EEOC RULES CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION “UNWORTHY OF BELIEF” AGAIN

It is no secret that too many managers in CBP play it fast and loose with the merit selection rules. So, it warms our heart to see the EEOC confirming once again CBP managers are not to be believed even when testifying under oath.  As a law enforcement agency, you would think that CBP leaders would be intensely concerned about repeated government findings that its managers do not tell the truth, but there is little evidence of that so far. Continue reading

Posted in EEO/Discrimination | Tagged | Leave a comment

AGENCY ATTORNEY FEE ASSAULT SHIFTS INTO OVERDRIVE

It is no secret that agencies are pushing harder than ever to reduce the costs of collective bargaining, and one of the most aggressive assaults is against a union rep’s right to get attorney fees when s/he wins a case yielding almost any kind of back pay. That effort has shifted into high gear with the circulation inside the management LR community of a 20-page PowerPoint outlining how to attack fees and a couple of cases now before the FLRA that will give it a chance to plunder precedent at the unions’ expense, which seems to be its current raison d’etre.  Among the management bargaining table likely demands are the following: Continue reading

Posted in Attorney Fees | Tagged | Leave a comment

A PEEK AT TRUMP’S PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MESS

The President has issued Executive Orders that greatly discourage from treating similarly situated employees the same when taking action for poor performance. He wants the path clear for a manager to clobber one employee while coddling another even though they have the same performance deficiency.  That is his idea of fairness.  We will soon see whether the courts allow his Orders to take effect, but in the meantime let’s look ahead to what employees and their representatives will be able to do if they do become effective. Continue reading

Posted in EEO/Discrimination, Performance | Tagged | 1 Comment

ON VACATION

We are taking a break until mid-August in order to drag the staff around the Mediterranean on the annual Fedsmill retreat to identify new ideas. See ya.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

NEW STUDY CONFIRMS AMERICAN WORKERS ARE GETTING RIPPED OFF

Here is a very interesting article from New York magazine that should prove interesting to anyone wondering about the actual facts about how employees are doing economically today.

Posted in Compensation | Tagged | Leave a comment

HOW AGENCIES BEAT THEMSELVES IN PROMOTION CASES

A GS-2210 IT employee (let’s call him William) got passed over for promotion in favor of a far younger employee even though William had  worked in a similar position for over 19 years, served in the Agency for over 25 years, and had veteran’s preference. So, he filed a complaint alleging the decision was based on sex and age discrimination. It was easy to show a prima facie case of sex and age discrimination. (1) He was over the age of 40 and the Selectee was not; (2) he was a different sex than the selectee; and (3) he was on the list of applicants deemed qualified that was forwarded to the Selecting Official.  But that is the easy part of winning  non-selection cases.  The real hard part for employees is proving that the agency’s legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation as to why he was not selected was not believable.  At least that is the hard part if the agency puts forth an explanation that meets the requirements of law. When it fails to, it loses– as EEOC just pointed out in a new case. Continue reading

Posted in Agency Burden, EEO/Discrimination | Tagged | Leave a comment

IS LYING THIS FLRA’S GREATEST POWER

A new decision from those twin Trumpian towers of truth-lite thinking  highlights the greatest power political appointees have to abuse electoral rivals.  Kiko and Abbott wrote in DoD, 70 FLRA 654 (2018) that, “…we find that, on May 3, 2010, the Agency expressly notified the Union that it could not, and would not, fully comply with the awards.  We also find that, on August 18, 2010, the Union expressly acknowledged that the Agency had not complied with the awards.” Consequently, when the union waited until October 6, 2015 to file a ULP it was too late. The case they described is unquestionably an open and shut case. The union loses. Continue reading

Posted in FLRA | Tagged | Leave a comment

SEXUAL HARASSMENT QUIZ: WHO STAYS AND WHO GOES?

If one employee alleges that another employee in the same office is sexually harassing him, does the Agency have to move one to another workplace while it investigates the matter?  If so, who gets moved? EEOC just answered both questions in a case out of the Federal Aviation Administration. Continue reading

Posted in EEO Harassment | Tagged | Leave a comment

BEWARE OF NEW PROPOSALS MADE LATE IN BARGAINING

Anyone who has actually bargained knows that as bargaining nears the point of impasse, new ideas often are put on the table to get around an insurmountable objection from the other party.  For example, an agency might propose that it will pay for the union’s stewards to travel to three FLRA training programs in return for a union compromise that it need not pay for the union’s mid-term bargaining travel expenses.  Or the union might propose that in lieu of a merit promotion article that covers all personnel actions not excluded by OPM reg that it will accept a narrowed scope if the agency agrees to competitively select for details of 30 days or more to higher graded positions. Such moves are signs of a healthy and effective bargaining process, but beware the Panel’s predisposition to punish a party for doing that. Continue reading

Posted in FSIP | Tagged | Leave a comment

WELL, THEY DID IT AGAIN AT FLRA

We’re not referring to Abbott and Kiko overturning yet another long-standing labor law principle, ruling against a union, nor even overturning an arbitrator. That is who they are and what the President expected of them when they apparently passed his notorious Loyalty-to-Trump test to get their jobs. Unlike James Comey, they were not about to get hung on loyalty to the law rather than a political leader and sect. No, our surprise is that these two issued yet another decision so filled with legal defects. In IBPO, 70 FLRA 512 (2018), they ruled that suddenly it violates law, specifically 7116(d), for a union to file a 7116(a)(5) ULP charge with FLRA alleging an agency unilaterally changed some workplace condition and also file a contract grievance alleging  the agency also violated the negotiated contract obligation to bargain before making changes–if both claims involve the same set of facts. Up until they issued this change, the law allowed unions to do that for a long time. Continue reading

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration, ULPs | Tagged | Leave a comment