NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Union: State asks flight attendants to pay back unemployment benefits

[Paul]

Some Northwest Airlines Corp. flight attendants on furlough since the carrier filed for bankruptcy last fall have been notified that they were wrongly paid unemployment benefits, according to the union representing them.

About 20 flight attendants have called the Professional Flight Attendants Association regarding recent letters canceling their benefits and asking them to pay back as much as $7,000, the union said.

The state determined that the attendants' voluntary, one-year furloughs are the same as leaves of absence, which don't qualify for unemployment benefits in Minnesota. The state reviewed the group after officials realized that some attendants were receiving unemployment benefits while others weren't, said Tom Romens, integrity assurance director for the unemployment insurance at the state Department of Employment and Economic Development.

State law requires repayment of money received in error, even if it was the state's mistake, he said.

The union contends that a voluntary furlough is not the same as a leave. If these 20 attendants appeal and win, it could mean retroactive benefits for the others, said PFAA representative Kathy Dunham.

Grand Forks Herald

 

[finman]

The union contends that a voluntary furlough is not the same as a leave.

Of course it's a leave. How it be construed anything differently. These voluntary furloughees are on leave for one year, and it basically defers the involuntary furloughs of those lower in seniority. It shouldn't even be called a furlough, but rather a company convenience leave or some other sort of unpaid leave status that more accurately portrays their status.

Granted, these leaves do end up saving the state the unemployment pay that would have gone to the involuntary furloughs that were averted, but that alone doesn't entitle the person on voluntary leave to unemployment benefits.

If they would have given up or traded their seniority with someone that was going to be furloughed, and then been involuntarily furloughed due to their low seniority, then I presume they would be eligible for unemployment. I doubt that is even possible, so I guess it's kind of an irrelevant hypothetical.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Of course it's a leave. How it be construed anything differently. These voluntary furloughees are on leave for one year, and it basically defers the involuntary furloughs of those lower in seniority. It shouldn't even be called a furlough, but rather a company convenience leave or some other sort of unpaid leave status that more accurately portrays their status.

Granted, these leaves do end up saving the state the unemployment pay that would have gone to the involuntary furloughs that were averted, but that alone doesn't entitle the person on voluntary leave to unemployment benefits.

If they would have given up or traded their seniority with someone that was going to be furloughed, and then been involuntarily furloughed due to their low seniority, then I presume they would be eligible for unemployment. I doubt that is even possible, so I guess it's kind of an irrelevant hypothetical.

Finman,

You are really reaching on this one. You play on semantics to defend the actions of NWA on this issue shows your transparency in your relentless quest to prove that NWA can do no wrong. The reason that it is called a ‘furlough’ is due to recall rights. People bit$h and complain about seniority but when someone decides to accept layoff (or furlough as the case may be) then they are left with their a$$es swinging in the wind. Logically, if an employee with zero years seniority were to be ‘furloughed’ and a more senior person decided to accept their ‘furlough’ then the net effect is that ‘someone’ was laid off. Whether it was voluntary or involuntary, someone was going to hit the street.

Should it matter that someone volunteered to be laid off –vs- someone that did not want the layoff (furlough)? Net effect is the same.

B) UT

 

[Dizel8]

Should it matter that someone volunteered to be laid off –vs- someone that did not want the layoff (furlough)? Net effect is the same.

You are right, however, if you quit your job, you do not get unemployment, if you are laid off you do. Voluntarily taking a leave, well, it is voluntary, you chose to do it, hence the state should not have to pay you.

 

[finman]

Finman,

You are really reaching on this one. You play on semantics to defend the actions of NWA on this issue shows your transparency in your relentless quest to prove that NWA can do no wrong. B) UT

The State of Minnesota is denying these claims. NWA is not a player in this dispute. I think Dizel8 clarifies my point nicely.

 

[jenny@nw]

You have to wonder though, given the amount of clout NWA would have with the State of MN and the slimebucket Neil Cohen lurking around.

Otherwise I tend to agree with you in theory. Does anyone know what other states are doing in this regard. Not sure the ruling would be the same in PA/NJ where I am.

You know I wondered about this. Some of my AMFA friends told me some AMFA lawyer called them up contesting their unemployment bennies in all states that were granting them.

When NW granted voluntary furlough the other time (under the reamsters) they specifically told us that NW isn't going to contest any voluntary furloughees who are getting unemployment. Many of us went on voluntary furloughs and got our unemployement. Why is MN comming after the flight attendants now? Is it really the state of MN or is it NW? (since I know that NW was contesting this in other states with the MX)

 

[robbedagain]

I believe in PA that the state of PA allows you to collect unemployment if youre on voluntarily furlough and there is almost nothing the company can really do. I think that is the way it is handled in PA. Dont know about NJ.

 

[Kev3188]

When NW granted voluntary furlough the other time (under the reamsters) they specifically told us that NW isn't going to contest any voluntary furloughees who are getting unemployment.

Same story in Ground Ops when SLIP leaves were last offered. Several people I knew took them, and received UI benefits without any problems.