LR Source
Unfair Labor Practice
NATCA filed an unfair labor practice charge over the FAA's issuance of a Letter of Reprimand to a Facility Representative as a result of him engaging in activities on behalf of the union. Specifically, the Facility Representative engaged in conversations with management about his official time being cancelled, an alteration of a facility notice and his questioning of a notice that was at odds with what the FAA and NATCA had agreed upon. In response the FAA issued a letter of reprimand. The Agency argued that the Facility Representative was not engaged in union activities when he took the above actions. The FLRA saw right through that as an effort to deflect their illegal actions and issued a formal complaint. A trial before an administrative law judge is scheduled for early December. POC is Marc Shapiro.
FLRA Rejects Union's Claim Concerning Attorney Fees
The FAA removed an employee for careless work performance. NATCA arbitrated the case. The Arbitrator ruled that the Agency's removal was too severe for a first offense and reduced the removal to a written warning. After receiving the decision NATCA approached the FAA regarding making a claim for fees. In response the Agency filed exceptions claiming that an award of attorney's fees was not appropriate. NATCA argued that such an argument was premature as the Arbitrator had not yet ruled on NATCA's request. The FLRA agreed with NATCA and ruled that the exceptions were premature. Absent settlement, NATCA will petition the Arbitrator for an award on fees. POC is Melinda Kim.
Unfair Labor Practice
On October 11, 2006, NATCA filed a ULP with the FLRA regarding the Agency's unilateral implementation of the ATO reorganization prior to the completion of the bargaining process. The FAA and NATCA have been negotiating the impact and implementation of the ATO plan, and are currently before the Federal Service Impasses Panel. Regardless of this fact, the Agency is sending letters to approximately 61 Region X BUEs, forcing them to accept a reassignment to one of three national service centers. This is a violation of Sec. 7116 (a) (1), (5) and (8). NATCA has also requested a TRO to prevent irreparable harm to BUEs and their families due to the forced relocation. POC is Marc Shapiro.
Hazardous Pay
On September 15, 2006 the FLRA responded to an exception filed by the Union regarding hazardous duty pay for height work. The grievant in this case inspects communication and radar towers to determine whether they are structurally sound and inspects fall arrest equipment to determine whether it is in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Safety Standards. The grievant regularly climbs towers taller than 50 feet, and uses a “fall arrest system” consisting of a body harness and lanyard.
The employee requested hazardous duty pay and then filed a grievance when the Agency failed to respond to his request. The grievance was denied and submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator found that the fall arrest equipment used by the Agency meets and “exceeds” OSHA requirements, and the grievant is thereby not entitled to hazard pay. The Union filed an exception stating that the arbitrator incorrectly interpreted 5 C.F. R. Part 550.
The FLRA believes that the OSHA standard is the definitive standard for this issue, and that the agency properly relied on the safety standards used to determine if personal fall arrest systems are suitable protective facilities. Carol Waller Pope wrote the decision and argued that the FAA is governed by an agency-specific personnel system that is exempt from most of the requirements of Title V, including the hazard pay provision of 5 U.S.C. 5545. Since the regulations relied on by the union do not apply, the union did not establish that the award was contrary to law. The union’s exception was denied.
Overtime?
On September 21, 2006 the union received an arbitration decision regarding overtime compensation for employees who are held over past the end of their scheduled shifts. Under current FAA policy, and the negotiated CBA, controllers working the midnight shift (from 11:00-12:00) can be scheduled for 5-15 minutes of “scheduled” overtime to allow for a mandatory debriefing to the colleague that will be assuming the position. But if there is no scheduled overtime, and the employee is “held over” past their assigned shifts, then they are entitled to two hours of work.
In a memorandum dated September 30, 2005 an FAA Air Traffic Manager informed all Y90 personnel that they would no longer be guaranteed two hours of work for any time they worked past their regularly scheduled midnight hour, but instead would be paid overtime in “one minute increments covering the actual time beyond 8 hours an employee works to accomplish the relief and sign out.” The traffic manager who sent out this memorandum claims that enforcing the provision allowing for “overtime” is too costly. The Agency also contends that the overtime necessary to perform a position relief briefing is part of an employee’s regularly assigned shift, and the entitlement to the guaranteed two hours of work is therefore not triggered.
Arbitrator Craig Overton found that the Agency did unilaterally change the practice which had been in existence and the interpretation which the parties had been following for an extended period of time. The Agency violated the language in the CBA when it decided to cease the guaranteed two hours of work to all employees who are held over past the end of their scheduled shift. The Agency is required to make all employees whole by properly compensating them for the hours of work they should have been allowed to work subsequent to September 30, 2005.
Arbitrator Prevents Agency from Holding a Grievant’s Medical Condition Against Her
Arbitrator James Evenson did not take kindly to the FAA acting out of frustration against an employee with a documented medical condition. The Grievant, an Aircraft Certification employee, has a medical condition which allows for some accommodations concerning the use of leave and an appropriate notification process. The Grievant returned to work after a lengthy absence due to a medical issue. Upon the Grievant’s return, the FAA manager made a request for an update on work assignments. The Grievant indicated that there were many outstanding issues to be handled upon returning to work but every attempt would be made to fulfill the manager’s request. When the Grievant failed to fully comply with the manger’s instructions, the manager imposed a two-day suspension.
The arbitrator found the manager’s order to be unreasonable. In fact, the arbitrator labeled the manager’s request as “callous.” Because the arbitrator believed that he manager was attempting to get rid of the Grievant because of the medical related attendance issues, the two-day suspension was rescinded. After the arbitrator rescinded the two-day suspension, the Grievant’s subsequent five-day suspension for failure to properly follow leave restriction was mitigated to a two-day suspension.
