Background: "Federal Aviation Administration Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006"

S. 2201  - “Federal Aviation Administration Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006”

The bill was introduced by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on January 26, 2006.

List of Co-Sponsors

Background:

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) have been engaged in contract negotiations since July 2005.
  
  
• Under current law, air traffic controllers have the right to negotiate a fair contract with the FAA. 

The Problem:

• The FAA is currently seeking to circumvent real negotiations and to unilaterally impose a contract on the air traffic controllers, gutting basic principles of fairness and good faith bargaining.
  
  
• The law, section 40122 of title 49, U.S. Code, currently says that in the event of a breakdown in negotiations – an impasse – the FAA can send the contract to Congress, providing it the opportunity to get involved.
  
  
• If Congress chooses not to act, then the FAA believes it can unilaterally impose its last, best contract offer on its employees, thereby removing any motivation for the FAA to negotiate in good faith.
  
  
• Increasingly, the FAA has refused to negotiate in good faith in an effort to create a false impasse.

The Solution:

S.2201, The “FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006”, would ensure fairness and accountability by creating a three-step process:

1)  Mediation – If the FAA does not reach agreement with the union, the parties will use the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to try and make a deal.

2)  Congressional Action – If the FMCS process does not result in an agreement, the FAA can send its contract offer to Congress, along with the union’s objections to the disputed portions of the offer. The FAA could not implement the offer unless a bill is enacted into law that specifically approves the terms of the offer.

3)  Binding Arbitration – If such a bill is not enacted within 60 days, the FAA and the union must submit their dispute to binding arbitration.

• S.2201 proposes a small change in the law, but it would restore fairness to the current contract negotiations by ensuring that the FAA once again engages in productive, good faith negotiations instead of relying on unfair leverage to enforce its will.

What’s at Stake:

If the Administrator imposes her own conditions on air traffic controllers, it will have two negative effects on the air traffic system:

• It will make recruiting replacement controllers of quality and excellence that much harder, as a wave of retirements loom.
  
  
•  It will hurt morale among controllers as more and more traffic puts strain on the system.

More than 7,000 air traffic controllers are expected to retire over the next nine years.  To meet the challenge of recruiting, training, and replacing these vital public safety professionals, the atmosphere of tension between the FAA and NATCA must give way to cooperation.  This dispute is adding undue stress to an already stressful workforce.

• S. 2201, the “FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006”, would encourage both sides in the contract negotiations to reach an agreement and turn toward other important matters, including the future growth and safety of the U.S. air traffic system.

Specific Bill Language:

S.2201 seeks to change the process by which negotiations between the FAA and employee unions are handled in the event of impasse.

Current Law: Section 40122(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code

(2) Mediation.--- If the Administrator does not reach an agreement under paragraph (1) with the exclusive bargaining representatives, the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall be used to attempt to reach such agreement. If the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement, the Administrator's proposed change to the personnel management system shall not take effect until 60 days have elapsed after the Administrator has transmitted the proposed change, along with the objections of the exclusive bargaining representatives to the change, and the reasons for such objections, to Congress. The 60-day period shall not include any period during which Congress has adjourned sine die.

S.2201 – Proposed Changes: Section 40122(a)(2) of title 49 is amended to read as follows:

(2) Implementation of Disputed Plan.

(A) MEDIATION.---If the Administrator does not reach an agreement under paragraph (1) with the exclusive bargaining representatives, the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall be used to attempt to reach such an agreement.

(B) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.---If the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement, the Administrator shall transmit to the Senate and the House of Representatives the proposed change to the personnel management system, together with the objections of the exclusive bargaining representatives to the change and the reasons for such objections.  The Administrator may not implement the proposed change unless a bill is enacted into law that specifically authorizes the change during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which both Houses of Congress receive the proposed change transmitted by the Administrator.  For purposes of this subparagraph, the 60-day period shall not include any period during which Congress has adjourned sine die.

(C) BINDING ARBITRATION.---If a bill described in subparagraph (B) is not enacted into law within the 60-day period, the Administrator and the bargaining representatives shall submit the proposed change to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.”  

Main Menu
Bill Seeks to Restore Fairness