What is an “abaya?” It is a loose-fitting ankle-length overgarment worn by Muslim women that conceals the outline of the wearer’s body. It is required by their faith, and if an agency refuses to reasonably accommodate an employee or applicant who wishes to wear one, the EEOC has just made it clear it will go after them. It is suing … Continue reading
Please excuse our frustration, but it very painful to read about cases that unions lost but easily could have won if they drafted the grievance correctly. Union reps need to protect themselves from the twin Trumpian troglodytes at FLRA who will overturn any union arbitration victory they can. Even though we have written about this before several times, apparently the message is not getting through to everyone. So, we are going to try it as a quiz. The facts of the case are as follows and the correct answer is at the end of this post. Continue reading
You can almost always rely on zealots to overreach. In fact, it is their greatest weakness and typically exposes a core bigotry. The new SSA-AFGE Panel decision is a great example of that. The Panel cut the union’s yearly bank of official time from 250,000 hours to 50,000 without any serious basis in evidence, e.g., how many grievances were filed, negotiations held, formal meetings scheduled, investigatory interviews booked, etc. But to add insult to this injury it also required that any time union reps spend representing employees in the EEO process must be charged to that bank of time for collective bargaining activity. And that is where these seven anti-union bigots may just have revealed who they actually are and crossed a line rendering their entire order unenforceable. Continue reading
Zealots can be at their most dangerous when they actually know something about law and regulation. When they don’t, they just look foolish and wind up hurting the people they want to reward. For example, in late May the FSIP issued a decision in a term contract dispute between SSA and AFGE. The first issue it addressed was the agency’s demand to “terminate all 1, 046 (approximate) existing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and other supplemental agreements.” With what we can only imagine was ideological drool running down their faces, the seven Panel members leapt to adopt the agency’s demand saying that terminating those documents will create “one guide for all interested parties.” That guide is the new collective bargaining agreement. But had they taken the time to know the law that they help administer, here is what they would have run into. Continue reading
Dear Fedsmill,
I just saw the Authority’s May 22, 2019 decision in which it chose not to enforce a 2017 FSIP final order. That order required an agency to implement a salary increase retroactive to 2015 as part of its new term agreement. I am shocked. Doesn’t the law say that FSIP has the power to “take whatever action is necessary” to resolve an impasse? (5 USC 7119(c)(5)(B)(iii)). If this decision holds up, how should we respond to it?
/s/ Colleen DeBurg
Dear Colleen:
Rather than focus just on the Panel’s ability to set salaries, which only a few unions bargain over, let’s assume the Panel did the same thing with a transit subsidy dispute. For example, imagine that in May 2019 FSIP increased the subsidy the agency was to pay and made its order 24 months retroactive. Lots of unions bargain those subsidies. Continue reading
On May 22, the Authority told FSIP that it does not have the power to order the parties to implement those issues tentatively agreed before they came to the Panel to settle their unagreed issues. The Panel has occasionally ordered the parties as part of the FSIP decision on the unagreed issues to implement all the previous tentative agreements along with the provisions it has ordered. The Authority noted that even though the statute says the Panel can “take whatever action is necessary,” that power is limited to the parties unagreed or impassed issues. In a simple world the parties lump their tentatively agreed articles with those newly settled by the Panel, send the bundle forward for agency head review, and implement the new deal about 30 days later. But the world can get complex and we want to talk about what this new decision means for actual practitioners. Brace yourself, it gets messy. Continue reading
Suppose your agency required employees to be 100% medically fit to do all aspects of the job before it would let them return from sick or FMLA leave. This rule could apply to feds guarding our borders, incarcerating federal prisoners, or even those who travel around their communities performing a federal function. One result of such a rule would be the employees goes without any compensation or is even fired for an inability to do the job. That is why EEOC considers agency rules requiring employees be 100% healed or fit top do the job to generally be violating the law. Check out the attached lawsuit EEOC won against a private employer that imposed such a rule. (See “100% Healed Return-to-Work Policy Leads to $950,000.00 Settlement.”
Unions make serious mistakes when they fail to cover every formal meeting in their unit or when they fail to train their stewards in how to tap the full potential value of these meetings. A good argument can be made that these meetings are more strategically important to the growth and strength of the union than grievance meetings or bargaining sessions. Here is why we say that and how to get the most out of these meetings. Continue reading
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Marquis was a probationary employee working as a Shipfitter Apprentice in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNYS or Shipyard) in Portsmouth, Virginia. Continue reading
Earlier this month we felt it important enough to remind readers that the EEOC and the U.S. Courts are putting a lot of pressure on employers to stop using phony-baloney, non-specific, smoke-and mirrors rating criteria to make personnel decisions. So, it was nice to see Forbes Magazine post a piece of its own yesterday making the same point. Check out their article entitled, “U.S. Courts Crack Down On Employers Using ‘Slippery’ Criteria To Hide Discrimination.” It backs up what we said and with the weight of the Forbes folks behind it should help push employers to move toward more objective decision-making factors.