Greetings,

AFA Arbitration Victory!

Travel on PO Days AFA Grievance # 22-99-2-56-04

By: Debora Sutor AFA MEC Grievance Chair

In 2004 AMR made certain changes to our pass travel program. One of the changes prohibited Flight Attendants from using pass travel without receiving prior permission to do so, from a manager.  This new restriction was limited to the duration of the trip sequence(s) for which the Flight Attendant was scheduled to work. The new travel policy was posted in JetNet under the heading of "Travel During An Absence From Work."

Members became confused as to whether or not they could travel on a PO day since they were entitled to take personal time off pursuant to our collective bargaining agreement.  Additionally, what if a Flight Attendant were to take a PO and subsequently convert it to a PVD? PVD days are borrowed vacation days from next year's accrual and travel is permitted while on vacation? If the Flight Attendant did travel would they be disciplined for doing so?

AFA contacted the Company regarding these matters.  Initially the Company's representative responded that travel was permissible while on a PO, under the company's travel policy and always had been. Later, the same individual recanted this statement. The Company now claimed that a PO was considered an unauthorized/unscheduled absence and as such, travel was not permitted, unless authorization was given by a manager. The Company further claimed that a Flight Attendant could travel on a PO converted to a PVD, but only if the conversion was approved immediately. How could a Flight Attendant IMMEDIATELY convert to a PVD? Did the Company provide a vehicle to accomplish this seemingly impossible task? Failure to adhere to the new policies would result in discipline.

AFA strongly disagreed with the Company's position and filed an MEC grievance on November 1, 2004. The grievance challenged the Company's actions of unilaterally implementing travel policy changes prohibiting pass use while on a PO and the resulting discipline that would occur if a Flight Attendant not comply. An arbitration hearing conducted on October 31-November 1, 2006 before Arbitrator Gil Vernon. One of the Company's witnesses was not available for the hearing and had to be deposed at a later date.

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 (5th of the month plus 31 days if a PO was taken on the first day of a long month). Therefore the Board was left to decide the core issue of whether or not A Flight Attendant could travel on a PO without fear of discipline.

We are happy to report that Arbitrator Vernon upheld the Association's grievance. Under the award, he maintained that given the language of the new collective bargaining agreement of October 27, 2005, in which there is a 2% limit per domicile cap and a 24-hour notice requirement for POs, it is just too difficult to say that a PO is "not authorized and is not scheduled." He 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 if without explicit permission.  He directed the parties to meet for the purposes of agreeing on a remedy.

Pursuant to the Arbitrator's direction, AFA met with the Company on October 22, 2008. The attachment above is a copy of the letter of agreement in Adobe pdf (you can download the program to view the letter free at www.adobe.com). Simply double-click on the icon above labled "Doc13".