HOW MUCH BACK PAY IS TOO MUCH?

There have been many multi-million dollar arbitration awards in the federal sector.  Not long ago, the AFL-CIO unions teamed up to get $80 million out of the Indian Health Service. We also remember how AFGE tapped the State Department budget for almost $40 million in another case.  But sooner or later we are going to see a real whopper of an award in the federal sector.  A quarter of a billion dollars or more, e.g., an agency RIF is reversed forcing it to reinstate with back pay hundreds, if not over 1,000 people, who were let go five or more years ago in connection with a unilaterally implemented contracting out decision. Here is what agencies will do to overturn these nine-figure awards—and what union could do  in response. Continue reading

Posted in Back Pay | Tagged | Leave a comment

$120,000 LIGHT BULB

If managers ever needed an example of why it is always easier to work out a quick, voluntary agreement to a problem-even when they have doubts about the validity of an employee’s problem, this is the case.  A VA employee presented managers with notes from her medical officials that she needed natural or at least non-florescent light in her office to treat, if not prevent, chronic migraines. One solution would be to buy the employee a couple of cheap desk lamps from any of a half-dozen GSA’s discount suppliers. But, no, that apparently was too easy for the VA.  Instead, this agency devoted to caring for the health of others, decided to stand up for its “rights” rather than reason.  Continue reading

Posted in ADA/ADAAA | Tagged | Leave a comment

IS AGENCY USE OF GPS MONITORING I&I NEGOTIABLE?

FLRA has not stepped up to this question yet, but sooner or later an agency is going to use this equipment to monitor employees conduct, if not performance. But it is fair to ask even now what right will the union have to demand that the agency first bargaining procedural and appropriate arrangements before flipping the switch on this technology? Often the courts and Authority itself look to NLRB case law for guidance and the Board’s Office of Advice just issued a memorandum recommending that the agency not file a ULP charge when a private employer unilaterally implemented GPS. Check out the posting entitled, “Employer Had No Duty to Bargain Over Use of GPS Tracking Device,” by the McGuireWoods law firm summarizing the Board’s position. As with any legal decision, do not fixate on the bottom-line holding. It seems to us that had the employer actually changed working conditions by using GPS, e.g., gathered new data on employees never before captured, the outcome might have been different. Nonetheless, practitioners should tuck this one away in the back of their mind for the inevitable day they encounter workplace GPS monitoring.

Posted in Bargaining Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

MSPB REVERSES REMOVAL FOR UNION ANIMUS

While we rarely think of MSPB as a place to slug out a dispute over whether an agency’s unacceptable performance removal of an employee was due to union animus, the Board just reminded us that it will consider that defense in any action appealable to it, e.g., adverse action, unacceptable performance action. (See Ayers v. Dept. of Army, 2015 MSPB 58 (2015).)  This employee had apparently filed nine grievances as well as some ULP’s and information requests in a little over four months, triggering a long-term retaliation campaign by her manager. Summarized below via excerpts from the Judge’s 250+ page opinion, is what the Board says is needed if an employee alleges union animus or an agency has to defend against the charge. It is worth reading if only to get a sense of the wide range of evidence the Board will consider when examining animus claims. Continue reading

Posted in ULPs, Unacceptable Performance | Tagged | Leave a comment

AMAZON CREATIVELY EXPANDS FMLA RIGHTS

AMAZON sent a message around the cyberspace community as well as our little brick and mortar world by allowing parents of newborn children, who both work for Amazon, to transfer their time off days from one to the other.  It is a great idea and in many cases will yield substantial benefits for an employer, e.g., only one employee’s position is disrupted, in some cases savings from a salary difference between the couple, a happier pair of employees, etc.  This might be something to consider at all those union legislative conferences targeting changes they want out of Congress.

Posted in FMLA | Tagged | Leave a comment

BEWARE AN ARBITRATOR’S BACK PAY “COMPROMISE”

In late August a case came rolling out of FLRA that has the potential to confuse lots of practitioners. The arbitrator found that the agency had not properly compensated an employee for 12 years of stand-by/call-in work he had performed. However, the arbitrator then wrote that he had “no way of placing a monetary value” on the work performed. Consequently, he threw out a figure of $24,000 in back pay as a compromise between the parties. See (AFGE, 68 FLRA 852 (2015)) If practitioners on either side of the table are thinking of asking an arbitrator to do the same in some future case, we recommend that you not.  Although FLRA upheld this award, it appears that this back pay compromise is a fluke. Continue reading

Posted in Back Pay | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE CASE OF THE SIAMESE TWINS

What else would you call a situation where a union files two grievances covering the same employees for the same time period alleging violations of the same general areas of the contract, law and regulation—with the only difference being the remedies? Those cases are conjoined in every way but one, and if those remedies conflict with one another, even partially, then there is little choice but to separate them. Tragically, that often results in losing one of the cases.  For example, Continue reading

Posted in Grievance/Arbitration | Tagged | Leave a comment

BORDER PATROL COUNCIL OVERCOMES CBP DWI ARREST

FLRA just published a decision describing how the AFGE Border Patrol Council very skillfully overturned a Customs and Border Protection employee’s five-day suspension for failing a field sobriety test while off duty and getting arrested.  AFGE, 69 FLRA 1. It is worth reading if for no other reason than to remind ourselves that an arrest does not equal a conviction. The words below are taken verbatim from FLRA’s decision describing the background of the case. Continue reading

Posted in Discipline/Adverse Action | Tagged | Leave a comment

THE $796.00 PER HOUR FEDERAL JOB

Did you know that the feds routinely pay up to $796.00 per hour for some work? It is not for the President’s work. Obama only gets $200 an hour calculated against a work year of 2087 hours. It is not the person at the GS-15, Step 10 level. S/he only gets about $79.00 an hour. It is not even the CEO’s of the most sophisticated private technology companies in the world who assist the feds through outsourcing to place rockets on Mars, create unimaginably complex security software, or cure Ebola.  Under law they can only bill their time at about $370 an hour. Stumped? Continue reading

Posted in Attorney Fees | Tagged | 1 Comment

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR?

A newly hired employee of the Border Patrol asked for a reasonable accommodation because he had a learning disability. An agency psychiatrist diagnosed him as having a learning disability involving his reading, slow rate of work, and short term memory. Here is how EEOC described how the employee’s managers reacted. “The SL Supervisor asked for additional documentation to support Complainant’s assertion. On that date, Complainant indicated that the alleged harassment began. He said that the SL Supervisor began making predictions about Complainant’s purported inability to memorize facts both directly to Complainant and to the FTOs. On the same day, FTO SS made disparaging and embarrassing comments about Complainant to the whole class. FTO SS continued to ridicule Complainant by stating that his daughter at five could remember the station’s phone number. The next day, FTO RS told the entire intern class that Complainant could have worked all day and still would not be able to complete the work. On February 13, 2009, FTO VA made sounds of shock and laughed while reviewing Complainant’s test on February 13, 2009. On February 18, 2009, FTO SS remarked, while Complainant was reading a Field Observation Report, ‘I could read Moby Dick in less time.’ In sum, the AJ found that the record supported Complainant’s claim that he was openly ridiculed by the FTOs, including FTO RS, FTO SS, FTO VA, and FTO JZ, on various occasions starting in February 2009.”  Yes, the EEOC found the managers and Field Training Officers violated the law by harassing the employee for filing for a reasonable accommodation, and yes the employee got over $50,000 in back pay to soften the blow of ultimately having been terminated.  But we want to talk about who is responsible for the managers’ behavior. As far as we are concerned, it is… Continue reading

Posted in Retaliation | Tagged | Leave a comment