Contents:

• Settlement to AFA Furlough/ Terminated Probationary Grievance

Settlement to AFA Furlough/ Terminated Probationary Grievance

On Sept 28, 2001 the Company terminated the employment of 478 probationary flight attendants.  In subsequent months the Company furloughed many other flight attendants.  In response AFA filed a grievance, # 30-99-02-74-01 challenging the Company's actions.  Before that grievance was heard, a settlement was reached changing the terminated Flight Attendants status to "furloughed".

Karen Lascoli, MEC President, explains the details of the settlement to AFA # 30-99-02-74-01, Furlough/ Terminated Probationary Grievance:
 

Dear Flight Attendants:

As you may have been aware, the Association of Flight Attendants was scheduled to arbitrate a grievance contesting the Company's ability to terminate probationary flight attendants in a furlough situation, and to furlough flight attendants contrary to the no furlough clause of our collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, February 26th and, based upon our attorneys' analysis, the hearing probably would not have concluded until some time in May of this year.  A decision would not have been expected until the end of summer at the earliest.

The first issue involved whether the Company could terminate probationary flight attendants despite the fact that there was no just cause for termination.  The Company's position was that the language of the collective bargaining agreement precludes an investigation and hearing on probationary terminations.

The second no furlough issue involved the question as to whether the furloughs were allowed under one of the exceptions to the no furlough language.  The Company's position was that the events of September 11th and its aftermath constituted such an exception.

AFA's attorneys believed that while we had a decent prospect of winning one or both of these issues, victory in neither of them was assured.  As a result, discussions were held with the Company last week concerning whether there was a way to resolve one or both of these issues to the benefit of the flight attendants.  As a result of those discussions a settlement was reached, the details of which are as follows:

With regard to the terminated probationary flight attendants, the Company agreed to convert the probationary flight attendants' terminations to a furlough status as long as AFA was willing to waive certain costs which would normally attach to a furloughed flight attendant.  Thus, probationary flight attendants were able to retain their longevity as of the date of their termination, and now furlough date, and their seniority date for competitive bidding, as well as travel purposes.

In return, we agreed to exempt these probationary flight attendants from accruing any pension vesting and service credit during the furlough period and to exempt the Company from liability for any potential moving costs in the event that a probationary flight attendant returned to a different domicile than the one to which he/she was originally assigned.  (Under the contract, a furloughed flight attendant accrues pension service credits for the first three years of a furlough, and is entitled to moving expenses if recalled to a domicile other than the domicile from which he/she was furloughed.)

Further, if there was less than sixty days remaining in a probationary flight attendant's probationary period, that probationary period would be extended to allow the Company a sixty day opportunity to evaluate the work of that flight attendant.

Finally, in order to obtain this settlement from the Company, these probationary flight attendants would remain in a furlough status regardless of whether AFA would be able to prevail in the no furlough case.

While this is not a perfect settlement for terminated probationary flight attendants, it is AFA's belief that this is a fair settlement in that it guarantees recall rights to terminated probationary flight attendants and preserves their relationship with the Company.

The final caveat to the settlement of this issue is that the Company retains the right to keep probationary flight attendants who had not yet returned their I.D. on a terminated status.  Those flight attendants would have thirty days in which to return their I.D.  in order to be converted to furlough status.

There are approximately thirty to forty terminated probationary flight attendants who fall in this category.  Any of you who have not turned in your I.D., if you would like to preserve your recall rights to US Airways, you must contact the Company to either turn in the I.D. or explain why you cannot.  If your I.D. has been lost or destroyed and you desire to preserve your recall rights, you should still contact the Company and a provision can be made to document that loss or destruction.  Do not delay.

For those probationary flight attendants who are now on a furlough status, it is your obligation to keep the Company apprised of any change of address in order to maintain your recall rights.  When the Company returns to a growth phase and desires to recall flight attendants, it must be able to contact you with regard to your recall. The recall notice will advise you of the time frame for actually returning to the Company, however, the collective bargaining agreement states that a flight attendant has seven days after receiving notice to advise the Company of his/her intention to return and must return within sixteen days after receipt of such notice.  A full recitation of the rules concerning recall can be found in Section 19 of the collective bargaining agreement.

With regard to the second issue, as to whether the events of September 11th and its aftermath, triggers one of the exceptions to the no furlough language, the parties agreed to postpone the hearing on that issue.  The exception language in the collective bargaining agreement is the same as was negotiated in the pilot agreement.  The pilots also have a case, which is currently ongoing, concerning the exception to the no furlough language.  Since our language was derived from the pilot language, it was considered that a decision interpreting their language would be helpful and beneficial to a better analysis of our language.  We agreed to postpone the case until after a resolution, either by decision or settlement, was found in their case.  It was determined that it would be more beneficial to know the outcome of the pilot case, prior to starting our case, than to forge ahead without benefit of knowledge as to how that case would be decided.  No rights of non-probationary furloughed flight attendants have been waived in connection with the postponing of the case.

Prior to entering into this settlement agreement, a conference call was held with the LEC Presidents, in order to apprise them of the contents of this proposed settlement agreement and request any input that they had with regard to this settlement.  A number of the LEC Presidents expressed support for this settlement and no one expressed any reservation concerning this settlement.

In the final analysis, I hope that you would agree with the Union, as well as its attorneys, that this settlement as a whole is more beneficial than detrimental to the terminated probationary flight attendants as well as the furloughed flight attendants.

I hope that this letter answers any questions that you have concerning the partial settlement of this grievance and I welcome the terminated probationary flight attendants back into the USAirways family, albeit in a furloughed status.