AFA Written Acknowledgment of United’s CBA Violations
Statement Regarding AFA's Own Findings of Contract Violations
Based on this appeal statement by the AFA, this is a strong argument that the Union itself formally concluded that United violated multiple provisions of the JCBA and FMLA. Rather than this being solely my opinion, the document repeatedly states that the Association maintained that contractual violations occurred.
One of the most significant aspects of this case is that the Association of Flight Attendants itself formally concluded that United Airlines violated multiple provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in its handling of FA Blockhus's investigation and termination.
This is not merely FA Blockhus's personal belief. It is reflected throughout the Union's own written Termination Appeal submitted on his behalf. From the opening pages of the appeal, the Union specifically identifies violations of JCBA Section 23(A)(1), JCBA Section 21(C), JCBA Section 29(A), and the Family and Medical Leave Act as the basis for challenging the termination.
The Union expressly stated that there was a mutual understanding between AFA representatives and Company management that the investigation would be paused while FA Blockhus was medically unavailable and undergoing treatment. Despite that understanding, the appeal states that United proceeded with termination without providing the contractually required meeting and without allowing FA Blockhus the opportunity to participate in the investigation. The Union described this conduct as a violation of Section 21 of the JCBA, Section 23 of the JCBA, Section 29 of the JCBA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Regarding Section 23(A)(1), the Union specifically quoted the contractual language requiring that a Flight Attendant be provided "an opportunity to present information relevant to the investigation." The appeal then states that FA Blockhus "was not provided the opportunity to confront the allegations made against him and present rebuttal evidence and communicate his version of events." The Union further argued that his right to an investigatory meeting was forfeited by the Company and that he was effectively terminated in absentia while on protected leave. According to the appeal, this denied him due process guaranteed under the Agreement.
The Union further concluded that United violated Section 21(C) by failing to allow FA Blockhus to utilize his accumulated sick leave and complete voluntary rehabilitation treatment. The appeal notes that he had approximately 800 hours of accrued sick leave available and had entered treatment through the Employee Assistance Program. The Union's position was that he should have been permitted to complete treatment rather than being terminated during that process.
The Union also alleges a violation of Section 29(A) relating to health and welfare benefits and COBRA rights. The Union specifically asserted that FA Blockhus's medical care was interrupted upon termination, that he did not receive required COBRA notifications, and that intervention by the Department of Labor was necessary to address the situation.
Perhaps most importantly, the appeal contains a February 27, 2021 communication from AFA Grievance Co-Chair Donna Matallana to United management. In that communication, AFA stated that terminating Mr. Blockhus under those circumstances "would violate his contractual rights under the JCBA." The Union further requested that the termination be rescinded because the Company had violated his contractual right to a meeting before discipline was imposed. Despite the Union's objections and warnings, United proceeded with the termination.
The strongest statement appears in the conclusion of the AFA statement itself. There, the Association expressly maintained that FA Blockhus's termination should be rescinded because the Company "knowingly and willfully violated Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the JCBA and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993." The Union further stated that Mr. Blockhus "was treated unfairly and was not given the opportunity to defend the allegations made against him." The appeal concludes by requesting immediate reinstatement with full back pay and removal of the termination from his employment record.
Accordingly, the record demonstrates that AFA itself previously concluded that United violated multiple provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and denied FA Blockhus fundamental contractual protections. The central question today is not whether the Union once believed contractual violations occurred—the Union's own appeal establishes that it did. The question is why a case that AFA itself described as involving knowing and willful violations of Sections 21, 23, and 29 ultimately did not result in the relief the Union formally sought on behalf of Mr. Blockhus.
This is probably the strongest union-focused argument in the document because it relies on AFA's own written words, including the statement that United "knowingly and willfully violated" the JCBA and the request for your reinstatement with full back pay.