Media Outlets Requesting Information

• Chicago-area newsrooms: United is a major Chicago-based employer, and requested a prepared submission for the Chicago Sun-Times and WBEZ. 
  Chicago Sun-Times/WBEZ tip submission, D17
• Labor and workplace reporters: A reporter who covers unions, collective bargaining, airline workers, and employment practices is interested in whether this case illustrates a recurring issue for represented employees by AFA.
• Aviation-industry publications: Requested more information in this dispute that can reveals a issue about how United and the AFA applies contractual investigation procedures, rather than only the merits of one employee’s discipline.
• Multiple Local television or investigative desks: Is considering these if you can offer a clear, document-supported timeline and make relevant records available for independent review.

Media Statement

Former United Airlines Flight Attendant Seeks Independent Review of Termination and Union Handling

Mr. Blockhus is seeking an independent review of his February 26, 2021 termination from United Airlines and the handling of his related grievance by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA.

The central issue is not simply whether United agreed with the disputed evidence it reviewed. The central issue is whether United completed the investigatory process required by the applicable collective bargaining agreement before imposing the ultimate penalty of termination.

United’s termination letter states that an investigatory meeting was scheduled for February 8, 2021, but did not occur after AFA informed the Company that Mr. Blockhus was medically unable to continue. The letter also states that another investigatory meeting was scheduled for February 15, 2021, but that he was unavailable to attend an investigatory meeting until at least April 5, 2021. United nevertheless terminated his employment effective February 26, 2021.

The applicable agreement provides:

“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.”

Mr. Blockhus contend that receiving documents or submitting a preliminary written statement was not the same as receiving the contractual opportunity to present relevant information through a completed investigatory process. He was not given a completed meeting at which he could respond to the allegations, explain the communications, challenge the interpretation or completeness of the evidence, address the amended allegations, present medical and leave information, and provide mitigating evidence concerning his long service and work history.

A February 23, 2021 text message among United personnel stated:

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

The same communication discussed a February 26 timeline, an extension that had been considered, and scheduling a meeting so United could proceed with separation by that Friday. Mr. Blockhus does not claim that this message alone conclusively establishes a legal violation or resolves every contractual deadline. He contends that it is important evidence that both the AFA and United knew no investigation meeting had occurred and was proceeding toward termination within a deadline before the process was completed.

The record also contains disputed evidence concerning the communications attributed to him. The termination letter states that Corporate Security reviewed and confirmed the communications. Mr. Blockhus contends that important questions remain concerning the completeness, authorship, context, and underlying source records for the messages and other communications relied upon by United. Those questions should be resolved through examination of the complete investigative file, original communications, device records, interview materials, and related evidence, rather than through assumptions by either side.

Katherine Lense’s March 17, 2021 statement also warrants careful review. In that statement, she wrote that the purpose of her complaint was to protect herself from what she described as false accusations and threats concerning her employment at United. She also stated that she was preparing to return from furlough and wanted the alleged communications to stop rather than seeking Blockhus termination. Mr. Blockhus contends that they raise relevant questions about timing, context, credibility, and the need for a balanced investigation.

Mr. Blockhus also contend that the medical and leave circumstances required further review. The materials indicate that he became medically unavailable, submitted requested documentation, and was later approved for FMLA leave covering the period surrounding the cancelled investigatory meetings. The Family and Medical Leave Act prohibits interference with protected leave rights and retaliation for exercising those rights. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)–(2) Whether the statute was violated depends on the complete facts, including the leave designation, decision-maker knowledge, and reason for termination. Mr. Blockhus raise the issue as a matter requiring investigation, not as an established legal conclusion.

Mr. Blockhus is requesting that AFA conduct an independent, merits-based review that is separate from any prior handling of the grievance. That review should determine:

1.         Whether the investigatory meetings required by the collective bargaining agreement occurred before termination.

2.         Whether United had authority under the agreement to terminate before the meeting and response opportunity occurred.

3.         Whether the February 23 communication, medical documentation, and extension discussions affected the applicable timeline.

4.         Whether my written statement was accurately and completely considered.

5.         Whether the communications evidence was complete, authenticated, and fairly evaluated.

6.         Whether the medical and FMLA issues were properly investigated.

7.         Whether mitigating evidence, including my approximately twenty-three years of service and work history, was considered.

8.         What happened to the grievance after AFA requested that United rescind the termination.

9.         Whether any contractual, arbitral, mediation, negotiated, or internal review remedy remains available.

This request is not that AFA accept my account without scrutiny or disregard the allegations against him. He is asking for the complete record to be reviewed by representatives who were not responsible for the earlier handling of the matter and for AFA to provide a written explanation of its conclusions.

The matter also raises a broader labor issue. Collective bargaining agreements provide employees with procedural protections before discipline and discharge. Those protections have meaning only if an employee is permitted to use them before the final decision is made. If an employer can acknowledge that an investigatory meeting did not occur, proceed with termination before the employee becomes available, and then rely on the finality of that decision, employees and union members may reasonably question how the agreement is being enforced.

Blockhus remains willing to provide the termination letter, the February 23 communication, the applicable agreement provisions, medical and leave records, the grievance materials, the communications evidence, and the relevant statements and testimony to any responsible journalist or independent reviewer. Mr. Blockhus ask that United and AFA be given a full opportunity to respond, and I welcome independent verification of every material fact.

Mr. Blockhus objective is a fair review of the process, the evidence, and the remedies that may still be available. He is not asking the public or the media to decide disputed factual issues without reviewing the records. Mr. Blockhus is asking why a long-serving employee was terminated before receiving the investigatory opportunity that the collective bargaining agreement appears to require, and why that issue has not received an independent review.

Media contact

Derek Blockhus

13436 Wansteadt Place

Bristow, Virginia 20136

(703)606-1644

info@blockhus-versus-united-airlines-truth.info

Documents available for review

1.         Applicable JCBA investigatory provision and re-review submission.

2.         February 23, 2021 United personnel text exchange.

3.         Katherine Lense’s March 17, 2021 statement.

4.         United’s March 3, 2021 termination letter.

5.         Relevant grievance, appeal, medical, FMLA, and employment records.