NBA PLAYERS ELECT “INCLUSIVE” CEO

USATODAY published one of those rare articles looking at how members want their unions run.  In short, the players tossed out a paternalistic, territorial and secretive leader who listened only to a small, but powerful minority of players.  In his place, they elected a woman in the hope “that the combination of her intellect and her lack of a basketball background will spawn a welcome mix of humble effectiveness that makes for a more inclusive process.” Louis Amundson, a player, described the decision this way. “The idea was that it was the complete opposite of Billy. Before with Billy, the top players would kind of just dictate what they wanted, and then Billy would kind of dictate what he wanted, and then everybody else would kind of just fall in line. Now you have somebody who’s maybe not used to being in this sports realm, it’ll become more even, more (democratic).”  But our favorite story line came from the selectee herself, “It’s a new day. It’s not a one-person, Superman, ‘I’ve got this.’ It’s going to be a team.”  This is a must read article for anyone concerned with leading modern unions at the national level.

Posted in Union Administration | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE “SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE” ULP DEFENSE

An agency can unilaterally implement a change in working conditions without notice to or bargaining with the union if it can show that under other laws gave had the sole and exclusive discretion to take some action irrespective of the labor, personnel or other laws.  But, as the Authority just described in AFGE 67 FLRA 501 (2014), the agency cannot merely argue that its mission or the particular change was so vital that its violation of law should be excused.  Agencies must meet specific criteria. Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

HOW UNION LEADERS KILL PARTNERSHIP POTENTIAL

Although it is fashionable among unions to blame managers for the widespread failure of partnership, there is a decent argument that union leaders themselves helped pound the stake through the heart of that very worthy experiment.  How?  “Integrity” is a good one word answer.  No union leader will enjoy hearing this, but if we stick our heads in the sand and pretend the problem does not exist, we might as well be the kind of managers we so often condemn. Continue reading

Posted in Union Administration | Tagged , | Leave a comment

WHEN ADVOCATES COMPLAIN TOO LITTLE

Although this is hardly something new, it is worth repeating.  If an arbitrator sustains a grievance, but denies the union’s desired remedy on three different grounds, it is not enough to file exceptions attacking only one of those grounds.  FLRA will not even consider an objection to a single basis for the remedy denial unless the union challenges all three grounds.  The union must remove all valid reasons for denying the remedy before FLRA will seriously consider imposing the remedy or even remanding. Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration Exceptions | Tagged | Leave a comment

AFGE SEALS 6101 SHIELD AGAINST SHADDY SHIFT SCHEMES

Here is how FLRA described the scheme, “The Agency planned a seventy-fifth anniversary celebration on a Saturday at the Shenandoah National Park (the event). Several weeks before the event, the Agency scheduled all of its employees to work that day, but gave each employee a day off earlier in the week so that the Saturday shift constituted part of the employees’ scheduled tours of duty.” (AFGE, 67 FLRA 489 (2014))  Because the Authority has held the substance of shift changes non-negotiable and a one-time change might not qualify as a unilateral change in past practice, unions have only one way left to protect their members from shift scams—and AFGE just made that shield bigger and stronger. Continue reading

Posted in Hours of Work | Tagged | Leave a comment

PIZZELLA AGHAST OVER 76 YEAR OLD PRECEDENT

An ALJ found an agency discriminated against an employee when it denied her request to telework from home while she recovered from a broken ankle.  When the judge failed to require the agency to restore any leave the employee took to cover the two days a week she was to come to the office, FLRA overruled him.  It gave the employee to right to submit leave restoration claims during the compliance stage.  The case is significant because it reinforces the Authority’s message that if an agency breaks the law there will be a tangible (preferably back pay) penalty, not just posted paper, unless barred by law.   Continue reading

Posted in FLRA | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE FORWARD-LOOKING NEGOTIATOR

Federal employee unions have been bargaining for over 35 years now—and a few for over 50 years.  So, it is reasonable to ask when all the reasonable issues will have been addressed and there is little to need for further bargaining. In fact, it is critical that unions keep focused on what issues to bargain over next because once members conclude they have all been addressed there is a lot less need for collective bargaining. Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE AUTOMATED FORMAL DISCUSSION

The statute has been in place for over 30 years now, but FLRA case law guidance on what is and is not a formal discussion is still next to useless for practitioners.  (Check out “FLRA FUBAR: The Formal Discussion Mess.”) But, as bad as it is today after more than 200 FLRA formal discussions decisions, it is about to get worse thanks to automation. Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining, Formal Discussions | Tagged | Leave a comment

UPDATE ON BARGAINING OVER WORKLOAD CHANGES

Two years ago we pointed out what we believed to be the error in FLRA’s thinking when it held that an agency can stand by and watch employee workloads skyrocket out of sight due to increased public demand, know that the increase is vastly changing employees’ working conditions, yet have no obligation to notify the union and bargain. Check out Bargaining Over Workload Changes.  The D.C. Circuit court has ruled on NTEU’s appeal and the news is not good, but neither is it devastating. Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining | Tagged | Leave a comment

MANAGEMENT LIABLE IF PUBLIC HARASSES EMPLOYEE

What can an employee do if a member of the public regularly sexually harasses her?  For example, suppose the person regularly makes sexually suggestive comments, perhaps touches the employee on the arm or shoulder, or even bumps against her.  Is the employee’s only alternative to demand her supervisor protect her?  Nope! Continue reading

Posted in EEO/Discrimination | Tagged | Leave a comment