One & Done Reassignments Grievance (EWR 1040-19)

One & Done Reassignments Grievance (EWR 1040-19)

The Union has prevailed in our “One & Done” reassignment grievance. This grievance (EWR 1040-19) was filed because scheduling continued to reassign Flight Attendants after their first reassignment was canceled before they left the base. This was never the meaning or understanding of Section 7.Q. reassignment language, and the System Board has confirmed that.

Grievance EWR 1040-19 was filed as a Local Council NOD protesting the Company providing multiple reassignments under 7.Q.1. for the same calendar day reassignments. It followed the NOD process of Section 23.E, and was determined jointly by the DRC based on the scope of the dispute that the outcome would have widespread impact, and the members of the DRC unanimously voted to escalate the NOD to traditional arbitration.

After a full hearing on the merits, the System Board released its award on June 23, 2026. The System Board reviewed the evidence of the administration of the prior Section 5.K. language at Continental Airlines, the plain meaning of the current Section 7.Q.1. language, and the negotiating history of the current language. The Board ruled that the best evidence of the meaning of Section 7.Q.1. is the negotiating history.

The Board found it significant that during JCBA negotiations the Company continually proposed modifying the Continental Section 5.K. provision by adding the language: “Each time a Flight Attendant loses flight time for any reason, the following shall apply….”:

Besides the fact that the Company negotiators persistently and prominently proposed the each time sentence, the Union brought forward credible evidence that the Company’s chief spokesperson conceded that the each time sentence proposal was designed to give the Company more flexibility in reassignments than Continental had under Section 5.K.1. The Company did not offer an effective rebuttal to the testimonies of the two Union negotiators (Burns and Kande) who clearly related what Wall said across the bargaining table on February 19, 2016. In essence, Wall admitted that the each time sentence was a proposal to substantively change Section 5.K.1.

The Board found that this evidence demonstrated the Union’s interpretation of Section 7.Q.1. was correct. The Union satisfied its burden of proof, and the Company violated Section 7.Q.1. when it issued the grievant a second reassignment.

The Board found that this evidence demonstrated the Union’s interpretation of Section 7.Q.1. was correct. The Union satisfied its burden of proof, and the Company violated Section 7.Q.1. when it issued the grievant a second reassignment.

The majority of the Board found in favor of the Union and issued an award stating that the Company violated Section 7.Q.1 of the agreement when it reassigned the Grievant to a subsequent pairing. The Board reserved jurisdiction over the issue to resolve any dispute about the remedy for a period of six months.

Since the issuance of the award, the Union has sought clarification from United management about when they would change their scheduling process for same calendar day reassignments to comply with a “One & Done” process. However, to date, management has not committed to complying with a single reassignment going forward.

For the time being, we expect that the Company will continue to apply their version of the language and provide same calendar day reassignments for “each occurrence a Flight Attendant loses time”. In other words, if your first reassignment cancels, scheduling will continue to reassign you. To be clear, while we don’t agree, you must comply with subsequent reassignments issued to you. The rules have not changed: you cannot refuse a reassignment.

What can you do?

When given a second assignment for a same calendar day notice by Scheduling, remain professional and inform them that they cannot issue you a second reassignment under Section 7.Q.1. of your Contract. If Scheduling continues with issuing the reassignment, do not argue. We are asking that if you receive more than one reassignment under 7.Q.1you fill out a Local Council Worksheet and follow up with your Local Council. We will be seeking a “make whole” remedy for anyone we believe is assigned against the terms of the agreed upon language.

Also, please remember that the System Board’s award applies only to same calendar day reassignments under Section 7.Q.1. Notice of loss of flight time one or more days in advance, or while you are in the operation (after you leave base), are not covered by the award. In consultation with AFA legal the MEC is evaluating it’s next steps in order to ensure compliance with the award.

This was a hard fought award that was only possible because of the incredible work done by Local Council Volunteers, the MEC Office, and our AFA legal department. The MEC Grievance Committee would like to express sincere recognition and gratitude to:

-Newark Council 6 members, Rita Pearl and Jose Fernandez.

-Our witnesses whose testimony was found credible by the Board; Randy

-Hatfield, and Jack Kande, and AFA General Counsel Joe Burns.

-Our board members themselves, Christian Hertnecky and Kevin Lum

-Our AFA Senior Staff Attorney Peter Swanson

-And the outgoing MEC Grievance Chairperson Maria Torre

If you have any questions, please reach out to your Local Council.