I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this issue below:



"CBA 14.B.2.c.i – “Mini-RLG and sick bank debits”

The changes in this section are what we refer to as “codification” of current practice. The addition of “mini-RLG” has to do with custom or secondary lines that are constructed with blocks of R days that constitute a “mini-RLG.” For reserve line holders, if you are listed sick for an entire bid month of r days you are “charged” the entire value of your RLG from your sick account.

The current practice is that if you have a “mini-RLG” AND you are sick for the entire block, your sick account will be charged with the value of your mini-RLG. That is what has been captured in this addition, so that pilots understand and know the rules as they pertain to this scenario.

In summary, there is no change to the current “leveling” practice found in CBA 14.B.2.c. Whether you are on a “RLG” or “mini-RLG,” your sick account will only debited for trips you would have been assigned as if you were not sick, unless you remain sick for ALL R days in a month. If you remain sick for ALL R days in a month, your sick account is debited for the full value of RLG or applicable mini-RLG."


I read the contract (not the TA) and the old section reads as follows:



" A pilot holding a line comprised entirely of R-days and who is sick for all such R-days shall be compensated his RLG and shall have his sick leave reduced by such RLG."



I have no idea how "past practice" allows someone that has a mini-RLG (quite possibly a Secondary line or Custom line composed of R days and trips) have to use his sick bank for the entire month (of R days) if he is sick. The contract verbiage is very succinct for once, it says "A pilot holding a line comprised entirely of R-days". If you have trips and R days (happens fairly often on custom and Secondary lines), you should only have to have your sick bank deducted when they would have assigned you a trip.

I don't think this is the case. If it happened to me, I would ask to file a grievance. I believe this is yet another give back and is not "codification of current practice." If it is, we really are letting the company steamroll us. This section is very clear.