 |
|
|
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Bull Pen | Page 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Bull Pen | Page 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 |
For the FACREP's that are having troubles with the realignment of FPL's or placing trainees, this one is for you!
See Article 46, SEction 4. It was made for you, and your
management can believe whatever he wants as long as he follows
it. YES, you can move trainees.....the language only adresses
retraining, not developmental training. Senior person moves if
they want it (fpl or not.) If no volunteers, Junior person moves
(fpl or not.)
Your policies (no moving of developmentals, and
only one move per year) are in conflict with the express terms of
the agreement. They also diminish an entitlement ((in this case,
an FPL's entitlement NOT to be moved.))
If asked I would consider your agreements in this case VOID.
XXXOOO,
JTB
Under Article 48, the Union shall be allowed to designate "A" participant.
However......the decision as to whether or not this group actually does anything, or whether they sit around rubbing weenies, is up to you: "The extent to which the individual Parties are empowered to reach agreement in specific areas shall be determined in writing by the respective parties."
Now then: they can name anyone they want to their workgroup, exclusive of the bargaining unit. Under Article 48, you get to name one participant. All other participants should be non-BU. If the manager elects to name more bargaining unit members to the group, he must use Article 2, Section 22.
In other words.......either you name the participant, or you name the participants.
Here's what I'd send the Chief........but remember...it only gets maximum effect if you leave his office...and tack it up on YOUR bulletin board.
"Dear Greg,
I am in receipt of your correspondence of November XX, 1998 concerning a procedural workgroup for the Southern California TRACON. This letter fulfills your responsibilities under the first sentence of Article 48, Section 3 of the NATCA/FAA Agreement of September, 1998. On behalf of the air traffic controllers at the Southern California TRACON let me be the first to congratulate you on your wise and sage command of the collective bargaining agreement.
Before giving yourself a time-off award for your wizardry, I regret that I must inform you that we are in fundamental disagreement with respect to the application of Article 48. While I will readily admit that your letter meets your obligation with respect to the first sentence of Section 3, I am duty- bound to inform you that the remainder of your letter is procedurally flawed, technically inaccurate and makes false and misleading assumptions with regards to the express provisions of the parties agreement, to wit:
You say: "Management may assign other bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees to this workgroup."
NATCA Legal Counsel says: That, Sir, is an Unfair Labor Practice under 5 USC 7116 and violates 5 USC 7114 in it's entirety. NATCA is the EXCLUSIVE representative of the bargaining unit in accordance with FLRA Case Number 3-RO-70004 dated June 19, 1987. Notwithstanding the fact that the idiot printers over at GPO forgot to include this certification as Appendix 1 of the new agreement, I can assure you that it remains in full force and effect.
While I could probably save you a great deal of time and trouble by citing case law and federal sector authority and practice on the issue of exclusive representation in the instant case before us, I am not inclined to do so at this time. You must do what you feel you must do, and I will do what I feel I must do. I am confident that when this issue reaches final adjudication my position will be sustained.
You say: "I expect the designated NATCA member be empowered to make binding decisions pertaining to the scope of the work group."
NATCA says: Your expectations are a matter of truly grave indifference to me. Seriously, Mr. Greg---I cannot concieve of a condition under which I could possibly care less about what your expectations are. In the highly unlikely event that there should ever exist a circumstance during which I DO care less about what your expectations are, I will of course inform you. "Your expectations..." You crack me up.
As I'm sure you are aware, the CBA says that the extent to which the individual parties are empowered shall be determined in writing by.....get ready for this...the respective parties. Mr. Mueller, I am certain that you are in possession of the common sense God gave your average bowl of grapes, so I will not bore you at this juncture with a technical definition of the term, "respective parties." Suffice it to say that you determine the empowerment of YOUR designees, and I determine the empowerment of MINE. For purposes of the workgroup described in your correspondence of November XX, 1998, I herewith make the following determination in writing:
The NATCA designee assigned to the "Los Angeles and Departure Area procedural workgroup at Southern California TRACON" is not authorized or empowered to reach agreement on any issue. Period. My designee will not be empowered to reach agreement on a time for lunch, much less on any of the issues addressed by this group.
There's your written designation. Thanks for asking.
You say: "If a decision cannot be reached by january 13, 1999, the matters will be resolved in accordance with procedures defined in the FAA/NATCA Agreement."
NATCA says: Swing on by Article 48, Section 8. Unless you received your contract briefing from Wilma Flintstone, you are aware that this provision was included for the purpose of addressing disputes such as ours. It was also included because the parties to the negotiations, being the anal-retentive people that they were, expressly contemplated the question, "What if NATCA decides not to participate in the workgroup?"
The answer to that question lies in Article 48, Section 8. All statutory rights vested with the Union remain with the Union, including those contained in Article 7.
So. Where does that leave us? Allow me to elucidate for you the Union's position:
1. The decision as to whether or not there will be a NATCA designee to your workgroup is mine, and mine alone. In the event that I choose to designate a participant, said participant will have absolutely no authority to reach agreement in any areas, general or specific, unless of course I choose to change my mind.
2. There is fundamental disagreement on the issue of whether or not you may designate other bargaining unit members to this workgroup. I strongly recommend that you proceed with the direction you have been given, in which case this issue will be adjudicated in fairly rapid fashion. I have full faith and confidence that my lawyers can beat your lawyers.
3. In the event that I choose NOT to designate a participant to your workgroup, all issues addressed by the workgroup which involve statutory negotiations under the collective bargaining agreement, federal law, rule or regulation, or FLRA case law and practice are wholly vested with ME. Failure on your part to meet your obligations with respect to negotiations on these subjects under Article 7 of the CBA will, of course, necessitate litigation. If I were in your shoes I would very carefully counsel this workgroup about the subjects they can and cannot address.
Truthfully, Mr. Mueller, you have only two choices here:
Option 1: Follow the law. Allow the Union to designate it's representatives, or ANY representatives where an impartial third party could reasonably conclude that representation of the bargaining unit was in fact occurring. That means any bargaing unit member assigned to a workgroup must be designated by the Union. Period. End of sentence. Form your workgroup using ONLY those designees who I have named, including "THE" designee, who may or may not be empowered to reach binding agreements.
The determination as to whether this designee will or will not be empowered is mine and mine alone, and will be determined in great measure by whether or not you have pissed me off at that particular juncture. Suffice it to say that for purposes of your last correspondence on this subject, the answer is, "yes, mildly."
Allow this workgroup to do what the parties intended it to do, and cease your attempts to meddle, reinvent the contract, circumvent federal law and generally trample the rights of the employees I represent. With any luck at all this group will minimize or eliminate the need for Article 7 negotiations on the subjects at hand.
Option 2: Do not follow the law. Convene a group in contravention to the agreement. I will not be a party to this illegal activity, and NATCA SCT will not designate a work group member. (I'm sure you are familiar with the term, "allowed" and it's use in Article 48.) For your own future reference, I will normally not be compelled to break the law simply because you have written me a letter. Furthermore, as detailed in Article 48 Section 8, this declination in no way waivers any Union right.
Your workgroup will almost certainly stray into areas of collective bargaining, and I promise you that I will meet each and every transgression with every tool at my disposal, inluding but not limited to the grievance process, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the United States Congress and the media.
Your workgroup will complete it's work and you will find yourself precisely where you are today: With a statutory responsibility to negotiate with the Union under Article 7, replete with time limits, exchanges of proposals, ground rules negotiations, and a myriad of other minutia. I look forward to these negotiations in the same spirit of cooperation which you seem to have brought to these proceedings.
Properly applied, Article 48 can resolve or minimize issues facing the parties. The negotiating teams intended Article 48 to shorten, or in some cases eliminate, the need for Article 7 negotiations in locations where the "trust, honor and integrity" of the respective parties allowed for it. It is truly sad and unfortunate that the Southern California TRACON, bastion of "a new way of doing business", is not such a place.
Oh, well....Article 7 works for me.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me so that we can determine a mutually agreeable time during which to meet to discuss these matters.
Sincerely,
Joe Facrep
XXXOOO,
JTB
As the author of Article 54, I'd be more than happy to give you my opinion.
First and foremost, Article
54 looks nothing like it did when I wrote it. It was much longer,
more comprehensive, and guaranteed all facilities would have
Wellness Centers, and the time to use them.
Such is negotiations. You also need to understand the the Agency
would have probably willingly put a Wellness Center in each
facility, but subtracted the cost from any other money in play at
the time. Try getting the membership to buy off on that!!!!!!!!
The Wellness Center in the Chicago TRACON is larger than most
TRACONs (something like 30X80), mirror-lined on every wall,
rubber-floored and is stocked with $45,000 worth of Cybex
equipment. They are not inexpensive. We chose to leave the money
where it belonged........in your paycheck.
Article 54 was actually in the process of being dropped entirely,
in a multi-article package, when several of us pleaded to at
least save it conceptually. We figured that maybe the next team
could take the bargaining history and the existing article and
take it to the next level. What we managed to save, you have in
your little green book. It isn't much.
Can you get duty time to participate off site? No.
Can you get duty time to participate ON site? No.
Having said that...............anything you and your manager can
agree to, which does not increase, diminish or otherwise conflict
with the express terms of the CBA, is legal and groovy and OK by
me.
You don't really have any entitlements in this article, other
than the entitlement to some resource material. This is one
you'll need to massage, and you also need to decide how much of
your time you want to spend on it. It can take forever, and the
results are never guaranteed. Even the mighty mighty TRACON
fought until almost the very last day to get the one we got
there.
Good luck. Sorry the information wasn't more helpful.
XXXOOO,
Johnny The Bull Carr
NATCA Contract Team, Ret.
Cleveland ATCT
