FEDSMILL.com

ARBITRATION’S MUTANT TURTLE

One of the prices we pay for the otherwise exquisite benefits of evolution is that every so often it runs amok and gives us things like body piercings, kale shakes, and the Honey Boo Boo show.  So, we wanted to alert you to a budding mutation of the arbitration process that threatens to slow work-place justice to the pace of a three-legged turtle huffing Benadryl. It is called the “implementation meeting.” (IM) Normally, we never agree with FLRA Member Pizzella nor find what he writes in any way useful. But he recently lifted his nose from Barlett’s Quotations long enough to string together a sentence that while condescending is neither legally moronic nor pathetically pretentious. Writing about the impact of an arbitrator’s use of IMs on the dispute resolution process, the FLRA’s own resident Koch-ite noted, “The dispute began in 2002.  Since then (if you are counting, that is fourteen (14) years), the case has been returned to Arbitrator Andrée McKissick at least thirteen (13) times and now returns to the Authority for the sixth time.” (See HUD and AFGE, Council 222, 69 FLRA 312 (February, 2016)  Rather than completely resolve arbitration disputes or at least push them back at the parties to solve themselves consistent with clear instructions, the IM mutation settles into a labor-management host party and starts replicating its activity.  Here is how it works. Continue reading →