Skip to content
Log in
Log out
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.

MEC 9 –12 (Profit Sharing) Our Collective Reaction, Arbitration and Next Steps

Share links
As we reported in the February 8, 2019 article, MEC 9-12 was filed protesting the calculation of the 2011 Profit Sharing Payment made to pmUA Flight Attendants. 

As we reported in the February 8, 2019 article, MEC 9-12 was filed protesting the calculation of the 2011 Profit Sharing Payment made to pmUA Flight Attendants. Disappointingly, we reported that we did not prevail in the case. Since that article was published, not only have we heard the collective disappointment, it’s important that we convey to each of you that we share in your disappointment.  You will recall, as part of the bankruptcy process, profit sharing was to replace, in part, the wage, benefit and pension concessions made by the pmUA Flight Attendants.  Given this understanding, the impact on the pmUA Membership is clear.

Subsequent to the release of the award of the arbitrator, we have received a number of questions on the arbitration process that we will attempt to address.

Arbitration – The Process

Section 24 of our JCBA provides for the System Board of Adjustment including

·      Establishment of the Board 

·      Membership

·      Jurisdiction of the Board

·      Consideration of Disputes

·      Selection of Arbitrators

·      Scheduling of Hearing Cases

·      Submissions

·      Representatives/Witnesses

·      Majority Rule

·      Effect of Decisions 

·      Rights under the Railway Labor Act


When a dispute exists between the company and the Union on any issue properly submitted to it by the President of the Union when such dispute has not previously been settled in accordance with the terms of the JCBA, the item will be scheduled for presentation to the System Board Members and the neutral arbitrator.

The arbitrator for any dispute is hired by the company and the Union as a neutral party.  The arbitrator does work for any number of entities and is not specifically dedicated to either AFA or United.  As such, we are dependent on her/his personal schedule.

The System Board is a five Member board consisting of two representatives from AFA, two representatives of management and the neutral arbitrator.

In addition, there are a number of witnesses who present testimony/evidence during the process.  Some of the individuals are Union representatives while others may be members of management, current or former employees or experts on specific subject matters.

During the course of the arbitration for MEC 9-12, two sessions were conducted, one in 2017 and one in 2018, during which time testimony and evidence was presented to the Members of the System Board of Adjustment by the various individuals who were called to testify before the Board.

After testimony, evidence and arguments of the parties is presented to the System Board, the arbitrator spends time working to formulate her/his position based on what was presented to the Board. There is no specific time limit imposed on the arbitrator within which she/he must complete her/his findings and to render a decision.

It is also important to understand that not all arbitrations, even when addressing what might appear to be the same issue, are the same.  While there may be similarities in certain cases, as is the case with ALPA and AFA as it pertains to Profit Sharing, any comparison of cases must be on an “apples to apples” basis. Differences in provisions within the respective Collective Bargaining Agreements, practice of the parties, the bargaining history and other unique issues can result in very different awards. Even more importantly, the involvement of different arbitrators can lead to very different conclusions.

Next Steps

Over the course of this past week as well as the next, AFA Legal and the MEC Officers are reviewing our options with regard to next steps.  Under the JCBA and the Railway Labor Act, System Board Awards are final and binding on the parties and court review of System Board Awards is limited. At the same time, defending the agreements we negotiate is an essential part of the Union’s business and we are prepared to take the legal steps necessary and warranted to fulfill our representational responsibilities under the Contract.  

During this period of time while we consider our options on how to defend our contract, we must maintain custody of the arbitrator’s award.  We understand the unique nature of this award and how it impacts the Membership. However, we have a duty to secure the arbitrator’s decision in the event we pursue legal action. For this reason, requests for release of the award cannot be granted.