General Questions
What is the difference between just culture and the Just Policy?
The term “just culture” describes a philosophical mindset and method of management. A just culture describes an organization whose culture is “just”; one whose culture, at all levels, is focused on learning, fairness and consistency, safe system design and making and managing quality choices. “Just Policy” is the name of American Airlines M&E policy developed to incorporate the just culture philosophy our procedures in order to respond to maintenance-related errors and violations effectively and enhance the organizations ability to learn from mistakes.
Does this Policy apply only to the AMT?
No, the Just Policy applies to all Maintenance & Engineering personnel involved in a maintenance-related error or violation (e.g., maintenance technicians, planners/schedulers, engineers involved in prototypes or writing tasks/guidance, supervision, etc.).
Does the Policy apply to performance issues or other workplace rules such as Attendance Policy or Rules of Conduct?
Currently, Just Policy only applies to maintenance-related errors or violations. However, work has begun in the other operational departments to incorporate the just culture philosophy and tools into their operating and employee management policies as well. These efforts will require coordination with Human Resources, Legal and the respective collective bargaining units, much the same as was required for the M&E Just Policy. Until the Just Policy encompasses more operating departments outside of M&E, the current M&E Just Policy will apply only to maintenance-related errors and violations.
Is the Just Policy a “get out of jail free” program?
No, the Just Policy applies the just culture principles that ensure accountability on all levels. Just culture refers to this as “a values supportive system of shared accountability where the organization is accountable for the systems that are designed and for responding to the behaviors of their employees in a fair and just manner. Employees, in turn, are accountable for the quality of their choices and for reporting both their errors and the system vulnerabilities.” Ultimately, management will be responsible for ensuring employees have everything they need to get the job done safely and in compliance, as well as ensuring employees clearly understand which behaviors are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Just Policy makes certain to balance necessary accountability with justice.
Does the Just Policy conflict with Peak Performance through Commitment (PPC)?
No, there is no conflict between Just Policy and PPC. In reality, Just Policy brings consistency and clarity to the PPC policy and when it should be applied. PPC allows for a non-disciplinary verbal or written counseling as appropriate which is the equivalent to the Just Policy “coaching”. One primary difference is that coaching/counseling discussion records resulting from MEAA or ASAP investigations will be documented only within the confidential databases (MEAA or ASAP) as opposed to the personnel file. This serves to protect the integrity of these confidential safety programs. The disciplinary “step” program of PPC (e.g. First Advisory, Second Advisory, Career Decision Day, etc.) is equivalent to the Just Policy “corrective action”. Corrective action, per Just Policy, is allowable only after MEAA or ASAP has identified reckless behavior or repetitive at-risk behavior.
What does the Just Policy mean for M&E Managers and Supervisors?
Under Just Policy, M&E Managers and Supervisors will have a clearly defined role in investigating maintenance-related errors or violations. Using the Investigating Manager/Supervisor Checklist located in the Just Policy, the Manager/Supervisor will follow three steps in conducting a Preliminary Investigation. Once the Preliminary Investigation has concluded, the Manager/Supervisor will determine if the error, violation or event meets the criteria of requesting a MEAA investigation (refer to Just Policy and GPM 11-05). Ultimately, any maintenance-related error or violation can be referred to MEAA for root cause analysis upon conclusion of the Preliminary Investigation. The processes and tools called out in the Just Policy provide Managers and Supervisors with several benefits, to include:
- A Neutral MEAA root cause analysis that will provide proper, consistent and quality recommendations to be taken to correct the system deficiencies and respond to employees
- An Avenue for identifying risk before a bad outcome (e.g. injury, non-compliance, accident, etc.)
- An Opportunity to learn from errors/violations
- The Ability to conduct a quick Preliminary Investigation and hand over the full investigation to a group of neutral, qualified investigators so that the Manager/Supervisor can return to production demands
- The Most effective means of producing the outcomes we desire (e.g. safety, compliance, quality, etc.).
What does the Just Policy mean for the M&E employee?
For M&E employees, Just Policy does not require any additional action. However, Just Policy does require a certain level of personal accountability – to respond to coaching efforts if at-risk behaviors are identified and to recognize that reckless choices are unacceptable. The processes and tools called out in the Just Policy provide employees with several benefits, to include:
- A means of ensuring a fair and consistent application of PPC
- The benefit of a thorough root cause investigation before discipline (corrective action) can be considered
- Improved system design and work environment (e.g. processes, procedures, resources, training, etc.)
- The ability to participate in an investigation or report a safety concern or violation without a fear of reprisal
- The opportunity to participate in hazard identification and risk management to improve safety and quality.
How will the Just Policy improve investigations?
Historically, after an error, violation or incident numerous simultaneous investigations would take place (MEAA, ASAP, Safety Event Reviews, 29(f) investigations, etc.). The investigations were convoluted and often resulted in very different conclusions. Just Policy brings a standard process, or flow, to the 29(f) investigation, the initial action by management, MEAA and ASAP (refer to Just Policy and the Just Policy for Maintenance Errors and Violations Flowchart). Just Policy also put the responsibility of the MEAA investigation on a small group of trained and qualified Compliance Manager/Specialists reporting to the Director of Maintenance. This is designed to improve the quality and timeliness of the MEAA investigation. Finally, and most importantly, Just Policy improves the investigations by ensuring the investigations place less focus on the error or severity of the outcome and more focus on identifying risk, improving system design and managing quality behavioral choices in the most effective way possible. Errors and violations will, first and foremost, serve as an opportunity to learn and correct; risk management in a proactive manner.
What GPM sections were revised to coincide with Just Policy?
Section 02-10 – Maintenance and Preventive Maintenance Duty Time Limitations
Section 11-05 – Event Review Board Policy for M&E
Section 13-12 – Accident Investigation
Section 13-15 – Fall Protection Policy for Aircraft Maintenance Employees
Section 18-04 – Quality Assurance Notice of Non-Compliance
Section 19-02 – Training Administration
How can I express concerns or feedback about the Just Policy?
Any concerns or feedback about Just Policy can be expressed one of three ways:
- Contact your Regional Compliance Manager/Specialist or the Director of Maintenance
- Contact the TWU Safety of Flight and Compliance Coordinator
Points of contact are also listed on this webpage.
The Preliminary Investigation
What is the difference between the Preliminary Investigation and a 29(f) investigation?
The Preliminary Investigation is the initial company investigation conducted by the Supervisor of Manager on duty at the time of becoming aware of an error, violation or incident. The distinction that needs to be made between the Preliminary Investigation and a typical 29(f) investigation is that the Preliminary Investigation does not require written statements to be collected from involved employees or witnesses and cannot result in disciplinary action without following the Just Policy process (MEAA investigation and joint ratification of reckless behavior) through to conclusion. However, the investigating Manager or Supervisor conducting the Preliminary Investigation should offer TWU representation to all TWU represented employees who are being interviewed during the Preliminary Investigation (per CBA Article 29(f)). The distinction between the two types of investigations are necessary to ensure that the Preliminary Investigation stays focused on gathering facts as soon as possible to aid in a thorough contributing factor (MEAA) investigation.
Should a Manager/Supervisor offer or allow a TWU represented employee to have a representative with him/her during Preliminary Investigation interviews?
Yes, absolutely the Manager/Supervisor should offer and allow a TWU represented employee to have a representative present during any and all interviews. Ultimately, the focus of the investigations outlined in Just Policy is to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible. It is considered Best Practice and strongly advised that management allow or encourage TWU representation anytime TWU represented employees are being questioned during a Preliminary Investigation and when management is capturing notes based on discussions held.
Why is it important that written statements are not taken during the Preliminary Investigation?
M&E conducted extensive benchmarking during the course of drafting the Just Policy. Experts from Boeing Human Factors/MEAA and Qantas Airlines strongly advised against taking written statements at any point during an investigation. Primarily, recollection is often not clear immediately after an error, violation or event due to stress or emotion. The experts recommended that employees be allowed to write their own account of the events and retain those notes for themselves to add to or clarify over time as recollection improves. Also, the collection of written statements initially may cause an employee to feel that they cannot stray too far from the statement during the confidential MEAA if they recall the event more clearly for fear of being accused of dishonesty. Thus, Just Policy requires that no written statements are requested during the Preliminary Investigation or the MEAA investigation in order to protect the integrity of the underlying objective of the Policy and to not hamper the ability to learn as much as possible in order to improve safety, compliance – and ultimately, enhance the trust and cooperation necessary for a strong safety culture.
How does a Manager/Supervisor know when to request a MEAA?
GPM 11-05 delineates when a MEAA investigation is required (e.g. aircraft damages, etc.). Just Policy also requires that a MEAA be initiated for any maintenance-related error or violation that may result in disciplinary action. However, a MEAA can also be requested by a Local Manager or Supervisor for any maintenance-related error, violation or incident if the Local Manager or Supervisor considers a MEAA the best opportunity to learn (e.g. near miss, repetitive audit findings at a station/location, safety concerns, etc.).
Can a Manager/Supervisor request a MEAA even if they don’t believe discipline is necessary?
Yes, a MEAA can also be requested by a Local Manager or Supervisor for any maintenance-related error, violation or incident if the Local Manager or Supervisor considers a MEAA the best opportunity to learn (e.g. near miss, repetitive audit findings at a station/location, safety concerns, etc.).
When does the investigation involving a TWU-represented employee fall under the guidelines of a 29(f) investigation?
Refer to the Just Policy for Maintenance Errors and Violations Flowchart. A 29(f) investigation occurs only if the error, violation or event has followed the process through the Preliminary Investigation and the MEAA investigation has concluded with a determination of Reckless Behavior (jointly ratified by both the DOM and the TWU SFCC) or Repetitive At-Risk Behavior. Per the Just Policy, reckless behavior and repetitive at-risk behavior are the only appropriate behaviors for applying some level of disciplinary action. At this point, the Local Manager/Supervisor is notified that the MEAA investigation has concluded and they are free to continue their investigation under the guidelines of Article 29(f). No information related to the determination of reckless behavior collected within the confines of the MEAA investigation can be shared outside of the MEAA or can be used to support a disciplinary case against an employee. The Manager/Supervisor can refer to their retained copy of the Preliminary Investigation to continue the investigation when determining if discipline is necessary.
The MEAA Investigation
Who conducts the MEAA piece of the investigation?
The MEAA investigation, per the Just Policy, is conducted only by either a trained and qualified member of the Director of Maintenance Compliance team or by the M&E ASAP Event Review Committee.
Has the MEAA investigation changed under the new Policy?
The MEAA investigation itself has not changed under the Just Policy. One addition to the MEAA investigation is the use of the Just Culture AlgorithmTM tool. The purpose of this is the MEAA tool identifies system deficiencies and human factors that may have contributed to the event while the Just Culture AlgorithmTM provides a standard means of analyzing the quality of choices made by the employee.
Can a TWU represented employee have a TWU representative present during MEAA interviews?
Refer to the MEAA Policy located athttps://newjetnet.aa.com/docs/DOC-49224. Historically, TWU representatives cannot be a member of the MEAA Event Review Panel but are allowed to participate in the MEAA as an observer. Best practice, being encouraged to date, is to allow TWU representatives to be present during the MEAA interviews as long as all present for the interview are working in accordance with the Just Policy and the MEAA Policy guidelines.
What information, if any, can be shared from a MEAA investigation if it is intended to be a confidential investigation?
Ultimately, the only information from a MEAA investigation that should be held confidential is the facts gathered that substantiate a determination of reckless behavior or repetitive at-risk behavior. The MEAA investigation allows the employee the opportunity to speak freely about an event or error without fear of reprisal based on the information being shared. In order to protect the integrity of this confidential investigation, this type of information must be held within the confines of the MEAA. Records of coaching/counseling or supportive discussions with an employee as the result of a MEAA or ASAP recommendations are also only documented within the respective confidential database. However, for all other instances outside of reckless behavior or repetitive at-risk behavior, lessons-learned from MEAA investigations should be shared in a de-identified format locally and system wide to support a culture of learning.
Just Culture Questions
Why does just culture tell you to “support” an employee who made an error?
Just culture believes that human errors are inevitable. Human error is defined as inadvertently doing other than what should have been done: a slip, a lapse or a mistake. The reliability of human performance can be negatively impacted by many outside influences such as stress, distractions, task interruptions, fatigue, communication, environmental conditions, etc. Even the best efforts of designing a system (processes, procedures, resources, training, etc.) cannot completely eliminate the human element of error. A just culture recognizes that the organization have a positive, supportive discussion with the employee emphasizing these inherent risks, but focus on the genuine fixes in the system design – making the human error less likely to occur. These fixes include: error recoveries, error capturing, built in redundancies and physical or administrative barriers.
Why does just culture tell you not to discipline an employee who violated a rule?
In extremely remote cases, a rule violation can be a reckless, conscious choice to disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk. In these cases, some level of disciplinary action is justified. However, in most cases, rule violations are the reflection of At-Risk Behaviors. Just culture defines At-Risk Behavior as a behavioral choice that increases risk where risk is either not recognized, or mistakenly believed to be justified. A just culture recognizes that humans by nature drift away from rules or policies as they gain comfort with the tasks they are performing. Often this is because it can be repeated over time with success, or no bad outcome; or because the incentive to deviate from the rule is greater than the disincentive. At-risk behaviors also typically encompass a large group of people and become a norm. For example, consider speed limits on the highway. Everyone recognizes that the speed limit (rule) is 65, but most exceed by 5, 10 or more mph over the speed limit; some just to keep up with the flow of traffic (norm). This is a simple example of at-risk behavior and rule violations. Every successful trip to the destination with no accident or traffic ticket reinforces that the behavior is acceptable. A just culture believes that the most effective way of managing at-risk behavior is to coach/counsel the employee. Coaching/Counseling is defined as a supportive discussion about the risks of a particular behavioral choice and the need to engage in safe behavioral choices. This serves to bring the employee back to center and realign the entire organization on the shared values and recognition of risk. However, an employee who repeatedly engages in the at-risk behavior and chooses to not respond to repeated coaching/counseling attempts can be considered for some level of disciplinary action (repetitive at-risk behavior).