Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 4
Page 1 of 1

The FLRA's "Covered-By" Cover-Up

When is it over?

Bob Gilson
FedSmith Author
Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:02 AM

Post Reply

The ever articulate Frank Ferris does it again. He's constructed an argument in which he claims it is in the Agencies' interest to engage in endless negotiation. Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over til it's over". Mr. Ferris apparently wants to change that to, "It ain't never over." The principle he's claiming to be complex is quite simple. If you bargain a matter in contract negotiations, there's no obligation to negotiate the same issue over and over during the life of the agreement." Even FLRA might just be able to understand that.

Re: When is it over?

Union Secretary
USACE
Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:06 PM
Come on Mr. Gilson, even you can't dismiss the issue as something that black and white. I'm not so biased that I believe the union never attempts to renegotiate specific CBA items that didn't work out as planned. But are you going to tell me that management doesn't use their legal staff to find ways to intepret CBA language different than the original negotiated intent? Heck, I'll bet that is covered in one or your classes. "Getting around contract language 101".

Let them bargain...

Silence Dogood
DHS
Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:54 AM

Post Reply

I can’t get enough of the sagacious LMR styling from the man himself. From a management advocate perspective, I was happy to see an attempt to clarify what’s a confusing topic. So many of my management representative associates are scared silly over this, but I don’t see the need for so much trepidation. As a negotiator I’m pleased that FLRA has blessed us with more latitude to negotiate what the parties expect from one another – isn’t that the point?

Rather than rely on a litigious dinosaur or beltway labor lawyer trying to figure it out, management and the union can be required to negotiate all of the aspects of mid-term bargaining. I never understood why the “what” was permissive while all the other details were mandatory – e.g. where, when, and how mid-term bargaining requests will be handled. When negotiating a collective bargaining agreement both parties should take advantage of this mandatory topic and spell out who can initiate bargaining and over what topics during the life of the contract.

What’s more, should the parties define their own “covered by”, any disputes over mid-term bargaining obligations will be solely up to arbitrators interpretation now and protected from FLRA review. Given the majority these days, I take comfort in that!

Heck, while bargaining the parties should also negotiate what “particularized need” means, what exactly makes a proposed arrangement “appropriate”, what is an “emergency”, et cetera. If either party has really grown tired of FLRA, they can easily negotiate away from their “tests” and rely on de novo review.

FLRA

Diversity Manager
DOL
Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:33 PM

Post Reply

Good way to clean this up is to have the loser pay attorneys fee's, that included the CS paying the governments defense costs

Total Comments: 4
Page 1 of 1

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.