This new decision caught our eye when EEOC reported that the agency told a supervisor he “was not allowed on the floor when Complainant [Jene] was present for about two months.” When the supervisor continued to harass her, she filed discrimination charges. Once the Commission looked over the record, it imposed the very unusual order that, “The Agency shall take all necessary steps to ensure that Complainant has no contact with Supervisor 1, and provide her with a designated management official to inform if subsequent acts of alleged harassment occur by Supervisor 1 or by other individuals on his behalf.” Sounds like if Supervisor 1 sees Jene coming down the hall, he had better turn and run. Or if the elevator doors open and Jene is on it, he had best wait for the next one. Continue reading
Any federal union activist with two IQ points to rub together has known since the Reagan era that there are two big holes in the labor law. First, the White House can decide not to appoint a General Counsel for the FLRA. If it does or fails to make filling it a priority, it essentially shuts down the agency. It cannot file ULP complainants, take cases to hearing, or even issue final ULP decisions. Although it rarely arises, it also loses the power to ask a court to issue an injunction against the White House or federal agencies if they try to irreparably harm federal employees or their unions. For example, an injunction would be the only way to stop an illegal suspension of dues withholding, arbitration, or official time before it killed the unions. Leaving the GC job vacant is the silver bullet that kills employee rights. Federal union leaders let that job go unfilled for years during the Biden Administration and handed Trump exactly what he needed to virtually abolish federal labor relations—and they allowed this in return for a pathetic pittance of a payoff from Biden. The second huge hole in the law is… Continue reading
We don’t hate management; in fact, we believe that both labor and management need to be very skilled at what they do to create a satisfying, effective workplace. But it does raise the hairs on our neck every time we see managers acting as if they are divine sovereigns who are incapable of error. A new decision involving the Dep’t. of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) provides a classic example of one such manager who thinks too highly of herself. The decision also underscores how to take that kind of manager down. Continue reading
YUP! There is a way to wiggle out from under the Trump Administration efforts to punish federal employees for not voting for them. FEDWEEK just published a story you should read entitled, “’Compelling Reason’ Needed to Justify Continued Off-site Work.” Check it out. Those of you who eat, drink and sleep negotiation tactics will recognize this is an opportunity to demand to bargain before political telework penalties are implemented. Think about implementing procedures and appropriate arrangement proposals you can make. Be on the lookout for management officials making deals directly with unit employees. Remember this FEDSMILL post about bypass? Or this about disability grounds for telework. Or the remedies available if the agency violates law when taking telework away. Or as a religious accommodation. Or the appropriate arrangement proposals others have made when management proposes to terminate telework. Or how to use FMLA to get telework. FEDSMILL has over 50 advice pieces about telework. Just enter the term in the search box and they will all pop up.
The Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) posted a press release in late December announcing that it was ordering two SES Executives suspended for 30 & 36 days. OSC found that they committed prohibited personnel practices (PPP) in connection with promotion actions. While the OSC chose not to reveal most of the details about the case, it did mention that it caught one of the Executives “pressuring subordinates within HR to improperly select unqualified candidates for multiple positions.” The case is an interesting benchmark for unions to use if they show one of their agency’s managers or executives committed a PPP in a promotion action. Why not take an arbitrator’s decision and ask the agency IG to investigate and to impose a proper penalty if it agrees a PPP was committed. There is nothing wrong with sending the offending manager/executive a message that the union is not done with them once an arbitrator orders the agency to retroactively promote or grant priority consideration. That is a penalty on the agency, not the offending officials.
Courts generally are not permitted to review the Authority’s decisions involving exceptions to grievance arbitration awards. But there is an exception to that rule, i.e., when the FLRA exception decision involves a ULP. We first wrote about this in How A Grievance Can Also Always Be A ULP But as time goes on, the courts have sharpened the criteria that must be met for it to take jurisdiction. In a decision issued last June the D.C. Circuit Court provided the most complete explanation yet of what a union must do to get judicial review. Given that the incoming White House Administration appointees will arrived pre-disposed to overturn every union arbitration victory, this small exception to the rule just might save your case. Continue reading
During the last Trump administration his FLRA appointees savaged decades of FLRA and judicial case law. They not only overturned about 20 important precedents, but they did so by replacing reasonably objective criteria for applying the law with overly subjective ones. The new criteria will make it a nightmare for practitioners on either side of the table to apply. In short, the Trumpers shifted federal sector labor relations from something governed by stable laws to one governed by “whatever the hell the political appointees of the moment say it is.” Given that Trump appointees will soon control FLRA once again, things are only going to get worse for unions and employees unless unions find a way to override FLRA. This post is about doing just that. Continue reading
Somewhere early in the next White House Administration some probationary employee is going to be fired because Team Trump thinks the employee does not support the new President’s political views or because some campaign contributor to the new President’s campaign complained about the employee. When that does happen a lot of folks are going to tell the probationer that s/he has no right of appeal—but every one of them will be wrong. When a probationer is fired for what appear to be political reasons they can appeal to MSPB. There is a wonderful article by an attorney at Shaw, Bransford and Roth entitled, MSPB: Agencies Terminate Probationary Employees for Political Reasons At Their Own Peril . We recommend you look it over just so that you can be on the look out for one of your members being fired dor political reasons. In the case discussed in the article the employee got his job back, back pay, and career status.
Every union member has a critically important right that their union prays the member knows nothing about. Back in 1959 a law “was enacted after lengthy congressional investigations disclosed that in many instances, union officials had run unions as private fiefdoms, in utter defiance of the interests of members….” The goal of that law, i.e., the LMRDA, was to “end ‘autocratic rule by placing the ultimate power in the hands of members, where it rightfully belongs . . .’ ” Mallick v. International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, 749 F.2d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Mallick I). And one of the rights it gave each member was the right to see and audit the union’s books. There is a legal decision from the U.S. Dept. of Labor that spells this all out and how to do it. Chicago District Director, OLMS v. National Council Of Field Labor Locals, Council 73, AFGE, CASE NO: 98-SOC-1. Has your union ever told you about that right? If not, let me. Continue reading