- Home
- News Feed
- MEC
- Committees
- ‣See All
- ‣Benefits
- ‣Central Schedule
- ‣Comms
- ‣Contract Interp
- ‣EAP & Pro Standards
- ‣European Affairs
- ‣Government Affairs
- ‣Grievance
- ‣Hotels & Transport
- ‣Human Rights & Equity
- ‣Membership Engagement
- ‣Negotiating
- ‣Reserve
- ‣Retiree Med Plan
- ‣Retirement Board
- ‣Safety, Health & Security
- ‣System Board
- ‣Uniforms
- Councils
- Resources
- Reports
- Public Area
Dark Mode
- Home
- News Feed
- MEC
- Committees
- ‣See All
- ‣Benefits
- ‣Central Schedule
- ‣Comms
- ‣Contract Interp
- ‣EAP & Pro Standards
- ‣European Affairs
- ‣Government Affairs
- ‣Grievance
- ‣Hotels & Transport
- ‣Human Rights & Equity
- ‣Membership Engagement
- ‣Negotiating
- ‣Reserve
- ‣Retiree Med Plan
- ‣Retirement Board
- ‣Safety, Health & Security
- ‣System Board
- ‣Uniforms
- Councils
- Resources
- Reports
- Public Area
Dark Mode
MEC Grievance Committee
Today, we report that the System Board of Adjustment ruling has denied MEC Grievance 8-24, our grievance over last summer’s Weekend Absence Certificate Policy. It is the opinion of our Leadership and AFA Legal Department that this is a poorly reasoned and decided award.
The System Board Award
Arbitrator Gomez, writing for a majority of the System Board, recognized that in May and June 2024, there was a “dramatic and sustained surge in weekend sick calls, circumstances suggesting to the company that abuse or misuse of sick leave was occurring.” The company presented evidence that in the months leading up to July 2024, weekend sick calls surged to 22% -- almost a quarter of Flight Attendants were calling in sick.
The System Board accepted the company’s argument that it had the ability to issue the system-wide Absence Certificate Policy under Section 13.C.5. of the JCBA:
Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Company from requiring a Flight Attendant to provide satisfactory verification of an incapacitating illness from an accredited physician when circumstances suggest that abuse or misuse of sick leave has occurred.
The System Board found that when “circumstances indicating systemwide sick leave abuse” exist, the contractual language did not require the company to provide Flight Attendants with individual notices to provide Absence Certificate verifications.
The System Board rejected the Union’s evidence of negotiating history for Section 13.C.4. This Section is our holiday period Absence Certificate language, which we believe was clear evidence that system-wide Absence Certificate requirements were only permitted during the Fourth of July and Christmas holiday periods.
Ultimately, the majority of the System Board found that the JCBA did not prevent the company from implementing the Weekend Absence Certificate Policy “when circumstances reflected potential sick leave abuse.” The grievance was denied.
The Union Board Members determined that a dissenting opinion was necessary. The opening of the dissenting opinion states:
The Board’s Award in this Grievance displays a stunning mis-understanding and mis-application of the JCBA’s clear language and prior arbitral decisions. The Award hands the Company a “contractual right,” which it failed to secure in two sets of contract negotiations. This Board is not the National Mediation Board. It has overstepped its contractual authority in allowing the JCBA to be amended through management fiat.
MEC President Ken Diaz has requested that the AFA Legal Department assess whether this Award may be vacated in federal court.
What This Means for Flight Attendants
This Award permits the company to institute a system-wide Absence Certificate requirement for sick calls, even outside the contractual Fourth of July and Christmas holiday periods. Therefore, we could see such a requirement in the future, depending on sick rates.
MEC President Ken Diaz has spoken to Senior Vice President, Inflight Services, John Slater about the company’s plans, given the Award. Sick calls are increasing, similar to the May and June period of last year. The company has indicated it does not have immediate plans to issue another Absence Certificate requirement. However, the company is not ruling out the possibility if sick calls continue on their current trend.
If the company decides to institute another Absence Certificate requirement, the Union’s expectation is that the company will provide sufficient notice and greater clarity in the policy’s requirements. Last year left us with far too many questions about management’s last-minute and ill-conceived policy.
Flight Attendants may remember that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opened an investigation into the company’s Weekend Absence Certificate Policy last summer. Supporting the investigation, the Union was in regular contact with the DOL, providing evidence and receiving updates. As of 2025, that communication has stopped; there have been changes in both personnel and policy at the DOL. The Union will continue to advocate for a positive outcome.