MSPB OVERTURNS PROMOTION DEMOTION

What can an employee do when she is demoted because management says it improperly promoted her in violation of regulations?  As if that is not bad enough, what can she do if aside from the demotion the agency also demands that she repay all the money she received because of the improper promotion?  The MSPB has made is quite clear that it will only rarely review an agency action to correct a pay mistake.  However, in this case the employee met the narrow Board criteria for reversing a pay error, where the employee did nothing wrong to cause the pay error. Continue reading

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

TEST YOURSELF: The Specific Notice Obligation

We have said it often before.  The biggest process mistake management can make while bargaining is to violate this obligation, and aggressive enforcement of this obligation by the union increases its visibility, credibility, and bargaining clout.  Simply stated, the law requires management to give the union “specific notice” of any change in conditions of employment before the agency can implement the change. But there are a lot of subtleties and details union negotiators should know well.  We have posed 10 True-False questions below followed by the answers.  Test yourself to get a sense of how well you know this area of law. Continue reading

Posted in Bargaining, Test Yourself | Tagged | Leave a comment

HOW TO BLOCK FSIP FROM TAKING JURISDICTION

There are a variety of reasons why a union might want to block FSIP from taking jurisdiction over its bargaining dispute. One way is to piggyback on Interpretation and Guidance, 11 FLRA 626 (1983) wherein the Authority announced that FSIP does not have the power to take jurisdiction over an issue impacted by a pending ULP charge. For example, suppose a union submitted a broad information demand that touched on ten articles involved in a 30-article term agreement dispute. (Or an information demand that impacted ten core proposals in a 30 proposal midterm negotiations)  If the agency refused to comply and the union filed a ULP alleging an improper denial of information, typically a 7116(a)(1) and (5) violation, the union would have grounds to argue that the Panel cannot take jurisdiction over at least the ten articles impacted by the information denial. The FLRA decision explained the reason for that as follows: Continue reading

Posted in FSIP | Tagged | Leave a comment

A RESPONSE TO PATRICK PIZZELLA AND THE BROTHERS

Patrick Pizzella is the newest member of the FLRA, filling the minority party seat. Yesterday, he signed his first decision (AFGE, 67 FLRA 107) and did something quite strange. After agreeing with the other two members on the basic decision, he felt compelled to write a concurring opinion to tell us about himself.  In the process he showed how little he knows and how socially clumsy he can be. Continue reading

Posted in FLRA | Tagged | Leave a comment

MSPB MODIFIES DIRECTED REASSIGNMENT CASE LAW

 Not long ago we posted a story entitled, “Directed Reassignment Case Law Overhauleds ruling and the Board has made issued a clarification.  OPM argued that the MSPB was wrong to state that an agency has to prove that a directed reassignment is “necessary” in order to prevail.  The Board agreed that was a poor choice of words, stating that the agency must prove the “reasons for the reassignment were bona fide” and additionally that its proposal to fire the employee for refusing the reassignment promoted “the efficiency of the service.”  Continue reading

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

LESBIAN RUMOR COSTS HOMELAND SECURITY $100,000.

When rumors started to spread about a lesbian relationship among three women and favoritism by the manager among them, one of those women complained to agency managers asking them to make the rumors stop.  She soon filed an EEO charge complaining about a hostile work environment, gender and national origin discrimination.  Although the agency told employees in writing to cease and desist, it soon opened an investigation of the three women, asking if they had a sexual relationship and whether they were gay. Not long after the interrogation, Homeland Security (TSA) reassigned one of them from the night shift where she worked with the others to the day shift.  As if that was not enough of a blunder, it alerted the day shift managers that the reassigned employee might be hostile. That led to the EEO charge being amended to include a charge of retaliation.  Here is how that led to a $100,000 payout. Continue reading

Posted in Remedies, Retaliation | Tagged | Leave a comment

LIGHT DUTY DENIALS CAN BE CONSTRUCTIVE SUSPENSIONS

What do you do if an employee’s doctor says she can only return to work if given light duty, the agency refuses to provide any, and as a result the employee takes large amounts of annual, sick and LWOP to lessen the impact of the job on his physical condition?  The first thing you should do is read a new MSPB decision entitled, Kevin Cortez Bean v. U.S. Postal Service, 2013 MSPB 96. Continue reading

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

FEDSMILL’S PARTICULARIZED NEED FORM

While science’s two-decade long, multi-billion dollar search for the Higgs-Boson particle ended in success (and according to some putting man virtually face-to-face with god), the quest for particularized need has proven more challenging than that for labor-management practitioners..  FLRA has had to issue over 80 decisions in its attempt to explain what it is and the courts have had to weigh in nearly a dozen times. So, we thought we would try to help. Continue reading

Posted in FLRA, Information | Tagged | Leave a comment

ULP SETTLEMENT ALERTS PAGE

When unions file ULP charges with the FLRA Office of the General Counsel, that office tries to settle a case before it takes the case to an Administrative Law Judge.  When the GC gets a good settlement, it posts a short summary of the deal for everyone to see on a page called, “OGC Settlement Corner.”  Because it is buried deep in the www.FLRA.gov site, we thought we would bring it to your attention.  We have also copied verbatim what is on the page today to give you a sense of how valuable this can be to persuading your own agency to settle ULP infractions. Continue reading

Posted in FLRA | Tagged | Leave a comment

MSPB’S MR. MAGOO MOMENT

While the Board’s core job is to make a decision based on the individual case facts before it, it is also expected to look a reasonable distance into the future when creating the precedents that will decide similar cases in the weeks, months and years ahead.  However, its recent decision on employee furlough appeal rights suggests that its ability to see beyond the documents in front is on par with that of the legendary Mr. Magoo. Continue reading

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