Posted on April 22, 2014 by AdminUN

GENERALIZED ANXIETY AS A DISABILITY

Anxiety attacks are not only real, but they are a recognize disability protected by the EEOC under the disability statutes. When an employee was denied the right to bring a service dog to work that helped her deal with her attacks, she filed a charge with EEOC, which took the employer to court and won $53,000 in damages for the employee. EEOC took the position that the dog alerted the employee to oncoming panic attacks, helped alleviate symptoms during a panic attack, and could also do other tasks, such as retrieve small objects, retrieve her medical bag and guide her to an exit.  This is another good example of how powerful that law can be.

Posted in EEO/Disabilities | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Posted on April 21, 2014 by AdminUN

WHAT TO DO ABOUT ZOMBIE LOCALS

What is a zombie local?  It is a single local of a successful national union, that has chronically low membership, e.g. fewer than 30% of the unit employees belong. It enjoys all the protections and benefits of the national union because other locals, with double and triple their percentage of membership, cover their share of the costs. Federal sectors unions seem unable to effectively deal with the walking dead among their locals.  So, we thought we would share some thoughts. Continue reading →

Posted in Membership Building, Union Administration | Tagged | 1 Comment

Posted on April 20, 2014 by AdminUN

ETHICS TEST: DID THIS UNION SELL OUT ITS MEMBERS?

When is it okay for union leaders to drop pending arbitration cases that could potentially yield millions in back pay for members and non-members in return for agency agreement to allow one of the union leaders to work full time for the union? No union wants to trade one person’s grievance for another, which is often called “horse-trading.”  Almost every union grievance manual condemns the practice. But it can be legal as well as ethical. Look at these facts and let us know if you think this union acted ethically or sold out employees. Continue reading →

Posted in Union Administration | Leave a comment

Posted on April 20, 2014 by AdminUN

DO YOU KNOW WHAT 29 U.S.C. 501(C) IS?  HINT: IT CAN SEND UNION LEADERS TO JAIL

If union officials or staff take or receive any compensation or other benefit not properly “authorized” under the law, union constitution or bylaws, they might be guilty of embezzlement under this section of the law that is specifically applicable to union leaders. They have been criminally prosecuted for unauthorized salary increases, bonuses, gifts, benefits, and even allowing a former officer or staff member to take union property into retirement.   Moreover, even if the compensation is authorized by the executive board or membership, it must also be for the benefit of the union. Any suggestion that the compensation was given solely or primarily for the benefit of the person authorizing the compensation could be trouble.    Continue reading →

Posted in Union Administration | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on April 10, 2014 by AdminUN

FURLOUGH MYSTERY SOLVED! “IT IS ALL ABOUT MSPB’s NEEDS”

Why did the MSPB give employees virtually no right to challenge adverse actions  furloughs, leaving them vulnerable to thinly veiled disciplinary suspensions without the due process, political jockeying, and slush fund management techniques?  These and other questions have lingered unanswered ever since the Board issued its decision in Chandler v. Dept. of Treasury, IRS, 2013 MSPB 74. So, FEDSMILL went looking for an answer.  Unfortunately, we currently lack the NSA-quality technology to reconstruct the Board’s discussions or pre-decisional paperwork, and Snowden left town before snatching that material for us. Consequently, just as the courts and scientists do, we are going to rely on circumstantial evidence to reveal the answers by ruling out all other alternatives.  Continue reading →

Posted in Discipline/Adverse Action, Furloughs | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on April 6, 2014 by AdminUN

BEWARE OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ERROR

A manager at the National Institute of Health filed an EEO complainant alleging that she had been subject to gender and national origin harassment.  The agency offered to settle the dispute by giving her $90,000 in return for her resignation.  She accepted and then the agency took advantage of her. Continue reading →

Posted in Settlements | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on April 6, 2014 by AdminUN

MSPB RECOGNIZE OGE DEFENSE TO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) terminated a manager for “defalcation of obligations.”  The Board ordered the employee reinstated with back pay because FDIC ignored what we are going to call the “OGE Defense,” namely,  5 CFR 2635.105 of the Office of Government Ethics regulations.   (See Jonson v. FDIC, 2014 MSPB 22 (2014))  Here is what that all means and how you can use it to help your members. Continue reading →

Posted in Discipline/Adverse Action | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on April 5, 2014 by AdminUN

CONGRATS TO AFGE FOR MEMBERSHIP GROWTH

According to the Dept. of Labor AFGE has increased the number of employees paying dues every year since 2000 when 197,000 federal employees were members.  Today, DOL reports AFGE has over 301,000 dues paying members, an increase of over 50%.  By comparison, none of the other federal sector unions came even close to that streak of consecutive growth years nor to the 50% increase in members during that time. Continue reading →

Posted in Membership Building, Union Administration | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on March 28, 2014 by AdminUN

MSPB EXHUMES ITS “MANIFEST ABSURDITY” DOCTRINE

How ironic that just a few short months after stripping federal employees of any right to challenge the substance or design of a furlough, suddenly the Board is concerned with absurdities.  The case involved an employee who was fired for being physically unable to work for a prolonged period of time.  Wren v. Dept. of Army, 2014 MSPB 20 (2014) Continue reading →

Posted in Discipline/Adverse Action, MSPB | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Posted on March 24, 2014 by AdminUN

PROMOTION SEGREGATION: OUT-OF-TOWNERS NEED NOT APPLY

Can management refuse to even consider employee applicants who meet the minimum qualifications for a promotion vacancy?  For example, could it refuse to consider, rate and rank qualified employees because they were bald or vegetarians? How about if they were carpoolers, graduates of public universities, or even Yankee fans?  Of course not.  But, how about if they work or live outside the commuting area of the vacancy?  A lot of managers think they can exclude otherwise qualified agency applicants from any promotion consideration based on where the employees live or work or even when they apply.  We don’t, and here’s why. Continue reading →

Posted in Promotion/Hiring | Tagged | Leave a comment