Request for Full Re-Review, Contract Enforcement, and Corrective Action Concerning United’s Termination Decision
Attn: AFA-CWA Council 2,Council President, Grievance Co-Chairs,
and MEC Representatives
The record already shows why this matter warrants immediate review. United issued a Letter of Investigation on February 4, 2021 and scheduled an investigatory meeting for February 8, 2021. That meeting was cancelled because FA Blockhus was physically not available. AFA informed management that the investigation needs to contractually paused pending FB Blockhus medical status and availability. After agreeing, United Jr. Suporvisor, Frank Hester nevertheless proceeded to violate the CBA and terminate his employment effective February 26, 2021, before he had any meaningful opportunity to participate in the investigation or present rebuttal evidence. That sequence is not a minor defect. It is a direct affront to the investigation procedures in the JCBA.
The termination letter confirms that United knew FA Blockhus was unavailable to attend an investigatory meeting until at least April 5, 2021. It also shows that the Company moved forward anyway, relying on a process that had been interrupted by medical unavailability and union notice of a pause, that alone required AFA to press harder, insist on compliance, and demand that United honor the investigation procedures before imposing discipline. Instead, United was allowed to proceed as though the process or the CBA did not matter.
Why AFA should review this case again
1. United denied the investigatory protections required by the JCBA
Section 23 required that, when an investigation may lead to discipline or discharge, I be given union representation and an opportunity to present information relevant to the investigation. United did not complete that process in any meaningful way. I was unavailable because I was in no condition to participate and was seeking immediate medical attention, yet the Company terminated me before a fair meeting occurred.
That is not just a factual disagreement about conduct. It is a contractual process violation. A union exists to enforce the agreement when management ignores it. Here, the Company’s decision to proceed in the face of a paused investigation and known medical unavailability should have triggered a full contractual objection and renewed pressure for rescission.
2. United ignored the agreed pause and terminated me in absentia
The appeal materials reflect that AFA and management understood the investigation would be paused until my medical status was known and I was physically able to attend. The termination letter itself confirms the Company was told I would not be available until at least April 5, 2021. Despite that, United terminated me effective February 26, 2021.
That is the core procedural violation: the Company used a truncated, incomplete, and medically compromised process to impose the most severe penalty possible. If AFA allows that outcome to stand, it signals to management that contractual pause agreements can be ignored whenever termination is desired quickly enough.
3. United and AFA allowed my leave and rehabilitation-related protections to be disregarded
FA Blockhus appeal identified violations of Section 21.C, Section 29.A, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The record reflects that he had substantial accrued sick leave and was in treatment during the relevant period. United proceeded as though FA Blockhus medical status was irrelevant. It was not. If a member is in active medical crisis and the investigation is understood to be paused, the Union must insist that the Company respect that status and comply with the contract before discipline is imposed.
Section 29.A also implicated benefits continuation during leave and pending grievance proceedings. FA Blockhus appeal states that his medical care was disrupted by the termination and that he did not receive the benefits-related protections the contract required. Those are not collateral issues. They are part of the contractual framework the Union is obligated to defend.
4. United relied on a distorted and incomplete record
FA Blockhus submission materials and the deposition testimony of Katherine Lense as well as John McCormick show serious factual issues that make it all the more important that the Union review the case carefully rather than accept management’s version at face value. In her testimony, Ms. Lense acknowledged that she and Blockhus resumed a relationship into late 2020, remained in contact as friends and continued communicating into January 2021. She also testified that she and Blockhus communicated by text, phone, WhatsApp, and Instagram, and she admitted that no complete phone-log or full WhatsApp history was ever provided to United.
That matters because United’s decision rested on a one-sided investigation. The Company relied on selected statements and fragments of evidence while ignoring context, chronology, and the limits of the materials it actually collected. FA Lense further testified that she did not provide United with a complete history of her communications with him and that United never asked her for a complete phone history. A fair investigation would have demanded the full record before discipline was imposed. Moreover, FA Lense testified on multipal occations that she was only trying to protect her employment as she was made aware FA Blockhus would be reporting her for harassment.
5. FA Blockhus withdrawn statement was not an admission of the specific conduct as United claimed
United has repeatedly tried to treat FA Blockhus early ill informed written statement as an admission to the specific text messages alleged in the termination letter. It was not. In his withdrawn statement, he expressly said I did not know the content of the messages being referenced, that I was only responding to what I believed may have been an argument, and that I was retracting the statement. He also explained that the statement was written under pressure and emotional distress and did not reflect his official position. In Later testimony supervisor Frank Hester stated that FA Blockhus was created outside the investigation process.
That is exactly the kind of issue the Union should have pressed: not whether he was under stress, but whether management was mischaracterizing an equivocal, withdrawn statement as a confession to conduct he did not admit. AFA should not permit United to convert confusion and pressure into "admission of guilt".
What AFA should do now
FA Blockhus respectfully request that AFA:
a. Reopen and re-review FA Blockhus case in full;
b. Treat this matter as a serious contract-enforcement issue under Sections 21, 23, and 29 of the JCBA;
c. Challenge United’s decision to terminate him before a fair investigatory process was completed;
d. Demand rescission of the termination and restoration of my employment and benefits;
e. Preserve and evaluate the full evidentiary record, including the deposition testimony and his withdrawn statement;
f. Provide a written explanation of what steps AFA will take to defend the contract in this case.
If AFA believes it lacks authority or discretion to act, then it should say so plainly and in writing, and explain how it reconciles that position with its responsibility to enforce the JCBA and protect the members whose dues fund the Union’s representation. A union cannot preserve contractual rights by standing aside while management ignores them.