DoubleTrouble

____________NEW SECTION 14 LANGUAGE_____________________


F. Notification/Verification of Sickness

1. A pilot will notify Crew Scheduling upon becoming aware:

a. that, due to sickness, he will be unable to perform duty or be available on an on call day,

b. of a period of known sick leave and known accident leave so that Crew Scheduling may post it as a known absence, and

c. that he is well.

Note: A pilot is not required to state the nature of his illness to Crew Scheduling.

2. A pilot may verify any sickness by providing to his Chief Pilot or the Chief Pilot Support Center either: a doctor’s certificate, or other proof of illness. At its option, the Company may require a doctor’s certificate to satisfy verification under Section 14 F. 2., 3., or 4.

3. Verification of sickness under Section 14 F. 2. is required when:

a. a pilot has used more than 100 hours of unverified sick leave in a sick leave year, or

b. a pilot has been absent on a single sick occurrence for 15 or more consecutive days.

4. When individual circumstances exist that give the Company a good faith basis to inquire regarding the medical reason for a pilot’s use of sick leave, such pilot may be required to state the nature of his illness in general terms to his Chief Pilot. Following such discussion, the Chief Pilot may:

a. consider the current sick leave occurrence to be verified, or

b. require verification of sickness from the pilot under Section 14 F. 2.

Note: Such individual circumstances may not be derived solely from the amount of

sick leave used by the pilot or the frequency of his sick occurrences.

5. In the event the Company requires a doctor’s certificate for verification, a pilot may

submit a reimbursement claim through DBMS for any reasonable expense incurred

in obtaining such verification.



G. Medical Release Requirement

A pilot who is required to verify his sickness under Section 14 F. 4. may be

required to provide the Company with a written authorization for release of medical

information (release), provided the release is limited to:

1. the specific sickness for which the pilot claimed sick leave,

2. the day(s) on which the pilot claimed sick leave and the consecutive day(s) off

immediately preceding and succeeding the day(s) on which a pilot claimed sick leave,

and

3. a Company designated doctor or other health care professional(s) and the Director – Health Services and the Senior Vice-President of Flight Operations.


In 2002/3 the company started a sick leave monitoring program. ALPA grieved it and won. A complete slam dunk ruling. Why? Management bargained for such a program in C2K, and the MEC would not give it to them. Management later instituted the program on their own. The RLA is clear: one party cannot use the System Board of Adjustment to get what they could NOT achieve at the table. Since DAL failed to get this program at the bargaining table, they were not free just to institute it and tell us "too bad". The sick leave monitoring program was rescinded.

Fast forward to 2011. DAL starts a new sick leave monitoring program. Didn't ALPA win that grievance? ALPA's response? We are studying it. OK... Now we bargained over it. It will be interesting if ALPA now tried to grieve this if this TA fails. Would ALPA now be using the System Board to achieve something they could not at the bargaining table? The simple solution would have been to make DAL comply with the ruling from 2004.

Note F.4. This is the trap door. Sick leave usage is a big deal to DAL management.

More Bacon

Where is the definition of "good faith basis?" What is there to prevent each and every sick call from being subject to a "good faith inquiry" from the company?

My gosh, what are setting ourselves up for?

We've got to vote this down.

newKnow

As a former NWA guy, I will tell you that "good faith basis" will turn out to lead to an inquiry when you call in sick:

1.) during a holiday period, and/or
2.) prior to or after a vacation period.


Nice, huh?

newKnow

Oh. So, when the management types come on to defend this new change, here's a few questions for you:

1.) When you "negotiated" the requirement for a doctors certification for unverified usage over 100 hours, did you give any consideration to the fact that this effectively requires 747-400 pilots and some 777 pilots to produce a doctors note on their second sick call in a 12 month period?

Or, is this not the case?

(Please, don't say it's a sick leave fly-back program.)

2.) Also, is it really your position that this is a better program than what we had before? True. 15 days is better than 7, but the 100 hours is new and therefore worse. Also, the requirement for the note instead of at the discretion of the company is worse. Right?

Just wondering where you guys are coming from.

newKnow

Deleted/


Nevermind.

orvil

This is the first contract negotiated in the Internet Age. C2K was completed as the internet information age was in it's infancy. Now, this contract language is instantly available for all to review.

I think this is a game changer for everyone involved.

In a previous contract negotiation, the MEC would produce the highlights/talking points. We would all review them. We would go to the roadshow and listen to one side's interpretation of the contract. We didn't have the actual contract language available to us for review. We had to trust that the highlights/talking points were correct in their interpretation of the agreement. Many times the actual language hadn't even been written. We voted based on these general outlines. A lot of times these interpretations proved to be incorrect in the actual application.

Fast forward to business under the new agreement. With the final contract language in place, we have the opportuniy to review the actual agreement. 12,000 Lawyers at work 24/7. In some cases, the talking points don't correctly reflect the actual language of the TA.

The sick leave portion of the TA is a perfect example. While the talking point looks good and seems to be an improvement, the final sectin of the agreement essentially negates the previous improvements by the insertion of a vague phrase. This phrase essentially opens the door to the Company to monitor all sick occurances. It also waives your right of privacy under the HIPPA act.

This is only one of many examples of why you must read this agreement section by section in order to understand the TA. Only through this detailed understanding can you make an informed decision.

What is interesting about the process is that the NC and LEC may not have fully understood everything that they have agreed to in this TA. Only by us turning this thing inside out and upside down can everyone see if it a worthy work product.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of these loopholes. Economic issues aside, there is a lot of very sloppy language that needs mopping up.

Raging white

It's like DALPA has taken the Pelosi approach of "We have to pass this contract, so we can see what's in it."

newKnow

You mean sloppy language like there is a very real argument that the company can make us pay for our medical exams if we use more than 100 hours or 15 days.

That's the source of my delete above. It's unbelievable, and I'm frustrated at the sloppiness.

This thing was thrown together.

Superpilot92

dont worry, the company would never harass people for being sick....errr wait.....

too keep things on track,

FIIGMO

New I totally agree with what you are saying and I enjoy reading your posts. From a general standpoint it does ruffle my feathers when I hear anyone compare the culture at NWA to DAL. I certainly have not been around as long as you but I honestly feel the culture at NWA was and is different when it comes to MGT and Pilot relations at Delta. I was not there at NWA and I due view this language as serious potential but I personally have not had anything but positive interactions with anyone at DAL MGT. I never once had the feeling they were out to get me or make my life troublesome. I needed some time and support for some bad family matters and I had to wing it before I was able to get the proper authorities and permissions and in every instance I was supported.

Back to the issue, yes we do need better language protections for the honest professionals trying to do their job. The pilots that operate under different rules and agendas, well that is part of life and we should handle that under pro-standards etc. Cost of being in a union I guess cant get rid of the trash without doing harm to the innocent. NewK, just sharing a thought nothing more intended.....