12.31.24 – Reduction in Staffing Grievance Arbitration Award

Reduction in Staffing Grievance
Arbitration Award

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

The Presidential Grievance on the 2020 staffing reductions has been denied. The award from the arbitrator may be found here.

The arbitrator sided with the company to uphold the company’s staffing changes. The decision is fundamentally flawed, and it fails to account for the reality of Flight Attendants under the current staffing levels. The ruling ignores the Flight Attendants’ firsthand experience and the broader implications of understaffing on safety, service, and employee well-being.

The arbitrator stated in the award that there was a critical distinction between the previous 777 understaffing arbitration award of 2003 and the current case. Previously, Flight Attendants had assigned times during which specific tasks had to be performed and were disciplined for not meeting those timelines. Today, the company has not placed a specific time frame for the performance of specific tasks, nor are our Flight Attendants disciplined because of the time it takes to complete service. The arbitrator ruled that if the company were to hold Flight Attendants to a particular amount of time per task and then discipline Flight Attendants for not timely completing a task, the decision would be different.

The testimony provided by Flight Attendants, who collectively have decades of experience, clearly demonstrates that the workload has become unreasonable since the staffing cuts were implemented in October 2020. Witnesses described the increased burden on Flight Attendants, particularly those in galley and Purser roles. These experienced professionals did not merely testify about minor inconveniences—they spoke of serious challenges in providing the level of service expected by passengers and maintaining safety standards under the reduced staffing levels.

Reduced staffing is a widespread concern that directly impacts both the well-being of our Flight Attendants and the quality of service provided to passengers. The arbitrator and the company do not sufficiently account for these lived experiences, which are crucial in assessing whether the workload is genuinely “reasonable.”

While reports suggest that Flight Attendants have ample time for breaks, this does not accurately reflect the stress and exhaustion caused by having to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously, including safety duties, customer service, and meal preparation. Further, it ignores that Flight Attendants are not simply working harder but are being forced to do so under conditions that compromise service quality and safety. The failure to properly account for the cumulative effect of the increased workload, especially in high-stress or emergency situations, is a critical oversight in the board’s reasoning.

As passenger loads increased following the pandemic, the workload for Flight Attendants also grew, but staffing levels remained reduced. Flight Attendants were left with no choice but to adapt, arriving earlier on the aircraft to prepare for the flight and deal with the reduction in crew members to meet the demands of the job.

While the arbitrator acknowledges that the service may be slower, she ruled that the company has the prerogative to change staffing even if it impacts customer satisfaction. Slower service due to understaffing is not just an inconvenience—but an effect on the company’s reputation and customer loyalty. Passengers in premium cabins expect a high standard of service, and the Flight Attendants themselves expect to deliver that service safely and professionally. By reducing staffing, the Company has created a situation where Flight Attendants can no longer meet these standards despite their best efforts.

In light of the evidence provided by the Union and the lack of proper consideration of the direct impact of the staffing changes, the arbitration decision to deny the grievance is unjust. The staffing reductions imposed by the company have indeed created an unreasonable workload for Flight Attendants, and the decision to retain these reduced staffing levels clearly shows the company does not care about their Flight Attendants or the impact to the service we provide every day.

In Solidarity,