LR Source
Eleven New York TRACON employees reinstated
Management at the New York TRACON (N90) was handed another resounding defeat in its ongoing attempt to break controller workforce morale at the facility. After firing 11 controllers at N90 for not checking a box on the agency’s medical form, the FAA ended up reinstating all of the employees with back pay as a result of litigation brought by NATCA in support of the employees. At the hearing in front of an independent arbitrator, the FAA presented the best evidence that it could muster, quickly realized that the arbitrator would end up ruling against it, and finally agreed to settle the case before NATCA presented any witnesses or made any arguments. All 11 employees returned to work at N90 with full back pay. NATCA Outside Counsel Bill Osborne from Washington, D.C., represented the controllers.
FAA supervisor denies sick leave for incapacitated employee
When a Gulfport Tower NATCA member requested sick leave prior to his shift due to a sinus infection, the FAA simply didn’t care. FAA Supervisor Ron Burris told the member that his request was denied and that he had to show up regardless of his incapacitated state. Even after the NATCA member arrived at the facility, stated that he was incapacitated due to his illness, and requested sick leave, Burris ordered him to work an operational position controlling traffic.
Local and regional NATCA officials were outraged by this clear violation of the FAA/NATCA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). According to the contract, “sick leave shall be approved for an employee who is incapacitated for the performance of his or her duties.” The agency clearly did not follow the language of the contract in this instance. Accordingly, NATCA has filed a local grievance against the agency over this issue.
Removal of New York TRACON controller overturned
New York TRACON management just cannot win. The FAA was recently handed another defeat when an independent arbitrator overturned the agency removal action taken against controller Kevin Maney, a NATCA area representative.
The agency had argued that Maney had falsified official log records stating that he had worked a position when he had not and that he then lied about it in a subsequent investigation. While Maney stated he was on position at the time in question, the agency maintained he did not work but was instead merely inflating the logs in an attempt to justify overtime staffing levels at the facility.
However, the arbitrator ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove Maney was not actually working the position, although he did acknowledge that Maney failed to follow an order and acted inappropriately in response to a supervisor’s direct order.
Accordingly, the arbitrator found that Maney should be reinstated to his previous position at the facility’s Kennedy Sector. His removal on May 9 was reduced to a 30-day suspension (for the insubordination), and he was awarded full back pay, holiday pay, night differentials, overtime and full credit for seniority.
FAA pulls arbitrator from national panel
On Oct. 12, 2005, the FAA reached a new low in its disregard for the NATCA/FAA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute by unilaterally removing Arbitrator Jerry Ross from the national panel. By law and contract, the FAA and NATCA are required to engage in a grievance procedure that culminates in final and binding arbitration. In order to facilitate the arbitration process, the CBA calls upon the parties to select a national panel of arbitrators.
Arbitrator Jerry Ross served on that panel for many years. While NATCA couldn’t always count on a win from Ross, the union and the agency both could always expect a fair and reasoned decision. Despite the fact that Ross was in the middle of two active cases and was scheduled to preside over a third case, the FAA unilaterally removed him from the national panel. While each party has a right to unilaterally remove an arbitrator from the panel, that right does not allow either NATCA or the FAA to remove an arbitrator midstream.
In the two active cases, Ross had made rulings on procedural issues and had determined that the issues were ready to go to hearing. But instead of working with NATCA to schedule the cases, the FAA pulled Ross from the panel. By doing so, the FAA slowed down the resolution of some important issues. Because NATCA believes the agency’s actions to frustrate the collective bargaining process are illegal and violate the CBA, the union filed a national-level grievance that will be heard shortly.
“Fly Us Safe” Unfair Labor Practice
In late 2005, NATCA launched the “Fly Us Safe” campaign to increase public awareness of the way FAA manages the safety of the national airspace. When the FAA was confronted with NATCA’s efforts to shed some light on the current state of affairs, it responded with invective and attacks on the bargaining unit. On Sept. 29, 2005, the agency made a variety of comments geared towards quieting dissent through both a web page dedicated to FAA employees and through FAA Spokesman Greg Martin.
First, the FAA questioned why NATCA members would want to continue to work for the agency, a question that can only be meant to have a chilling effect on members of the bargaining unit. The agency also publicly stated that, in lieu of following the statutorily and contractually required negotiations process, it would reach out to individual members of the bargaining unit to address issues related to new technology. Such statements are an attempt to undermine the current bargaining process and have an additional chilling effect on the bargaining unit while working to undermine NATCA’s status as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit. In response, NATCA has filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Negotiated Watch Schedule
The FAA recently used the agency head review process to reject a series of provisions regarding procedures for employees’ bidding and assignment to the basic watch schedule. The provisions in question addressed both the coverage of mid-shifts and the order in which employees place their bids in relation to management. The agency asserted that the mid-shift provision excessively interfered with its right to assign work, while also making a similar claim regarding the bidding order provisions. By its assessment, is also has no duty to bargain over the matter because it concerns the conditions of employment of supervisors. NATCA therefore filed an appropriate negotiability appeal with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the FLRA sided with NATCA.
The FLRA first held that the mid-shift coverage provision was consistent with law. When the FAA elected to bargain with NATCA over its staffing pattern, the resulting agreement was legal. The FAA is not permitted to use the agency head review process to disapprove a legal provision, and as such, the FLRA rejected the agency’s disapproval of the mid-shift coverage provision.
The FLRA also found the provisions regarding the timing of employee bids to be consistent with the law, and therefore rejected the agency’s disapproval. In rejecting both of the agency’s assertions, the FLRA held that the sequence in which employees and supervisors bid on a particular schedule is procedural. As such, it was neither beyond the duty to bargain nor an impermissible subject of negotiations.
