FLRA is offering parties an opportunity to provide input to both its prospective Guide to Negotiability and negotiability training materials. The author suggests that Agencies review these materials and provide input as training dollars are scarce and field activities and offices may rely on the information provided. Act quickly, the offer expires May 7, 2013.
Have you ever listened to someone give a presentation or state a particular view and leave out a critical piece of information? The Author suggests that perhaps FLRA’s General Counsel’s bias was showing in a recent presentation on Furloughs and Agencies need to take it with a big block of salt.
Why has Carol Waller Pope disappeared from the FLRA web site? The author offers an explanation.
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.
The FLRA has announced a series of Town Meetings that practitioners should consider attending. On a sad note, a Federal labor relations giant passes.
In Friday’s (May 4, 2012) Federal Register, the Federal Labor Relations Authority announced that, beginning June 4, 2012, parties will be able to e-file in a number of proceedings before the Authority using the Authority’s e-Filing system.
In a case involving FLRA’s appropriate arrangement theory, abrogation theory and its new regulations on arbitration appeals, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals dealt the agency a sharp rebuke saying that it had issued a contrary ruling to its own prior decision on the same facts in the same Agency involving the same issue.
The statutory right of an agency head to review an agreement before it is implemented has been eliminated by the FLRA. The case is now going to court.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals told the FLRA it deserved deference in the interpretation of the federal labor law but exceeded its authority when it interpreted a law the Air Force was charged to administer.
Cheeks must still sting at FLRA after a hard slapping by the DC Circuit finding “the Authority endorsed an incoherent arbitral award and embraced an unreasonably narrow view of what the Master Agreement ‘covers.’ “
