TWU Local 556 Negotiation Update #16

After nearly a year of meetings, the Company has finally abandoned its misguided quick-deal approach and passed counterproposals during last week’s session. However, the Company made very little movement toward meeting the needs of our Membership. In addition, despite the Company proclaiming collaboration in its previous negotiations update, there was little, if no actual collaboration exhibited by the Company during the session.

On the first day of bargaining, the Company presented counterproposals to Article 33, Commuter Policy, Article 25, Safety, Health & Security, and Hotel Standards. The Company’s response to the Hotel Article adopted, in part, language from SWAPA’s agreement as it relates to the Crew Accommodations Board (“CAB”), but their response rejected nearly every hotel standard provision proposed by your Negotiating Team. We will continue to negotiate toward the hotel standards you, as Flight Attendants, deserve. We were also dismayed with the Company’s response to Safety, Health & Security as it failed to address several issues important to you. For example, with respect to cabin temperatures, Company negotiators surprisingly explained the Company could not accept our proposed provisions, which provided it was the Company’s responsibility to maintain reasonable cabin temperatures. This is alarming — how can it be the Company is unwilling to take responsibility for cabin temperatures on board its aircraft? Nevertheless, we will continue to negotiate to ensure you are provided a safe environment in which to work. The Company additionally refused to memorialize the Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) program in the Contract. The only reason given for this refusal was the Company’s need to remain “flexible.” CISM benefits both the Company and our Flight Attendants, and there should be no issue memorializing this exceptional program in our CBA. Additionally, as related to the Commuter Policy, the Company rejected our ground commuter language and explained it did so because the proposal “could” lead to higher absentee rates. However, this explanation was not supported by any data or analysis. Your Negotiating Team explained how our ground commuter proposal would have assisted with last week’s weather issues in Houston. The Company was not interested; instead, remained on its unsupported position that our proposal “could” lead to increased absenteeism. 

Your Negotiating Team passed two new proposals that included Articles 15, Leave of Absence and Article 16, Sick Leave/On The Job Injury, as well as a counterproposal on Article 17, Medical Examinations. On the final day of negotiations, the Company passed proposals on Article 34, Passports and LODO Program; Article 24, General & Miscellaneous; Article 22, Expenses and Article 3, Scope. The Company’s Scope proposal was almost identical to their comprehensive package. The Company wants to completely remove the existing language, which requires the Company to bargain with the Union prior to engaging in future product or service sales conducted or transacted by Flight Attendants on board any aircraft. Despite proposing a complete elimination of this language, Company negotiators claimed it already had the contractual right to implement onboard sales without bargaining with your Union. We strongly disagree with the Company’s claim and will protect our existing language in the event that the Company attempts to violate the Contract as it relates to this language. The Company proposal for Article 22 was similar to what was in their comprehensive package. It contained no increase in per diem and was merely a “housekeeping” item to move the Hotel and Transportation language to the new Hotel Standards Article. In their Passports and LODO Program proposal, they made very few changes and proposed to keep the LODO program in Subcommittee. The Company also proposed the elimination of language in General & Miscellaneous, which requires the CBA to be reopened for the purposes of negotiating rates of pay, rules, and working conditions if the Company institutes meal service or places an aircraft other than the Boeing 737-200/300/500/600/700/800/MAX-7/MAX-8 into service. Instead, the Company proposed only negotiating rates of pay, rules, and working conditions if it places a wide-body aircraft or aircraft with a seating configuration requiring less than three Flight Attendants. The Company provided no explanation as to why it needed such a significant change here, but we all must ask ourselves the same question — what is driving this proposal and is the Company telling the full story as to its motives?

We want to thank all the Members for your amazing solidarity and the outpouring of support for your Negotiating Team over these past few months. As additional Company bargaining updates filter out, it is important we watch what the Company does and contrast that against what it says. If the Company truly wants a collaborative approach to bargaining, it needs to demonstrate that at the table. That did not occur this week.

Stay informed, stay engaged, and continue building solidarity as the powerful unionized workforce we are. The next bargaining session is scheduled for October 8-10.