Re: mandatory removal

I took a look at the law and MSPB cases citing the law. There's more flexibility than TSA's statute and all of the protections of law including the right to appeal to MSPB apply.
It appears the bad deeds you did before 1998 would have gotten you fired with or without this.
I believe a number of Agencies would step up to the plate for specific termination authority for bad behavior directly affecting their individual missions missions. MSPB generally hold employees more accountable for behavior linked closely to the job anyway.

Re: Disclipine and deceit

You are right on with the loss of objectivity by the chain of command. Anymore a first line supervisor has already presented all the information he/she has or wants to present to the chain of command before a proposal is even initated. I feel this is more to do with being inexperienced as a supervisor and afraid of making mistakes. However, objectivity is lost before the Response to Proposal or Grievance is even filed on behalf of an employee to the deciding official. Unless the employee has some overwhelming mitigating circumstances, minds are generally hard to change through the process. Recently, penalities have been much harder as well. Management seems to issue stronger penalties knowing they will settle for less as the grievance process goes forward. Propose a 14 day suspension knowing you will eventually get the employee to settle for a 7 day suspension when in it should have been a 3-7 day suspension to begin with.

Re: Just cause and efficiency of the service

Since the turn of the 20th century and mostly long after LLoyd Lafollette, arbitrators have been evolving the concept of Just Cause. MSPB, which likes to consider itself a model for arbitrators, operates within a much narrower concept focusing mainly on the Ts and Is of procedure with political variants affecting its views on the substance of an action. The Board has been much less variable than FLRA in following those shifting breezes but trends are visible. Much of that considered Just in 1912 would be considered unjust today for at least reasons of diversity among other factors. It's also more likely that any benefit of doubt would likely flow in a different direction than it would have in 1897 or 1912.

Re: Just cause and efficiency of the service

I'm not sure what the author is trying to articulate in his response to my first post. Certainly, standards of "just cause" have shifted, but so have they for "efficiency of the service". The fact remains that the two terms have been linked for over a hundred years. Furthermore, both statute (see 5 USC 7121 (e)) and the Circuit Courts require arbitrators to follow MSPB case law. Perhaps the author is confusing what may be a more employee-sympathetic application of the standard by arbitrators with the standard itself.

Re: Just cause and efficiency of the service

I agree with Self-employed Consultant's comments. The FLRA, too, holds that "just cause" (in Federal service collective bargaining) is equivalent to "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service." See e.g., 29 FLRA 3/No. 1 (provisions 8 & 9). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that arbitrators must follow MSPB case law when "appealable" adverse actions are heard by an arbitrator. Perhaps management advocates have not been especially effective in convincing arbitrators of this obligation.
There are other inaccuracies in the article -- nexus and penalty selection are part of the "efficiency of the service" standard, not independent issues. In addition, under law & regulation, "adverse actions" include suspensions of less than 14 days. While we may call short suspensions "disciplinary" actions, the distinction is between adverse actions appealable to MSPB and those that are not.
The article may be trying to simplify -- the result is incorrect.

Re: Just cause and efficiency of the service

LER Consultant, adverse actions start with suspensions of over 14 days. Letters of reprimand and 14 days or less suspensions are disciplinary actions. Adverse actions also include involuntary down-grades and removals.

Re: Just cause and efficiency of the service

Employee DON: 5 USC Chapter 75 is entitled Adverse Actions. Subchapter I deals with suspensions of 14 days or less and Subchapter II deals w/ removals. suspensions of more than 14 days, etc. Suspensions of 14 days or less used to be called minor adverse actions and longer suspensions, removals, etc. were called major adverse actions. At some point, it became the norm to describe the actions as you indicate, i.e., disciplinary actions and adverse actions. However, given the title of Chapter 75, minor and major adverse actions are arguably better descriptors. As the other commenter stated, technically they are all adverse actions under law.

Re: Do the right thing

As a Union Official, I have one LR/ER I enjoy working with very much. We don't spend a lot of time discussing who is right and who is wrong. We spend most our time discussing what is fair. Too much time is spent on trying to win whether it be Management or the Union and not enough time is spent resolving the issue and moving forward. The majority of time the employee has done something wrong, but how the wrong is dealt with goes a long way in whether or not the employee is going to be a repeat offender.

Re: End Run--Make Life Miserable

you have hit the nail on the head!! This is how they behave at this agency.