United’s termination of FA Blockhus cannot be sustained
- United’s termination cannot be sustained because it was imposed without compliance with the JCBA’s mandatory investigation process and related leave protections. Before discipline or discharge may issue, Section 23 A. requires that the Flight Attendant be given union representation, if reasonably available, and an opportunity to present information relevant to the investigation. United proceeded to terminate FA Blockhus in absentia after the investigation was paused, despite the parties’ understanding that the matter would be held while his medical status was addressed. That failure is a threshold statutory and contractual defect, not a mere evidentiary dispute. The termination letter itself confirms that United knew the February 8 meeting did not occur, knew FB Blockhus was unavailable until at least April 5, 2021, and nevertheless moved to discharge him before affording the contractual opportunity to appear. On this record, the challenge is not merely that United reached the wrong factual conclusion; it is that United acted outside the procedural framework governing discipline. In a post-award petition, that should be framed as a failure to comply with the Act and the parties’ governing agreement, not as a free-standing constitutional due-process claim.
- United’s discipline must be vacated because the company failed to comply with the mandatory investigation procedures required by the JCBA. Section 23 A. required that, before discharge, FA Blockhus be afforded union representation and an opportunity to present information relevant to the investigation. Instead, after the February 8 meeting was cancelled for medical reasons and the matter was understood to be paused pending updated medical information, United proceeded to terminate him in absentia without completing the contractual process. A discharge imposed without the contractually required investigatory opportunity is not supported by just cause and cannot be sustained.
- This case presents a threshold compliance defect: United did not follow the JCBA’s mandatory predisciplinary procedure, so the discharge was issued outside the contractual framework. Because Section 23 A. conditions discipline on an investigation in which the flight attendant has representation and an opportunity to present relevant information, United’s failure to hold the promised rescheduled meeting deprived FA Blockhus of the process the parties bargained for. That contractual failure independently defeats the discharge.
- This site challenges United’s termination of FA Blockhus as procedurally defective and unsupported by just cause because United did not complete the mandatory investigative process required by the JCBA. The record reflects that the initial February 8, 2021 investigatory meeting was cancelled when FA Blockhus required medical attention, that AFA communicated the matter would be paused pending medical status, and that United nevertheless proceeded to termination in absentia without affording the contractual opportunity to appear, respond, and present information relevant to the investigation. Section 23 A. required that, before discipline or discharge, the Flight Attendant be afforded union representation, if reasonably available, and an opportunity to present information relevant to the investigation. United ignored that contractual protection and instead relied on a record built without the required meeting, while simultaneously treating FA Blockhus’s withdrawn email as an admission to conduct he expressly disputed. That is not just cause; it is a failure to follow the bargained-for disciplinary process.