the new travel policy would have some adverse impact to flight attendants because of our lack of access to a computer at all times compared to other employee groups. However, he opined that the number of flight attendants affected is likely to be very small and this restriction would also be applicable to the pilot group. As such, Arbitrator Javits ruled that while there may have been a reduction in overall travel benefits for Flight Attendants, this was not a substantial reduction in benefits. Arbitrator Javits also noted that the company's new travel policy provides some level of increased benefits to all flight attendants, including the addition of more daily flights and access to many more destinations, both domestically and internationally.
Needless to say, we are very disappointed in Arbitrator Javits ruling and we are just as frustrated as you are about the broad changes in the travel policy. For decades we have relied on a seniority based boarding priority to get to work and make our living in order to support ourselves and our families. As you know, the addition of more daily flights and the access to more destinations are irrelevant if we cannot make it to work. If you encounter any problems in commuting to work as a result of the new travel policy and you receive a "stuck commute" under the Dependability program, please let your base representatives know so that a grievance can be filed on your behalf.
As a side note, the initial draft Award was sent to the parties approximately six weeks after the hearing. This is a common practice in the arbitration process. Typically, the System Board Members will then have a confidential Executive Session to discuss the particulars of the Award and may ask questions and request further clarification from the arbitrator before the final Award is written and signed. In this instance, the company leaked the results of the Arbitration Award before the ink was dry on the preliminary draft. Perhaps they could not contain their glee. To say that this was highly irregular and improper is an understatement and their action shows a complete and flagrant disregard for both the spirit and the letter of the grievance process. Let us hope that this does not represent the attitude of The New American toward its frontline employees future concerns and rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In Solidarity,
Glenda J. Talley
CEC Grievance Chairperson
E-mail Us
APFA PHX Website
APFA LUS Website
Contact Us
LUS DCA 724-544-6979
LUS PHX 480-966-1231
LUS PHL 215-492-0840
LUS CLT 704-527-0325
APFA Weekly Hotline Sign-Up
APFA National Website
© Association of Flight Attendants-CWA at US Airways | www.afausa.org | Click here to unsubscribe
It is with great disappointment that we inform you that Arbitrator Joshua Javits formally denied our pass travel grievance that was filed to challenge the companys unilateral change in determining boarding priority from a seniority based system to a system determined by time of check- in (First Come/First Serve). The ruling by Arbitrator Javits concluded that while Section 20.B of our CBA provides how the term seniority should be defined for passes, the language does not require the company to use a seniority-based boarding priority for Flight Attendants travel benefits. In his Award, Arbitrator Javits relied heavily on Section 20.E of the CBA which states that "Seniority shall govern all Flight Attendants in case of furlough, recall, vacation preferences, bidding rights and filling of vacancies." Because the parties did not include travel passes in this provision during the negotiation for the contract, Arbitrator Javits concluded that the Company was not mandated to use seniority for determining Flight Attendants travel benefits. Of course, we vehemently disagree with Arbitrator Javits' conclusion in light of decades of practice regarding a seniority based boarding priority, as well as the existence of numerous provisions of the 2013 CBA that are governed by seniority and do not fall within the categories listed in Section 20.E.
Arbitrator Javits also concluded that while the parties had a long history of using a seniority based system for Flight Attendants travel benefits, the Company had been very careful in preserving its right to change its travel benefits policy if required in the future. Per Arbitrator Javits, the addition of the substantially reduced language to Section 26G.1 was the companys way of preserving its right to make changes to its travel pass policy, which the company succeeded in obtaining during the negotiations for the 2013 CBA.
Mr. Javits recognized that the new travel policy would have some adverse impact to flight attendants because of our lack of access to a computer at all times compared to other employee groups. However, he opined that the number of flight attendants affected is likely to be very small and this restriction would also be applicable to the pilot group. As such, Arbitrator Javits ruled that while there may have been a reduction in overall travel benefits for Flight Attendants, this was not a substantial reduction in benefits. Arbitrator Javits also noted that the company's new travel policy provides some level of increased benefits to all flight attendants, including the addition of more daily flights and access to many more destinations, both domestically and internationally.
Needless to say, we are very disappointed in Arbitrator Javits ruling and we are just as frustrated as you are about the broad changes in the travel policy. For decades we have relied on a seniority based boarding priority to get to work and make our living in order to support ourselves and our families. As you know, the addition of more daily flights and the access to more destinations are irrelevant if we cannot make it to work. If you encounter any problems in commuting to work as a result of the new travel policy and you receive a "stuck commute" under the Dependability program, please let your base representatives know so that a grievance can be filed on your behalf.
As a side note, the initial draft Award was sent to the parties approximately six weeks after the hearing. This is a common practice in the arbitration process. Typically, the System Board Members will then have a confidential Executive Session to discuss the particulars of the Award and may ask questions and request further clarification from the arbitrator before the final Award is written and signed. In this instance, the company leaked the results of the Arbitration Award before the ink was dry on the preliminary draft. Perhaps they could not contain their glee. To say that this was highly irregular and improper is an understatement and their action shows a complete and flagrant disregard for both the spirit and the letter of the grievance process. Let us hope that this does not represent the attitude of The New American toward its frontline employees future concerns and rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In Solidarity,
Glenda J. Talley
CEC Grievance Chairperson
E-mail Us
APFA PHX Website
APFA LUS Website
Contact Us
LUS DCA 724-544-6979
LUS PHX 480-966-1231
LUS PHL 215-492-0840
LUS CLT 704-527-0325
APFA Weekly Hotline Sign-Up
APFA National Website
© Association of Flight Attendants-CWA at US Airways | www.afausa.org | Click here to unsubscribe
