 From
the President
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the Company’s new
Attendance Control Policy. I want each of our members to realize
that the Union had no involvement in this new program. We did not,
and have never, negotiated an Attendance Control Policy with US
Airways. The Union is not in agreement with the Company’s new
policies and will have to deal with them as the issues arise. Below
is a copy of CWA’s official question and answer statement explaining
our position in more detail. If you have any further questions about
the Company’s new Attendance Control Policy, as always please feel
free to contact our Local with any of your concerns.
I wish all of you and your families a happy Thanksgiving
Janice Garris
President
FAQ on the new Attendance Control and Discipline policy;
Why did US Airways develop a new Attendance control and
Discipline policy?
When US Airways and America West merged the customer service agents
from each company had different policies they were covered under.
The East had a two track system and the West had a one track system.
The West agents were subjected to “stacking” where the company could
combine attendance occurrences with disciplinary issues to move them
through the steps faster towards the final steps of their policy.
The East two track system was the policy the Company choose to adopt
for all of the agents, with changes to the two track system as
described in the policy the company has been covering the employees
on recently.
Did the IBT/CWA Association approve or negotiate this policy?
NO. Union’s normally do not negotiate discipline or attendance
policies. The reason is that it would make it very difficult to
challenge our members being disciplined under a policy that we
negotiated. We believe it is more beneficial to reserve our right to
challenge the discipline meted by the employer. Under the IBT/CWA
Association, we have “Just cause” language protecting us, giving us
the right to grieve any discipline issued to us under this new
policy or any other Company policy.
Did the IBT/CWA Association have input in any way to the new
Policy?
No, we did not have any direct input to policy. US Airways did
present it to the Association. We were able to ask clarifying
questions and offer suggestions but US Airways made it very clear
they had no interest in negotiating the policy and their request in
no way inferred that they would modify the policy based on our
input. The only suggestion the company considered from the
Association was the length of time an ATO agent is kept in Level III
discipline vs. a RES agent. They changed the policy to be the same
in both classifications. Now when placed on a level III discipline,
it is effective for 12 months instead of 18 months. This had been an
issue for years with the CWA before the merger, but it fell on deaf
ears in the past at US Airways. In fact, the company had threatened
to change the RES Level III to 18 months to mimic the ATO’s when we
asked them to make them equal. There were other changes and
suggestions made by the Association, but the Company did not
consider them.
Who can I contact if I have a question or issue with the new
policy and its application?
You should contact your local manager with any general questions
about the policy, since it was designed by US Airways. If an agent
wants to file a grievance due to the application of the policy,
please contact your Union steward for assistance.
Does the IBT/CWA Association agree with the new policy?
No, we do not. We did not agree with the past policies either and
have continued to grieve the application of discipline in each
individual case.
Does the threat of loosing our SWAPS due to a sick call on a
swap, violate our Contract?
Yes, the IBT/CWA Association feels that language in the policy
violates our negotiated language in the CBA and we have grievances
in the works to address this issue in the near future. We feel it is
also Double Jeopardy when someone is placed on a discipline level
for calling out sick on a swap and loosing their right to swap for
30 or 60 days. Disciplining an employee twice for the same act
constitutes “double jeopardy”.
|
