Posted on March 1, 2020 by AdminUN

ATTORNEY FEE INSANITY MUST STOP

We will admit that the greed-bordering-on thievery of two particular attorneys has launched us on a now four-year long effort to bring some change to how fees are awarded. Of course, systemic flaws in the attorney fee program such as paying attorneys over $800 an hour added some thrust to our effort as well. After opening this morning’s e-mail traffic, we have yet another motivator. It seems that the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court has refused to stop an attorney from taking $23,000 of the $25,000 that he won for some clients in an FLSA suit. So, if some poor worker was screwed out of overtime pay by her employer for a year and filed a lawsuit, the U.S. Courts think it is only fair that her attorneys rather than her employer be allowed to screw out of any overtime pay winnings.  The court held this is reasonable because otherwise attorneys might not want to take employee cases if they risk not winning a bundle of cash for themselves.  There was no hint that the court recognized that now employees may not want to take cases if winning them will only result in 90% of the cash going to the attorney. Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney Fees | Tagged | 2 Comments

Posted on February 20, 2020 by AdminUN

HOW FAR BACK CAN A BACK PAY CLAIM GO?

We are getting questions about how far back an arbitrator can order an agency to grant back pay as if there is some legal limit on it.  We are not going to get into the laws allegedly limiting how far back arbitrator can go. Rather, we thought we would point out a few cases where arbitrators and judges have ordered agencies to go beyond six years prior to the date the grievance or claim was filed, even if that means decades.
Continue reading →

Posted in Back Pay | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Posted on February 20, 2020 by AdminUN

TELEWORK AS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

EEOC has held that a request for telework or a shorter commuting time because of a disability is a request for reasonable accommodation and triggers an agency’s responsibility under the Rehabilitation Act.  For example, in Jody L. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC No. 0120151351 (2018)  the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when it denied complainant’s request for situational telework due to inclement weather; in Doria R. v. Nat’l Sci. Found., EEOC No. 0120152916 (2017) the agency’s ten-month delay in granting complainant’s request for additional telework days violated the Rehabilitation Act; and in Hupka v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC No. 02960003 (1997)  the agency violated the Rehab Act when it refused to allow complainant whose long commute exacerbated his disability to work at home or at a local alternative work site. EEOC just added another case to that line of precedent.  After an employee showed that three days a week of telework would remove the obstacles presented by his handicap, the agency failed to show that… Continue reading →

Posted in EEO/Disabilities | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on February 19, 2020 by AdminUN

BOSS FEARING BIAS SUIT GETS ‘FISHING BUDDY’ POLICE CHIEF TO ARREST EMPLOYEE

We just have to share this “Washington Post” story. Click here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Posted on February 12, 2020 by AdminUN

LIES & RACISM FROM THE VETERAN AFFAIRS

An employee alleged that the VA treated her disparately in not selecting her for the position of RN Manger/Specialty Clinic (Nurse Manager), and it sure looks to us that VA managers lied to hide their blatant racism.  On top of that higher-level VA management decided to defend their behavior.  The EEOC record shows that the employee, who we will call Arleen, was an African-American over 40, applied and was qualified for the Nurse Manager position; was considered for the position in question; was not selected for the position despite her qualifications; and the selectee was outside of her protected classes. In other words, she met the prima facie discrimination criteria that forced the agency to explain its decision. Continue reading →

Posted in EEO/Discrimination, Prohibited Personnel Practice, Race | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on February 12, 2020 by AdminUN

NAMING GRIEVANTS: A SOURCE OF UNION POWER 

Two members come to you, the union steward, complaining that the manager is no longer following the agreement’s provision about how to distribute overtime and they want to grieve.  After they leave, you call two other union members who work in the same group and ask if they want to grieve.  One says yes and the other no.  You never ask the three employees of the same group that have refused to join the union.  What can you do here to make the nonmembers regret their decision? Continue reading →

Posted in Membership Building | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on February 12, 2020 by AdminUN

AREN’T ABBOTT & KIKO CUTE?

Reading a recent decision by these twinkling Trumpettes, reminded us of the four-year old who denies he has been eating candy even though his faced is smeared with chocolate. The adults in the room invariably struggle to suppress broad smiles despite the bold-faced lie.  In this new Abbott and Kiko decision they boasted that they changed the 7116(d) rules about when a grievance and separate FLRA ULP can be filed dealing with the same matter in order to “CLARIFY” precedent. Taking the readers on both sides of the L-M table to be idiots, they then reviewed how they abolished the existing objectively triggered criteria in favor of such clear-as-mud criteria as when the two cases are “substantially similar,” one is a “derivative of” the other, and they did not differ “in any meaningful respect.” (See Dept. of Education and AFGE, 71 FLRA 516 (2020)) If you think those three criteria make things clearer for either the union or management reps, stop reading now.  There is no hope for showing you that the criteria were changed solely to permit whoever is in charge of the FLRA to overrule the arbitrator if they do not like the bottom line of the award, e.g., did the neutral award back pay or any other tangible remedy. Continue reading →

Posted in FLRA | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on January 7, 2020 by AdminUN

GRIEVING ULP CHARGES

While the traditional place to file a ULP allegation is with the FLRA, there are considerable advantages to grieving it—especially if you make some small changes in your contract grievance procedure. Continue reading →

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posted on January 7, 2020 by AdminUN

WHEN HIGHER AUTHORITIES INTERFERE WITH BARGAINING

One of the more maddening parts of bargaining for a union involves an agency rejecting a union proposal without a good explanation. For example, when the bargaining agency refuses to agree to any increase in the employee uniform allowance, but fails to provide a reasonable answer why. A reasonable explanation for opposing the increase might include an inability to pay, comparability with other uniformed employees, examples of employee abuse of the current reimbursement, etc. Although there can be several explanations for such senseless intransigence, one is that a higher power has made it very clear via an order or just a stern warning that the management negotiators are not to bargain on the matter. Unions often have responded by filing ULPs relying on the following FLRA precedents listed in Dept. of Energy, 34 FLRA 361 (1990): Continue reading →

Posted in Bargaining Law | Leave a comment

Posted on December 26, 2019 by AdminUN

WAS THE TRUMP-BORDER PATROL COUNCIL DEAL A BRIBE?

On December 16 the Washington Post revealed Trump intervened in the Border Patrol Council’s collective bargaining negotiations with CBP management to give the union a deal no other union in the federal sector can get from their agency executives.  That raises the question of whether the transaction involved an illegal bribe. So, let’s address that. Continue reading →

Posted in Bargaining Law | Tagged | 2 Comments