Crew Rest

Arbitration Summary 

After many months of waiting the System Board of Adjustment has made a final ruling on the crew rest interruption arbitration. The Union was successful and the grievance was sustained. The contract in Section 4.D.2 states:
The Company will refrain from any phone contact, except in emergencies, during the first eight (8) hours of rest.

While there has never been a dispute that an emergency dealt with family matters (death, serious injury, etc.) or immediate danger to the flight attendant, the Company and the Union were in disagreement concerning what, if any, operational situations would constitute an emergency.

The Union filed a grievance on this issue and an arbitration hearing was held on September 13, 2005. The Board made an initial ruling in February 2006. The Board sustained the grievance and held that the Company was in violation of the contract. However, the Board left open the question of what operational circumstances would constitute an emergency. The arbitrator ordered the parties to meet to attempt to negotiate examples of such situations. The Company refused to meet with the Union. The Union then requested the Board to resolve the outstanding issue of what situations would constitute an emergency. After another meeting of the Board the Company finally agreed to meet. Unfortunately the Company was unwilling to compromise its previous position and the matter was sent back to the Board.

The Board has now made a final ruling. The Board addressed nine (9) examples submitted to it by the Union.

In general, and for the purposes of this section of the contract, an emergency exists if the failure to contact a flight attendant during the first eight (8) hours of rest would result in a cancellation or delay of a flight in excess of one (1) hour.

However, if a flight attendant is on duty and the Company is aware of the need to contact a flight attendant about a reassignment prior to the time his/her crew rest period begins, the Company must do so in a manner that would result in positive contact while on duty. (For example, having a gate agent or pilot notify a flight attendant to call the Company in much the same way as flight attendants are currently notified to submit to a FAA random drug screening test). This is meant to address situations where the Company is aware that it is going to reschedule a flight attendant and could have made positive contact with the flight attendant while on duty, but (as is currently the practice) waits until crew rest has begun to attempt to make contact.

Similarly, the Board held that the Company must make its best efforts to contact a flight attendant prior to the commencement of a rest period for an emergency that could have been foreseen. The contact must be attempted in a manner that would ensure positive contact while on duty.

The Board also held that a flight attendant must make his/her best efforts to respond to a message left for him/her by the Company while on duty. The failure to respond prior to the commencement of the rest period could allow the Company to make contact during the first eight hours of rest.
This is a substantial victory for the flight attendants as the Company has an obligation to attempt to make positive contact with flight attendants while on duty (in certain situations) when they wish to reschedule a flight attendant. In the past the Company generally waited until crew rest began to attempt to make contact.

It is important to remember that this award in no way requires flight attendants to respond to a message from the Company while on a layover. The failure to respond may, in certain circumstances, only allow the Company to attempt to contact you during the first eight hours of rest.