|
|
Greetings,
MEC Grievance Update
By: Debora Sutor AFA MEC
Grievance Chair Dear AFA Members, The Association of Flight Attendants has filed two new MEC Grievances that you should be aware of. MEC Grievances challenge the Company’s actions and provide relief on behalf of all American Eagle Flight Attendants. 22-99-2-90-07 Vacation Pay
Involving a Trip Conflict & 22-99-2-91-07 PVD Payment and PO
to PVD Conversion Payment The first grievance challenges the Company’s improper method of calculating vacation pay when a Flight Attendant is removed from a trip sequence(s) or portion thereof due to conflicts involving the trip with a scheduled vacation period. The second grievance challenges the Company’s improper practice of requiring a Flight Attendant to utilize more than on Personal Vacation Day (PVD) when she/he desires to be fully reimbursed for lost compensation when taking a PVD or when converting a PO day to a PVD day. This is a little difficult to explain in writing, so it might be helpful to let you know how this issue arose in the first place. I sent an e-mail sent to Pay Comp in which I posed the following question: “I
have a question with regard to PVDs and vacation and how they
are handled in the case of bridge trips that do not return to
domicile. Lets
say a flight attendant has a four-day bridge trip that does not
return to domicile until the last day. Now lets say that this
same flight attendant is given a PVD for the first day, only of
that trip. Is the flight attendant removed from the entire trip,
and if so, how is the scheduled time for the sequence paid and
credited? Is the flight attendant deadheaded to pick up the
remainder of the trip and if so, how is the scheduled time for
the sequence paid and credited? I
have the same question only instead of a PVD, I'd like to know
how this would be handled if the first day of the same bridge
trip falls on the last day of a flight attendant's vacation
block and they have not chosen the DTS option?” The Company responded they will deadhead, when possible. In instances where the trip doesn’t come back to the Flight Attendant’s domicile and when the trip is structured such that it is possible to deadhead the Flight Attendant to meet up with her/his trip, crew scheduling will schedule them for a deadhead leg so they can work the remainder of their trip sequence. Crew scheduling will not automatically remove the entire sequence, a practice that could pose financial harm to a Flight Attendant. As for the second part of the question, the Company has responded that since the inception of the new collective bargaining agreement, a Flight Attendant will be deadheaded to meet up with the rest of their trip. However, they will only be paid and credited for one touching/incidental leg that starts in their domicile or the one touching/incidental leg that ends in their domicile; in other words, one touching/incidental leg on either end of the vacation block. If the first leg in, does not return to the Flight Attendant’s domicile, as is the case with most bridge trips, they will not get paid/credited for that leg. AFA made the company aware, that we believe such a practice violates Section 10.D.1. Specifically, in cases where the trip sequence’s structure will require the removal of more than one leg in order to resolve a conflict created by the scheduled vacation period or PVD. An additional question arose; how will the company split bridge trips when deadheading a Flight Attendant is not possible or the trip is structured such that it requires more than one leg, to be removed in order to reposition the Flight Attendant back onto her/his trip? Additionally, how will the Flight Attendant be paid and credited when requesting a PVD or converting a PO to a PVD when the trip sequence’s structure requires the removal of more than one incidental leg? *Please see following first example: SEQ 15502
BASE SJU
DOM ATR
FA2 OPEN
FA1 OPEN
DT EQ FLT STA DEP STA ARR AC FLY GTR GRD
ACT
SKD 19 14 5058 SJU
1415 SLU
1620
2.05 0.25
SKD 19 14 5058 SLU
1645 CIW
1725
0.40
D/P SKD 2.45 P/C 0.00 TL 2.45
HALF DAY COUNT
CIW 2
SKD TL
2.45 ACT
TL 0.00
SKD ONDUTY 4.40 ODL 12.35
SKD 20 14 5059 CIW
0715 SLU
0755
0.40
0.25
SKD 20 14 5059 SLU
0820 SJU
1020
2.00 2.35
SKD 20 14 5080 SJU
1255 LRM
1400
1.05 0.30
SKD 20 14 5081 LRM
1430 SJU
1535
1.05 1.20
SKD 20 14 5094 SJU
1655 POS
1945
2.50
D/P SKD 7.40 P/C 0.00 TL 7.40
HALF DAY COUNT
POS 2
SKD TL
7.40 ACT
TL 0.00
SKD ONDUTY 13.45
ODL 9.45
SKD 21 14 5095 POS
0645 SJU
0940
2.55
D/P SKD 2.55 P/C 0.00 TL 2.55
SKD TL
2.55 ACT
TL 0.00
SKD ONDUTY 4.10
SEQ SKD 13.20 P/C 0.00 TL 13.20 TAFB 44.55
In the example listed above, the Flight Attendant requested a PO the 20th. It was impossible to remove him from the 20th without also removing all flying on the 19th. No deadhead was possible because the trip did not come back to SJU at any time on the 19th. So, the Flight Attendant was removed from both the 19th & the 20th. This counted as one PO for purposes of attendance. It counted as two POs for purposes of the 2% cap (19th & 20th). Later, the Flight Attendant wanted to convert the PO to a PVD. He was advised that since PVDs are counted based upon number of days, not occurrences, he would need to use two PVD days for the conversion. Now lets use the trip sequence above to demonstrate the Company’s position with regard to a regularly scheduled vacation period. The 20th is the first day of this Flight Attendant’s scheduled vacation period and no DTS option was entered. All flying on the 19th would still have to be removed in order to accommodate the vacation period. The Company’s position is that the flying on the 19th would not be credited for purposes of determining the greater of 18.75 hours per week or the amount of scheduled flight time of the trip sequences(s) or portions thereof from which relieved, as found in Section 10.D.1. AFA disagrees with the Company’s position in both these matters. We believe the Company has a responsibility to remove both dates (19th & 20th) with pay under the language found in Section 10.D.1., whether it be a regularly scheduled vacation period or a PVD. Further, we believe that a Flight Attendant should only be required to utilize one PVD. This is why we have filed the two new MEC Grievances. What Can You Do To Help?We know that there are past instances out there amongst you in which you were removed from all flying on bridge trips, particularly in conjunction with a scheduled vacation period, and paid and credited for the flying the Company removed. In order to demonstrate, during an arbitration hearing, how we were removed, paid and credited in the past, we need you to provide AFA with your records. We may also need you to testify in an upcoming arbitration. Please provide the following information to a Local Council Officer or Representative:
If you believe your rights have been violated by the Company’s new policy, you will need to provide the following information to a Local Council Officer or Representative:
|
