Greetings,

Arbitration Victory For AFA! Travel on PO; Grievance #22-99-3-56-04

By: Debora Sutor AFA MEC Grievance Chair

For many of you have been with us at American Eagle for any length of time, you will recall management’s ever vigilant attack on our POs. There have been quite a few arbitration hearings for various issues involving POs.  Under the previous collective bargaining agreement PO usage by Flight Attendants was limitless and a Flight Attendant could simply notify the company at any time, they were taking a PO, even if it was for the remainder of a trip in mid-sequence. When the new collective bargaining agreement was ratified on October 27, 2005, PO usage was limited to that of no more than 2% of the Flight Attendants based at the domicile, but in no event fewer than two POs. Additionally, a Flight Attendant must now request a PO at least 24 hours in advance of scheduled report time.

This grievance was filed on November 1, 2004, following a series of e-mail exchanges between AFA and Employee Relations. The Association posed a question to the company as to whether or not a Flight Attendant could travel on a PO day. This question came about following a change in the company’s travel policy which prohibited pass travel without receiving prior permission from an in-flight manager and for the duration of the trip sequence for which she/he was scheduled to work. This new restriction however, fell under the heading of “Travel During An Absence From Work.” Therefore, members were confused as to whether or not they could travel on a PO day; if so, was the prohibition limited to that of the duration of the trip sequence for which they were scheduled? Additionally, what if a Flight Attendant were to take a PO and subsequently convert it to a PVD in accordance with a previous arbitration decision by Arbitrator John LaRocco?

Initially Employee Relations responded that travel while on a PO was permissible under the company’s travel policy and always had been. Later this statement was recanted. Employee Relations now claimed that a PO was considered a UA and would fall under the “unauthorized/unscheduled absence” portion of the policy. As such, travel was not permitted unless prior authorization was given by an in-flight manager. The company further declared that a Flight Attendant could travel on a PO converted to a PVD, but only if the conversion was approved immediately. (Note-we no longer need permission to convert a PO to a PVD since the LaRocco award) The initial grievance hearing held 12/06/04. The grievance was denied on 1/19/05 and subsequently petitioned to the System Board of Adjustment on 1/21/05. The Arbitration hearing was conducted on October 31-November 1, 2006 before Arbitrator Gil Vernon. One witness had to be deposed at a later date following the arbitration hearing.

The company, during the course of the System Board hearing, indicated for the first time that it would no longer consider as unauthorized or unscheduled for pass travel purposes POs that were later converted to PVDs. Essentially they would not pursue as pass abuse, flying on a PO even though the Flight Attendant might not change the status to a PVD for up to 36 days later (the 5^th of the month plus 31 days if a PO was taken on the first day of a long month).

In his arbitration decision in the matter of this grievance, Arbitrator Vernon ruled that since the new collective bargaining limited PO usage to 2% of the base with a 24-hour notice requirement, it was just too difficult to consider these absences not authorized and not scheduled. He further ruled that while the terms of the pass policy are the Company’s to make it would be contractually inappropriate to subject an employee to discipline or for American Eagle to report such a matter to AMR as pass abuse on the basis that travel occurred on an unconverted PO even without explicit permission. Therefore the grievance was upheld!