|
|
|
VICTORY FOR VIRTUAL BASE FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS |
|
In 2006 the Company started a
practice of not allowing virtual based flight attendants to apply for
Company offered leaves of absence due to overstaffing.
The Union immediately filed a
grievance over this issue. An arbitration hearing was held before the
System Board of Adjustment on April 19, 2007. In November 2007 the
System Board of Adjustment issued a final ruling in the matter.
The Union was one hundred
percent successful. The Board held that the Company violated Section
13 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and ordered the Company to
cease and desist from further violations of the Contract. As a
result of the ruling, all flight attendants are eligible to apply for
Company offered leaves of absence and such leaves must be awarded in
seniority order.
The Company’s position was that
these leaves of absence (due to overstaffing) were “personal leaves of
absence” which are governed by Section 12.B of the Contract. However,
the Board found that the Company did not treat the leaves as personal
leaves for other purposes and that the leaves were not for “personal”
reasons. They were clearly granted to accomplish a reduction in
personnel as contemplated in Section 13.A.2.
In the opinion the Board held that
“ . . . the Company may not unilaterally take away the rights of the
virtual based Flight Attendants and minimize its obligations by a
maneuver in semantics. Such a maneuver, if sanctioned, would allow the
Company to grant leaves out of seniority order, and exclude the virtual
base Flight Attendants from the opportunity to take leave, based upon
seniority, under Section 11F.” The Board refused to sanction the
Company’s position.
At arbitration the Company also
took a position that, if upheld, “. . . would prohibit the filing of the
MEC grievance in this case even though the concise statement of facts in
the grievance clearly refers to an identifiable class of Flight
Attendants.” An MEC grievance is one that is filed on behalf of the
entire flight attendant group as opposed to a single or small group of
flight attendants.
The System Board again rejected the
Company’s position. It held in part that “It would have been
unrealistic and futile for each and every Flight Attendant to file an
individual grievance.” The Board further held that “To prohibit the
Union or MEC from filing the instant grievance, is so unusual and
improbable that in [the Board’s] judgment, it would require the most
explicit, clear and unequivocal language. Clearly, such language is not
present [in the contract].”
The Union is pleased that the Board
has upheld the Union’s position and protected the rights of the Flight
Attendants.
|
|
Council 57
AirTran Airways
www.afaairtran.com
Ask the Union 
