delta airlines employee manual

If international, Flight attendant receives 50% pay and 50% credit for ground holding time in excess of 1 hour with passengers. Pay, Benefit and work Rules Comparison Flight Attendants The intent of this document is to provide employees with a high level overview of the pay and benefits currently in place by workgroup. 7 It is not intended to be a complete summary of all pay and Benefit Rules and should be used for reference only. The plan documents, written policies and contracts are the authoritative source. Profit sharing begins at first dollar of profit. DL SHARED REWARDS AND NW PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES Delta Northwest The program provides monthly incentive payouts based on performance in three operational areas. 9 Goals can be achieved either through relative performance to the industry or by meeting or exceeding internal goals. The program provides quarterly incentive payouts. Goals can be achieved through operational performance relative to network carriers and internal divisional goals. Payout based on, 1% or of pay. This Plan will be unaffected by the merger. Northwest sponsors a Defined Benefit Pension Plan that was frozen during bankruptcy, but not terminated. This Plan will be unaffected by the merger. For on-going retirement benefits, Delta sponsors a Defined Contribution Plan, to which Delta contributes up to 7% of eligible earnings. Show more. Please enable scripts and reload this page. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.

• delta airlines employee handbook, delta airlines employee policies, delta airlines employee manual.

This Spirit Airlines Employee Handbook contains information about the 16 Dec 2014 the Employee Handbook for employees in the Staffing Services division of. Employees to work for Delta Air Lines, Inc., or any other Delta This document serves as notice to American Eagle Airlines, Inc.To help guide our actions, we have updated our Standards of Business Conduct. The Standards apply to all employees and officers of American Airlines. This Handbook is Company property. Table of Contents. Employee Handbook. Page 2. JAN 01, 2017. QUICK REFERENCE 10 Apr 2017 Jetblue was late half the time, they had broken seats on all the flights I was on, and the display never worked on my seat. JetBlue requires a pre-employment drug. 11 Aug 2015 This Code reflects general principles to guide employees in making.Music maker 10 user's manual, Manual handling of people merseyside, Nnoitra released form, Display resolution of a 2d section, Sony cx777es manual. Reload to refresh your session. Reload to refresh your session. It is not intended to be a complete summary of all pay and Benefit Rules and should be used for reference only. The plan documents, written policies and contracts are the authoritative source.It is not intended to be a complete summary of all pay and Benefit Rules and should be used for reference only. The plan documents, written policies and contracts are the authoritative source. The sum of these increases will not reach industry standard. Flight Leader pay is broken out between wide-body and narrow-body aircraft. NW main cabin coordinator position is unpaid on all flights. No current international premium. You do not have to hold the bid language position on the trip to receive the LOD premium. 5 No premium pay associated with LOD program. CQ (recurrent) training paid at 2:45 per day. First 16 hours of government mandated training ( recurrent training) are unpaid.

Prior to his current position, Chowdhri held leadership roles in HR at Facebook, Microsoft, Accenture and GE. Webcast Sponsor This webcast is sponsored by Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item. Please log in as a SHRM member. Uninspired? They May Be Suffering a Midcareer Crisis It does not offer legal advice, and cannot guarantee the accuracy or suitability of its content for a particular purpose. Disclaimer. All Rights Reserved. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice. Quotes delayed at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Interactive Data. ETF and Mutual Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc.Powered and implemented by Interactive Data Managed Solutions. Subsequent thereto, Delta filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of all of Shelby's claims against it. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Shelby's fraud claim be dismissed, but that the remainder of Delta's motion be denied. Delta has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions with this Court, each of which will be addressed herein. During his employment with Delta, Shelby worked in various Delta stations.This right exists notwithstanding any examples of conduct or other statements contained in Standard Practice, any personnel handbooks or any other statements of Delta's general policies.

This shift in employee demographic is behooving companies to rethink their culture to continue to engage this new generation of employees. HR leaders in today’s global organizations with distributed workforces face three key challenges: Rachel Rensink, Delta’s head of employee engagement, will discuss the strategies and tools (such as Workplace by Facebook) has used to shift its culture and increase employee engagement. In addition, Sameer Chowdhri, digital HR practice lead at Workplace by Facebook, will cover the latest trends in digital HR and share examples of best practices adopted by progressive HR leaders. She began working in social media for Delta in 2009, bringing a sponsorship activation influence to develop a new social program for the company. As a founding member of Delta's social media core team, Rensink led the design and implementation of the company's customer social media presence including the first dedicated customer service Twitter account for an airline. She continued to evolve social media at Delta through creation of the first employee engagement channel with flight attendants. Rensink currently leads the global employee social practice and implementation of SkyHub, Delta’s branded instance of Workplace by Facebook. Her team is responsible for supporting the strategic development of the enterprise social program, which is used to engage a workforce of over 84,000 employees globally. He has 19 years of HR experience and is thought leader in discussions on the future of work and building a culture of innovation. At Facebook, Chowdhri is engaged with partnering with CHROs, CEOs, CIOs on culture and digital transformation with Workplace by Facebook. He is often recognized for being an excellent communicator with strong business acumen and his experience of having worked in hyper-scale environments provides him with a unique ability to think critically outside of set patterns, implement holistic solutions, and navigate complex challenges.

Realistically, it is recognized that there may be some current personnel who have developed drug dependency or patterns of casual drug use which may not be easy to change. Therefore, as a prelude to implementation of the FAA mandated drug testing program, those individuals will be given a fair opportunity to correct their problems. Commencing September 18, 1989, and concluding on December 17, 1989, we will observe a 90-day amnesty period during which time any employee with a drug problem can voluntarily come forward and receive rehabilitation, counseling, or other professional assistance with the understanding that he will be returned to his present job upon successful completion of the program (and upon recertification where necessary). Individuals who come forward under this Amnesty Program will be permitted to use sick leave in order to undergo treatment and will not be subject to disciplinary action for drug usage. Individuals who choose to come forward may either contact their supervisor or our newly created Personal Assistance Programs Office. Please note that the Amnesty Program does not alter in any way Delta's long-standing, absolute prohibition against the use of illegal drugs. The Amnesty Program applies only to those who voluntarily come forward to seek help during the 90-day period. The Amnesty Program will conclude on December 17, 1989. It is expected that no later than that date, any Delta employee who is an illegal drug user will have taken the necessary steps to receive medical help or other assistance and will have ceased all use of illegal drugs. Commencing with our drug testing on December 18, 1989, there can be absolutely no tolerance for the use of unlawful substances by Delta personnel. Thus, at the conclusion of the Amnesty Program, any employee who is found to be using illegal drugs will be terminated. He was then transferred to authorities in Montgomery County.

No Delta supervisory or management personnel other than the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and the President and Chief Operating Officer are authorized to amend or modify these terms of employment. The guidelines set forth in this standard practice are intended to provide examples of some of Delta's expectations as to conduct and appearance of Delta employees. Any list of this nature obviously cannot be all inclusive, and personnel must use their good judgment at all times. Personnel should also seek the advice of supervisors if they have any questions about particular conduct. As a part of its Anti-Drug Program, Delta decided to review its longstanding policy to terminate employees involved in any way with illegal drugs. The memorandum provided in pertinent part as follows: On March 17, 1989, we advised you that the FAA had recently set forth regulations requiring all certificated air carriers, such as Delta, to develop and implement programs to eliminate the effects of illegal drug use in the workplace. A major component of the FAA regulations involves the testing, by urinalysis, of certain groups of our personnel in the United States for the presence of illegal drugs. The FAA required drug testing must be started by all carriers no later than December 18, 1989. The purpose of this memo is to inform you about the details of Delta's substance-abuse policy, provide you with general information about the FAA requirements, and explain the steps we have taken to insure the integrity of the anti-drug program. Delta's Policy Historically, Delta has maintained an unwavering commitment to maintaining the very highest standards of safety in the airline industry. We have never tolerated the use of illegal drugs by our personnel, and given that drug abuse presents a discernible threat to safety, we must be committed to the prevention of illegal drug use at Delta Air Lines.

As a result, instead of advising the Nashville Station Manager to terminate Shelby, Andersen proceeded on the assumption that Delta would wait until the disposition of the Tennessee criminal proceedings before making a final employment decision on Shelby. Consequently, Shelby was left on suspension. The letter, however, made no reference to Delta's Anti-Drug Program. On March 16, 1990, Shelby sent Britton a copy of the memorandum of understanding which he had entered into with the prosecuting authorities in Montgomery County, Tennessee. Britton forwarded the document to Mark Baxter of Delta's Equal Employment Opportunity office. The memorandum provided that Shelby would be subjected to a pretrial diversion program. Specifically, the memorandum provided that the charges against Shelby would be dismissed upon his compliance with the conditions of the agreement. At this point, the earlier communications breakdown was discovered. On March 21, 1990, Britton was expressly advised by Andersen to terminate Shelby. Britton then called Shelby and asked him to come in, but Shelby requested that Britton inform him of the decision by phone. Britton testified that he first requested that Shelby resign, but Shelby refused. Shelby refused to resign his position. At that point, Britton terminated Shelby. Heil advised Shelby that Delta's policy was to immediately terminate any Delta employee arrested or convicted of possessing a controlled substance. Heil further advised Shelby that these employees were not eligible for the Amnesty Program. By letter, Heil informed Shelby that, regardless of whether he had technically been convicted, it was clear that he had been found in possession of an illegal substance which constituted conduct unbecoming of a Delta employee rendering him ineligible for the Amnesty Program. Shelby filed this suit shortly thereafter. III.

DISCUSSION The parties do not dispute that, when originally hired by Delta, Shelby was an at-will employee, who could be discharged for any reason or no reason at all. Shelby contends, however, that his employment-at-will status was abrogated by Delta's issuance of its Anti-Drug Memorandum. Specifically, Shelby contends that Delta's Anti-Drug Memorandum created a contractual obligation on its part which prevented it from suspending or terminating him for drug use if he chose to participate in the Anti-Drug Program. First, Delta contends that Shelby entered into a written employment contract for an indefinite term. As a result, Shelby's employment relationship with Delta was at-will, and, therefore, Delta could terminate for any reason or for no reason at all. Thus, Delta asserts that as a matter of both common law and express contractual agreement, it was legally entitled to sever its employment relationship with Shelby at any time for any or no reason. This assertion is based upon Delta's contention that, under Tennessee law, the employer's rights to terminate an at-will employee are only affected by amendments to the parties' contract which deal specifically with the term or duration of the employee's employment. Therefore, Delta asserts that Shelby could be terminated for any or no cause at any time. First, Delta argues that the Amnesty Program was available only to those employees who used drugs personally, and not to those who were also dealers or to those who had been arrested and convicted of any crimes involving drugs. Since Shelby was not a mere drug user but also a drug dealer, he was not eligible to participate in the Anti-Drug Program and could, therefore, be terminated. Since Shelby was not eligible to participate in the Anti-Drug Program, Delta's termination of him, despite the existence of the Anti-Drug Program, did not constitute a breach of the parties' contract.

On the morning following his arrest, Sunday, October 1, 1989, Shelby was scheduled to work the day shift. She left a message on his answering machine for him to call her. Hackett testified in his deposition that he called Tammy Shelby back at about 10:30 a.m., and she told him that her husband had been arrested and was in the Montgomery County Jail. After speaking with Mrs. Shelby, Hackett testified he called the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department and was informed that Shelby had been released on bail and that he had been arrested for the possession and sale of cocaine. Shelby testified in his deposition that he told Hackett he had a drug problem and of his arrest the previous night. Shelby claims he then asked Hackett about what his feelings were on the Delta Amnesty Program. Shelby asserts Hackett told him that because of the Amnesty Program outlined in the Anti-Drug Memo, he felt there would be no disciplinary action taken against him if he came forward voluntarily. Shelby testified that Hackett then told him he wanted to contact another lead agent and friend of Shelby's, Danny Sheehan, to discuss the situation. Shelby testified that he then proceeded to work his full shift that Sunday. According to Hackett, however, Shelby never asked, nor did Hackett give him any opinion or any advice concerning Delta's Anti-Drug Program during either of their two phone conversations. Hackett also testified that Shelby had called in sick that Sunday and therefore did not work. Shelby and Hackett both testified that Shelby asked Hackett what he should do, and Hackett told him that he should report the situation to the Stations Manager, Jim Britton. During that meeting, Shelby testified in his deposition that he informed Britton about his drug problem and his arrest. Shelby further testified he told Britton he desired to enter the Amnesty Program. Shelby testified that Britton then told him to go back to work, and Britton would call Atlanta to find out what he needed to do.

Before walking out, Shelby testified that he once again stated his understanding that an Amnesty Program was in effect and of his desire to enter the program. Britton testified that he then spoke with the System Manager in Atlanta, Al Olmstead, and told him that Shelby had advised him that he had been arrested for the possession and sale of cocaine. Britton further testified that Olmstead told him to immediately suspend Shelby pending further review. In his deposition testimony, Britton denied that Shelby made any amnesty requests during either of their conversations on that day. Britton testified that Shelby also told him he had sold drugs twice, his arrest stemmed from these sales, he now had his life together after his marriage, and he was no longer using drugs. Shelby testified that about an hour after their initial conversation, Britton asked him to come into his office.The memo stated further that Shelby was placed on indefinite suspension with the concurrence of System Manager, Al Olmstead. Britton concluded his memo by noting that he had notified the Corporate Security Representative, Griffin Roberts, and the Director of Equal Opportunity, Richard Ealey, of the situation, and would make him aware of further details as they became known. In the letter, Britton stated that Shelby admitted to him that he had purchased cocaine and delivered it to an acquaintance on two occasions as a favor and not for profit. Britton also stated Shelby had told him his lawyer was trying to work out a pretrial diversion program. Britton stated further that Shelby had been with Delta for over fifteen years, and he was an above-standard employee. Britton ended this letter by noting the seriousness of the situation and requesting guidance in the matter. On November 14, 1989, Ealey decided to terminate Shelby immediately. However, the decision to terminate Shelby apparently was not properly communicated to the Regional Manager in Stations, E.R. Andersen.

Under Tennessee law, what would otherwise be an at-will contract may be modified by specific language which evidences an intent to modify the existent employment contract. Shelby alleges that the language of the Anti-Drug Memo could be interpreted by a reasonable person as showing contractual intent to modify the parties' employment contract. Further, Shelby asserts that a material issue of fact exists regarding whether he was eligible for the Amnesty Program since the memo did not expressly and specifically exclude those who made casual sales of drugs incident to their own personal use, or those who had been arrested for possession. Shelby contends that a reasonable person could construe the memo in such a way as to apply to his situation. As such, a reasonable person could conclude that Delta breached their contract by terminating him in violation of the provisions of the memo. 2. Analysis Further, the parties do not dispute that the longstanding rule in Tennessee is that an employee at will may be discharged without breach of contract for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all, without being liable for any legal wrong. Harney v. Meadowbrook Nursing Center, 784 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tenn.1990); Chism v. Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tenn.1988). Delta denies this. Therefore, the Court must first decide whether the Memo became a part of Shelby's employment contract. If it did not, then Shelby cannot sue under a breach of contract theory. Ordinarily, the ascertainment of the intention of the parties to a written contract is a question of law for the court to decide when the language of the contract is plain, simple, clear, and unambiguous. Hamblen County v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331, 334-35 (Tenn.1983); Taylor v. Universal Tire, Inc., 672 S.W.2d 775, 777-78 (Tenn.Ct. App.1984). However, if the language of the contract is ambiguous, then the meaning of the terms used becomes a factual question to be decided by the trier of fact. Tennessee Consol.

Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 416 F.2d 1192, 1198 (6th Cir.1969). Whether the terms of the contract are ambiguous is a question of law for the court to determine. Id. It appears to the Court that the Memo was directed solely to users and not dealers. The Court finds that the Memo could be construed by a reasonable person as including limited, casual exchanges or sales of drugs among friends incident to their use of the drugs. Therefore, the Court believes that, viewing the language of the Memo in a light most favorable to Shelby, a reasonable person could interpret the Memo to cover those who admittedly made casual exchanges or sales of drugs in addition to their using drugs. Delta has argued that it could not have possibly listed all of the activities, or conduct, or crimes which would have excluded employees from the Amnesty Program. The Court finds, however, that in order to have avoided the present situation, Delta would not have been required to issue an exhaustive laundry list of conduct not covered by the Amnesty Program. Any such listing would have only had to include those specific activities which a reasonable person might consider as covered under the Amnesty Program. For example, a reasonable person could not interpret the Memo as covering an assault, robbery, or murder committed during a sale or the use of drugs or in pursuit of funds to purchase drugs. Shelby testified that when he called Hackett and when he went to see Britton, he affirmatively stated his desire to enter the Amnesty Program. Both Hackett and Britton deny this and Delta contends that Shelby's actions can hardly be said to have been voluntary given his arrest. Delta maintains that under Tennessee law, where an at-will employment relationship exists, the right of either party to terminate the relationship is not affected by contract amendments that leave the term of the employment agreement indefinite.

Delta asserts this is true even where the claimed amendment includes a provision that purportedly limits the circumstances in which the employee may be terminated. If it has not, then each party maintains the mutual right to terminate the relationship for any reason. Shortly after she began work, the defendant employer furnished her with an employee handbook outlining company policies, benefits, rules, and regulations, which included a section on employee discipline and discharge. The plaintiff was fired after she removed some important records from her employer's office. After her dismissal, the plaintiff brought an action against her employer for wrongful discharge, claiming that the handbook became a part of her employment contract and that it restricted her employer's right to terminate her. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's suit on the employer's motion for summary judgment. There has never been any contention on the part of Graves that she was hired for any definite term and there is no dispute as to any material fact in regard to the term of employment. In view of the facts of this case, we can only assume that Graves is seeking for this Court to change the well-established law in the state concerning contracts of employment terminable at will. That prerogative lies with the supreme court or the legislature. There must be protection from substantial impairment of the very legitimate interests of any employer in hiring and retaining the most qualified personnel available or the very foundation of the free enterprise system could be jeopardized. While employed, she had been issued an employment handbook which described general procedures for grievances, and the rights and benefits of employees. The handbook did not, however, provide any assurance of employment for any definite time. The plaintiff asserted the handbook became a part of her contract, and she could not be discharged without cause.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer and the plaintiff appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and stated: It is clear that the employee handbooks did not create any employment contract for a definite term. Even if it was conceded that the handbooks established an employment contract, the contract would be for an indefinite term. Plaintiff has never contended that she was hired for any definite term and there is no dispute as to any material fact in regard to the term of employment. The law is well established in this state that a contract for employment for an indefinite term is a contract at will and can be terminated by either party at any time without cause. Several years later the defendant company issued an employment manual which contained express language which prohibited the company from terminating an employee without reasonable cause. After being fired, the plaintiff brought suit alleging the manual constituted an employment contract which the company had breached. The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's claim and cited to Graves and Bringle.The Court will address each of these cases in turn. Hamby, 627 S.W.2d at 374. The defendant employer denied the handbook was part of the employment contract. Id. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the handbook became a part of the parties' contract. Id. at 376. Without discussion, the Tennessee Court of Appeals concluded that the Chancellor had correctly determined that the handbook was a part of the contract. Id. at 376. Subsequent courts have relied upon Hamby to support their finding that an employment contract may be amended by an employee handbook in certain circumstances. As the Court has already noted above, that proposition appears to have now become firmly established in Tennessee. However, the issue presently before this Court was not precisely addressed in the Hamby decision.

Nowhere did Hamby discuss or even mention Tennessee's employment-at-will doctrine and its effect on a purported amendment to an employment at-will contract by an employee handbook. Further, the disgruntled employees in that case were laid off, not discharged. Maremont moved for summary judgment asserting plaintiffs were employees at will and, thus, had no enforceable right of recall according to their seniority. The trial court granted Maremont's motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. For instance, parties typically agree on other terms of employment, such as wages and hours, without regard to the lack of a specific durational term. We do not agree. Maremont contractually bound itself to lay off and rehire Plaintiffs in order of seniority. Maremont's promise of seniority-based job recall, together with increased benefits after ten years of employment, was clothed in the consideration of improved stability of the work force and better cooperation between management and the employees. Maremont was not obligated to create its seniority policy, but having done so to the detriment of those relying on the policy, it may not now treat its promise as an empty one. The remedy of specific performance may not be available but damages may be recovered for breach of contract. This contract, as all contracts, impliedly provides for good faith and fair dealing between the parties. We think that under the record before us, the affidavit of Maremont to the motion and the affidavits of Plaintiffs to the response raise a genuine issue of material fact the issue of whether the Plaintiffs were permanently terminated or temporarily laid off. This genuine issue of material fact renders summary judgment inappropriate in this case. The Court believes Shelby's reliance on Williams is misplaced.