Posted on September 25, 2024 by AdminUN

DID VERONICA DESERVE THIS FROM HER UNION?

Veronica worked hard and well for her union for ten years.  She won some novel cases, worked nights helping to organize a couple of new units, made over 100 overnight trips away from her children despite being a single mom, and volunteered often to hand out flyers in the early morning as part of efforts to encourage employees to take action.  There was no doubt that she was outstanding at her job. A few  years ago, she was promoted to supervise a group of business agents, and that turned out to be the biggest mistake she ever made despite excelling at that as well. Continue reading →

Posted in Union Administration | Tagged | 1 Comment

Posted on September 25, 2024 by AdminUN

DAMAGE TO EMPLOYEE’S PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION COSTS AGENCY $4,000

EEOC just issued another decision awarding an employee $4,000 in damages for the “embarrassment, frustration, social isolation, and injury to his professional reputation” he suffered when his manager confronted him about his EEO charge and it turned into a “heated discussion.” Check out yet another EEO retaliation victory for an employee.  (Webster v. Panetta, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102276, 9/20/11.) (Originally posted January 26, 2012)

Posted in EEO/Discrimination | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on September 16, 2024 by AdminUN

NEVER BORROW A STRIPPER’S VAPE PEN

A Correctional Officer at the Federal Bureau of Prisons is learning why. After a death in his family, he went to a bar, had one too many, took a few hits off a stripper’s vape pen he borrowed there and attempted to drive home.  Long story short, he wound up in a ditch, got blood tested by the troopers, and registered a positive hit for the ganja. When he tells his supervisor the next day, the agency retests him and it finds the wacky baccy as well. The employee’s explanation is that it must have come from the stripper’s gear. Between the mary jane traces in his blood and the DWI, the agency fired him and an arbitrator upheld his termination.  But in a case that has a couple of lessons for any union rep defending a terminated employee, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the  arbitrator and sent the case back to him to reconsider.  Here is why. Continue reading →

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

Posted on September 16, 2024 by AdminUN

IF YOU INSIST ON BITING YOUR WIFE…

expect some job consequences if she has you arrested, especially if you are a Homeland Security law enforcement officer (LEO). When the employee reported the arrest to his supervisor the next workday, he explained that he never bit her.  Rather, he claimed she bit herself to make him look like the aggressor in the fight.  The agency removed the employee for conduct unbecoming and lack of candor. Continue reading →

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

Posted on September 9, 2024 by AdminUN

AGENCY INCOMPETENCE SNATCHES DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY

Harold, a GSA employee, filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation (gay) and/or the intersection of his sex (male) and race (African American) when he was not selected for promotion. His case turned out to be yet another example of how unions should never underestimate or ignore the potential for agency incompetence to turn an iffy grievance into a winner. Here are some details of yet another example. Continue reading →

Posted in EEO/Discrimination, Promotion/Hiring | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on September 4, 2024 by AdminUN

QUICK UNION POWER QUIZ

Do you know the difference between these SIX contract dates: 1- Execution Date, 2- Approval Date, 3- Effective Date, 4- Implementation Date, 5- Reopener Date, and 6- Termination Date?

Do you know the FIVE routes a union can take to challenge an agency’s declaration of non-negotiability?

Do you know the TEN exceptions agencies can raise to avoid a union bargaining demand when the agency makes a mid-term change?

Do you know the TEN ways to reduce an agency’s power to make working conditions decisions without union involvement?

Do you know the FOUR elements of an agency’s notice of a proposed mid-term change?

If you do not, you should consider taking a course to be jointly offered by FEDSMILL and a highly prestigious D.C. law firm that we call “Bargaining By the Numbers.”  We have attached our original, more detailed announcement of the course below. Let us know if you are interested by sending an email to Fedsmill@gmail.com. No obligation.  We are just trying to decide whether to offer the class on-line or in person and for how many days. Continue reading →

Posted in Bargaining, Training | Tagged | 2 Comments

Posted on September 3, 2024 by AdminUN

IVF AND VALUING THE DAMAGES WHEN AGENCY ERRORS DENY COUPLE A CHILD

The simple story here is that EEOC has reviewed and upheld its 2018 conclusion that it violates the law protecting employees with disabilities for the feds to have offered health insurance plans that denied coverage for certain artificial insemination and IVF procedures. But the much more interesting holding is how EEOC concluded how much money the feds owe a husband and wife couple of feds because, “The Agency’s discriminatory conduct had the additional effect of prematurely and permanently ending Complainants’ twelve-year pursuit of wanted parenthood to a biological child.” In short, it wrote, “we believe one acceptable and fair method to discern how much Complainants valued becoming parents is to look at how much they were willing to pay to become parents to adopted children in 2002.” Continue reading →

Posted in EEO/Disabilities | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on August 27, 2024 by AdminUN

PROTECT YOUR “SANTOS” RIGHTS

Two years ago the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an MSPB decision holding that “an agency must justify institution of a PIP when an employee challenges a PIP-based removal.”  In other words, when an agency takes unacceptable performance action against an employee it must not only prove that the employee failed to meet the standards outlined in the PIP.  It also must prove, if challenged, that the employee was failing to meet the performance standards before the PIP was imposed. We wrote about it in a post entitled, “ What Are You Doing With Your New Santos Rights?” But, it appears that agencies are whipping themselves into a frenzy over a new MSPB decision which they interpret as undercutting the value of the Santos precedent. Continue reading →

Posted in Unacceptable Performance | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on August 27, 2024 by AdminUN

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

Posted on August 20, 2024 by AdminUN

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