REMOVED CBP EMPLOYEE WINS FIVE YEARS OF BACK PAY PLUS

This employee worked as an Air Interdiction Agent with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) until the agency removed him for unacceptable performance in June 2019.  However, the agency so botched the removal process that MSPB had no choice but to reinstate him with five years of back pay, interest, retroactive leave earnings, etc. Because the errors are mistakes other agencies make, union reps should familiarize themselves of these grounds in case they get a similar case. Continue reading

Posted in Unacceptable Performance | Tagged | Leave a comment

FLRA PUNISHES UNION WITH DISPARATE TREATMENT

Personally, I think FLRA is wrong, especially since it treats management much better in the same situation. But here is what it did last week and is very likely to do in the future. A union took a case to arbitration arguing that management violated its agreement when it failed to give an employee official time to engage in L-M activity.  The arbitrator disagreed and dismissed the grievance.  When the union filed exceptions with the FLRA arguing that the arbitrator ignored the statutory law entitling employees to official time in that situation, the FLRA hit the union like a speeding locomotor ruling … Continue reading

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration | Tagged | Leave a comment

NATIONAL UNION PRESIDENT DESERVES PRAISE

High on a very short list of things that bother me about unions is the hypocrisy of their national leaders. They demand that agency executives accept certain work protections for their employees and stand accountable for doing the right thing.  But all too often union leaders refuse to live under the same rules and standards. So, we have to call for a round of applause for the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) for… Continue reading

Posted in Union Administration | Tagged | 2 Comments

LAW FIRM GENERATES $45 MILLION FOR CBP FEMALE EMPLOYEES

We just read that the Gilbert Employment Law (GEL) Group has racked up another huge $$$ win for CBP employees. Although federal employees can only be represented by their union if they file a contract grievance, they can turn to any law firm when they file under EEO, MSPB or similar processes. These firms often take up cases unions are not interested in or do not realize are staring them in the face. The Gilbert Group in Maryland is one of the most aggressive at enforcing these rights employees have outside their contracts.  Continue reading

Posted in Pregnancy | Tagged | Leave a comment

ILLEGAL TELEWORK DEALS

What do you call it when a bargaining unit employee asks her manager to allow her to telework, the manager agrees, and they work out the details of when, where, and under what conditions? “Illegal” is what we at FEDSMILL.com call it Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining Law | Tagged | 2 Comments

EEOC REQUIRES LGBTQIA+ HARASSMENT TRAINING FOR EVERYONE 

This is a new one for us.  Apparently, the agency supervisors allowed employees to so harass a transgender co-worker that EEOC has ordered it to train all its employees in victim’s work area on the law related to LGBTQIA+ harassment. ” The training shall address how coworkers can recognize and help prevent a hostile work environment on the bases of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.” wrote EEOC.  Check out Edmond C., v. Frank Kendall, Sec’y, Dep’t. of the Air Force, EEOC No. 2022003336 (2023)

Posted in Co-worker Harassment, Gender/Sex | Tagged | Leave a comment

TWO ROOKIE MISTAKES

A recent FLRA decision opens with these three sentences, “In this case, Arbitrator Anthony R. Orman, found that the Agency violated Article 21, Section 4 of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement by failing to distribute overtime in a “fair and equitable manner.”[ But he denied the Union’s requested backpay remedy because the Union failed to show which employees were available and would have accepted the opportunity to work the overtime.  We find that the Arbitrator’s denial of backpay is not contrary to the Back Pay Act (BPA). Continue reading

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration | Tagged | Leave a comment

THANKS, DIRECTOR SHRIVER

While he would have much preferred a career as a star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles,  all us feds are far better with him scoring big changes in the human resources arena.  Rob Shriver has been acting director of OPM for only a few months now.  But, last week he finalized a regulatory change that will now permit federal employees temporarily detailed to perform higher graded work for as long as they are in the job.  All they need do is meet the minimum qualifications of the job. (More on this later)  Continue reading

Posted in OPM | Tagged | Leave a comment

30-YEAR-OLD BACK PAY CASE

Occasionally, an agency asserts that it cannot legally grant back pay for claims more than six years old due to appropriation laws.  Given that it can take more than six years to resolve certain cases, the employees with claims going back more than six years lose money if the agency argument is accepted.  In fact, if they retired more than six years ago, they would lose all their back pay entitlement no matter if they had an otherwise legitimate right to ten, twenty, or thirty years of retroactive compensation. So, we have made it a point to let Fedsmill.com readers know that there is a bundle of cases out there where federal employees have received back pay retroactive for decades.  Our post entitled, “How Far Back Can A Back Pay Claim Go?” lists a dozen examples and there is a new one to add.  Check out the FedManager.com story entitled, “30-Year-Old Job Discrimination Lawsuit Settled by USMS.” The U.S. Marshals Service has agreed to compensate employees and former employees for violations of their rights dating back as far as 1994. Apparently, the urban legend about some appropriation laws barring payments more than six years retroactive did not bother the Marshals Service, which is part of the Dep’t. of Justice. Continue reading

Posted in Back Pay | Tagged | Leave a comment

INADEQUATE AGENCY NOTICE GIVES UNION A BIG BARGAINING BONUS (PT. 2)

NEGOTIATOR ALERT!     What does it mean for the union when management gives it advance notice of a proposed change, but the notice omits some of the details?  It means a bargaining power bonus for the union. Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining Law | Tagged | Leave a comment