Concerning issue of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA’s handling of FA Blockhus termination and related grievance. That AFA failed to meaningfully enforce the contractual protections provided by the applicable Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement, including the right to union representation and an opportunity to present information relevant to an investigation that could lead to discipline or discharge.

It is recognized that AFA had discretion to evaluate the facts, assess the merits, and determine how to pursue a grievance.  The concern is that AFA did not adequately investigate, present, or enforce a substantial contractual claim before United terminated FA Blockhus.

I. United Terminated FA Blockhus Before the Investigatory Process Was Completed

United’s termination letter confirms that an initial investigatory meeting was scheduled for February 8, 2021, but did not occur after AFA notified United that FA Blockhus was medically unable to continue and was under medical attention. United then issued an amended Letter of Investigation and scheduled another investigatory meeting for February 15, 2021. That meeting also did not occur before United terminated FA Blockhus effective February 26, 2021.

The applicable JCBA provision states:

“When the company conducts an investigation which may lead to disciplinary action or discharge, the Flight Attendant shall be entitled to Union representation, if reasonably available, and an opportunity to present information relevant to the investigation.”

United did not satisfy this provision because it terminated FA Blockhus before conducting a completed investigatory meeting at which he could present relevant information with union representation.

United’s termination letter further states that it had been notified that FA Blockhus was unavailable to attend an investigatory meeting until at least April 5, 2021. Nevertheless, United imposed termination effective February 26, more than five weeks before that date. The letter does not identify a completed investigatory meeting before termination, a valid waiver of the meeting, or an agreement that document production substituted for the opportunity to present information.

II. AFA Had Direct Notice of the Contractual Problem

AFA representatives were directly involved in the investigation and were copied on the relevant communications. United’s termination letter identifies Jill Collins as the AFA Council 21 President who informed United that FA Blockhus was medically unavailable and was under medical attention. The letter also identifies Donna Matallana as an AFA grievance co-chair who received my February 7 written statement.

The February 23, 2021 communication among United personnel stated:

“We never were able to hold an investigation meeting.”

The same communication discussed the February 26 timeline, stated that an extension had been contemplated, and indicated that management intended to schedule a meeting so it could proceed with separation by that Friday.

This communication was important because it supported the position that United knew no investigatory meeting had occurred and was proceeding toward termination based on a deadline rather than completing the contractual process. AFA should have treated that information as a central contract-enforcement issue and determined whether United had violated, waived, or improperly applied the applicable JCBA provisions.

III. AFA Did Not Adequately Enforce Section 23

The principal grievance was not merely that United reached the wrong conclusion about disputed evidence. It was that United made the final termination decision before providing the contractual opportunity to present relevant information.

A complete investigatory meeting would have allowed me to:

•     respond to each communication attributed to me;

•     challenge the authenticity, completeness, and context of screenshots and other records;

•     distinguish between regrettable words and the specific messages relied upon by United;

•     explain my February 7 written statement;

•     present phone, SIM-card, WhatsApp, and other communications records;

•     respond to the amended allegations concerning later communications;

•     address medical and FMLA documentation;

•     explain the timing and context of the complaint;

•     present mitigating evidence concerning my service and work history; and

•     address whether termination was proportionate.

AFA should have argued that these rights could not be eliminated simply because United had collected documents or obtained a preliminary written statement. The contractual language expressly protected an opportunity for the Flight Attendant to present relevant information. That opportunity belonged to FA Blockhus and could not be replaced automatically by United’s own review of evidence.

IV. AFA Failed to Pursue the February 27 Request for Rescission to a Meaningful Resolution

The materials indicate that AFA contacted United on February 27, 2021, and requested that United rescind the termination so the investigation could continue. That request demonstrates that AFA recognized a serious procedural problem immediately after the termination.

However, I have not been provided with a clear explanation of:

1.         what United’s response was;

2.         whether AFA filed or advanced a formal grievance;

3.         whether the grievance was denied, withdrawn, closed, or left unresolved;

4.         whether AFA pursued the matter through the next contractual step;

5.         whether any extension or waiver was requested;

6.         whether the matter was submitted to arbitration or a System Board; and

7.         why the contractual objection was not carried through to a final determination.

AFA’s February 27 request should not have been the end of the contractual challenge. It should have initiated a documented effort to enforce the JCBA, preserve the grievance, obtain a written response, and pursue all available remedies.

V. AFA Did Not Fully Investigate the Evidence Supporting the Grievance

The record contains substantial evidence that required investigation before AFA could fairly decide whether to enforce the JCBA. That evidence includes:

•     the missed February 8 and February 15 investigatory meetings;

•     United’s acknowledgment that I was unavailable until at least April 5;

•     the February 23 communication stating that no investigation meeting had occurred;

•     the alleged understanding that the investigation would be paused or extended;

•     my medical and FMLA documentation;

•     my February 7 written statement and subsequent clarification;

•     the original communications and available device records;

•     questions concerning the completeness and authentication of screenshots;

•     Katherine Lense’s March 17, 2021 email concerning the timing and stated purpose of her complaint;

•     testimony and other evidence concerning the parties’ relationship and communications;

•     my length of service and prior work history; and

•     the February 27 request that United rescind the termination.

This created substantial questions that AFA was required to investigate and present before abandoning or failing to enforce my contractual rights.

VI. The Union’s Handling Was Not a Meaningful Enforcement of the Agreement

AFA’s handling amounted to accepting United’s termination decision rather than enforcing the JCBA’s procedural protections. The central issue was treated as though it were only a dispute over whether United believed the communications. That omitted the separate and potentially dispositive issue of whether United completed the contractually required investigatory process before imposing termination.

The Supreme Court has held:

“A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 (1967)

The Supreme Court has also explained that a union’s decision-making must remain within a “wide range of reasonableness.” Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 76–77 (1991)

The AFA should explain how it investigated and enforced the specific procedural violation reflected in United’s own documents. A decision not to pursue the grievance may be within the Union’s discretion only if it followed a fair, informed, and nonperfunctory evaluation of the relevant facts and contract language.

VII. The Departure of Representatives Requires Review of the Grievance File

Donna Matallana and Jill Babich-Collins were involved in the handling or representation of my matter. Both representatives were later terminated while attempting to represent FA Blockhus. 

Their departures nevertheless create a legitimate reason for AFA to determine whether this grievance was transferred, preserved, monitored, and fully pursued. AFA should identify:

•     who assumed responsibility for this case;

•     whether the complete grievance file was transferred;

•     whether any deadlines or appeal rights were missed;

•     whether United was notified of a change in representation;

•     whether the February 27 request was followed up;

•     whether the grievance was closed or left pending; and

•     whether any available remedy remains.

An independent review by representatives who were not involved in the prior handling is therefore appropriate.

VIII. Requested AFA Action

It is respectfully request that AFA:

1.         Conduct an independent review of the complete grievance and termination record;

2.         Obtain the full United investigative and Corporate Security files;

3.         Determine whether United held any completed investigatory meeting before termination;

4.         Evaluate whether United violated the JCBA by terminating FA Blockhus before he received the                             opportunity to present relevant information;

5.         Review the February 23 communication and the discussions concerning an extension or pause;

6.         Determine what occurred after AFA’s February 27 request that United rescind the termination;

7.         Identify the status and final disposition of every grievance, appeal, or review;

8.         Determine whether any deadlines were waived, extended, tolled, or affected by United’s conduct;

9.         Review the effect, if any, of the departure of the representatives who handled the matter;

10.       Evaluate the medical, FMLA, communications, mitigation, and procedural evidence;

11.       Reopen, reactivate, or otherwise pursue all available contractual remedies if the review supports                     doing so;

12.       Seek reinstatement, restoration of seniority and benefits, back pay, correction of his personnel                        record, or other appropriate relief if authorized; and

13.       If AFA declines to act, provide a written explanation identifying the evidence reviewed, the                                  contractual basis for its decision, the grievance’s status, and all remaining internal appeal rights and                deadlines.

Conclusion

The AFA did not meaningfully enforce the JCBA after United terminated FA Blockhus before completing the required investigatory process. United’s own termination letter confirms that the scheduled meetings did not occur, that AFA reported FA Blockhus medical unavaiability, and that United knew he was unavailable for an investigatory meeting until at least April 5, 2021. The February 23 communication separately states that no investigation meeting had occurred while United proceeded toward separation by February 26.

Those facts presented a serious contractual issue. AFA should have investigated it, preserved the grievance, challenged United’s premature termination, and pursued the matter through the available grievance procedure. Instead, as I understand the record, the JCBA’s protections were not meaningfully enforced on my behalf.

FA Blockhus respectfully request an independent, merits-based review focused not only on the underlying allegations, but also on whether United complied with the Agreement and whether AFA fulfilled its responsibility to enforce the contractual protections applicable to every AFA-represented flight attendant.