In cases involving Agency Head Review of a contract provision and an appeal of an arbitrator’s award, the FLRA decided that investigations conducted by Inspectors General are controlled by the procedures existing in an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Any reading of OPM Chief Berry’s memo to Agency Heads on telework points out the weaknesses of Uncle Sam’s current scheme for consistent policies affecting employees. The author says that Berry doesn’t get that consistency throughout government on a working conditions issue is merely a dream on his part.
An MSPB survey found that 13% of federal employee respondents observed a violent incident in 2010. According to the report, BLS reported a result of 5% relating violent incidents in industry, state and local government asking similar questions. If the survey sample is valid, nearly 300,000 Feds observed violent incidents at work as there are about 2.3 million Federal employees.
Federal unions are trying a tactic to keep otherwise non-negotiable proposals on the bargaining table. In this article, the Author discusses how an Agency might counter such moves.
In a recent case, FLRA appears to play fast and loose with the statute to retain its ability to decide whether or not a union proposal was an “Appropriate Arrangement”. While the Authority found four proposals non-negotiable, it did so apparently to retain control of such outcomes rather than address the Agency’s argument that the proposals were permissive. For practitioners, it’s worth a read.
Recently, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals told the MSPB, in no uncertain terms, to stay out of the position sensitivity determination business. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has repeatedly second guessed Agencies in these matters. These FLRA decisions are not challengeable except in the Unfair Labor Practice arena. The author asks if it is time OPM and/or Agencies stepped up to the plate and took on the FLRA.
In a landmark case (Berry v. Conyers), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals tells Agencies that if an employee no longer is able to hold a “sensitive” position, the removal is not subject to “Adverse Action” rules or appealable to MSPB. While the principle is not new, the Court decision begs the question of why Agencies don’t use this flexibility more often.
The former president of the National Border Patrol Council was recently indicted on 13 criminal charges.
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an employee’s right to challenge an Agency’s security clearance determination finding that such decisions cannot be second guessed by MSPB. The Federal Circuit short circuited MSPB’s latest attempt to undercut that decision and get jurisdiction over such matters.
AFGE and TSA have apparently reached agreement on a new labor agreement. There are some questions that should be asked but have been ignored by the media.