With national politics heating up, we thought you might enjoy a story out of the Washington Post. It does a good job of explaining the different factions with America’s labor unions and why they often favor opposing candidates in the same political party.
The Center for WorkLife Law and the University of California (Hastings) has just made life a little easier for those of us practitioners who have pregnant employees or members. Their web site pulls together lots of useful information, e.g., case law decisions, advice guides, etc. and organizes it separately for those working for HR and those representing the employee. We recommend you check it out. Don’t be fooled into thinking that everyone knows their rights and obligations. Perhaps you noticed an EEOC posting recently announcing a $200,000 settlement for a small group of pregnant law enforcement officer working on the bridges of New York who were required to surrender their weapons and collect tolls once they announced they were pregnant-despite their MD’s assurances that they were capable of doing police work on the bridges.
There have been many multi-million dollar arbitration awards in the federal sector. Not long ago, the AFL-CIO unions teamed up to get $80 million out of the Indian Health Service. We also remember how AFGE tapped the State Department budget for almost $40 million in another case. But sooner or later we are going to see a real whopper of an award in the federal sector. A quarter of a billion dollars or more, e.g., an agency RIF is reversed forcing it to reinstate with back pay hundreds, if not over 1,000 people, who were let go five or more years ago in connection with a unilaterally implemented contracting out decision. Here is what agencies will do to overturn these nine-figure awards—and what union could do in response. Continue reading
If managers ever needed an example of why it is always easier to work out a quick, voluntary agreement to a problem-even when they have doubts about the validity of an employee’s problem, this is the case. A VA employee presented managers with notes from her medical officials that she needed natural or at least non-florescent light in her office to treat, if not prevent, chronic migraines. One solution would be to buy the employee a couple of cheap desk lamps from any of a half-dozen GSA’s discount suppliers. But, no, that apparently was too easy for the VA. Instead, this agency devoted to caring for the health of others, decided to stand up for its “rights” rather than reason. Continue reading
While we rarely think of MSPB as a place to slug out a dispute over whether an agency’s unacceptable performance removal of an employee was due to union animus, the Board just reminded us that it will consider that defense in any action appealable to it, e.g., adverse action, unacceptable performance action. (See Ayers v. Dept. of Army, 2015 MSPB 58 (2015).) This employee had apparently filed nine grievances as well as some ULP’s and information requests in a little over four months, triggering a long-term retaliation campaign by her manager. Summarized below via excerpts from the Judge’s 250+ page opinion, is what the Board says is needed if an employee alleges union animus or an agency has to defend against the charge. It is worth reading if only to get a sense of the wide range of evidence the Board will consider when examining animus claims. Continue reading
AMAZON sent a message around the cyberspace community as well as our little brick and mortar world by allowing parents of newborn children, who both work for Amazon, to transfer their time off days from one to the other. It is a great idea and in many cases will yield substantial benefits for an employer, e.g., only one employee’s position is disrupted, in some cases savings from a salary difference between the couple, a happier pair of employees, etc. This might be something to consider at all those union legislative conferences targeting changes they want out of Congress.
In late August a case came rolling out of FLRA that has the potential to confuse lots of practitioners. The arbitrator found that the agency had not properly compensated an employee for 12 years of stand-by/call-in work he had performed. However, the arbitrator then wrote that he had “no way of placing a monetary value” on the work performed. Consequently, he threw out a figure of $24,000 in back pay as a compromise between the parties. See (AFGE, 68 FLRA 852 (2015)) If practitioners on either side of the table are thinking of asking an arbitrator to do the same in some future case, we recommend that you not. Although FLRA upheld this award, it appears that this back pay compromise is a fluke. Continue reading
What else would you call a situation where a union files two grievances covering the same employees for the same time period alleging violations of the same general areas of the contract, law and regulation—with the only difference being the remedies? Those cases are conjoined in every way but one, and if those remedies conflict with one another, even partially, then there is little choice but to separate them. Tragically, that often results in losing one of the cases. For example, Continue reading
FLRA just published a decision describing how the AFGE Border Patrol Council very skillfully overturned a Customs and Border Protection employee’s five-day suspension for failing a field sobriety test while off duty and getting arrested. AFGE, 69 FLRA 1. It is worth reading if for no other reason than to remind ourselves that an arrest does not equal a conviction. The words below are taken verbatim from FLRA’s decision describing the background of the case. Continue reading