LOCAL 1998
April 8, 2004
To: Frank Moss, Deputy Assistant Secretary – Passport Services
Cc: Ann Barrett, Managing Director – Passport Services
Florence Fultz, Director – Passport Services
Gary Roach, Director – Passport Services Office of Field Operations
Susan Moorse – Chief, Labor – Management Relations
Local 1998 requests the following grievance be considered in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Agreement Between Passport Services and NFFE Local 1998.
On January 16, 2004 Interim President Colin Walle sent a list of 12 Union Proposals regarding Management’s Elimination of the AFPM and ACSM Positions. This change was implemented January 1, 2004 without negotiating with the Union regarding the Impact and Implementation of such action.
On March 22, 2004 the Union received a response from Management on the 12 proposals. The Union takes exception to Managements response to the following and asks for negotiation as follows:
Proposal #1: Given that our AFPM/ACSM’s have been in their current position between 1 –12 years, they have not been required to adjudicate applications under the current system. Most have had limited experience in “running through” an application as it related only to doing so once a fraud or Customer Service issue was resolved. They did not have to actually adjudicate the applications or rely on knowledge of recent (and some not so recent), changes in law that they have not been trained in. It took most of us weeks of training to become familiar with the changes resulting from the CCA alone. Since some of these adjudicator’s have been “out of the loop” for a number of years, new rules and procedures have come up regarding a variety of adjudication areas i.e. holds, two parent consent, Reissues, Refiles, Q-matic, Namecheck etc. While some of these procedures will take a minimal amount of training time, some obviously will need much more.
Article 18, Section 2 of the Agreement reads as follows:
“The performance appraisal system and the parts that make up the system as applied to bargaining unit employees will permit, to the maximum extent feasible, the accurate evaluation of job performance on the basis of objective criteria, and will be fair, reasonable, equitable and job-related.”
In order to comply with the Agreement, the Union requests at least a one month formal training period to be conducted by a member of Management or their appointee in each office.
Proposal #7: Some of the AFPM/ACSM adjudicator’s were assigned a different desk once they were appointed to their positions. Some were at the top of the seniority list and had choice seats and were directed to move.
Article 8, Section 1h of the Agreement reads as follows:
“The employer will notify the union prior to undertaking any moves of more than one bargaining unit employee. The union may request negotiations as appropriate.”
The Union is not asking that someone be kicked out of their seat now to make room, but it is reasonable to request that in the next available seat rotation (as applicable by local policy), these Adjudicator’s would receive first choice.
Proposal #8: In some offices leave approval has been divvied up between the FPM/CSM and their assistants. They have not been included in the pool of leave requests all other Adjudicator’s have been part of. There are currently cases where AFPM/ACSM’s have leave approved for 2004. In most offices leave is approved a year in advance.
Article 31 Section 1 d reads as follows:
“When annual leave has been scheduled and approved, an employee shall not be required to change the date of leave except when required by an emergency.”
It would be a violation of the agreement to have them put in another leave request to be approved again. The Union requests that in order to comply with the bargaining agreement, former AFPM/ACSM’s who have already had leave approved for 2004 be allowed to take that leave without submitting another leave request for approval.
Proposal #10: As Past Practice, Passport Adjudicator’s would seek out the AFPM/ACSM for questions and guidance on a daily basis. While this was part of the Assistant’s job at the time, it is no longer. It will not be fair to have those Adjudicator’s constantly interrupted with questions regarding Fraud and Customer Service when they are trying to Adjudicate under the new standards.
Article 6, section 5 reads as follows:
“All unit employees and Employer officials deserve and shall be entitled to be treated with mutual respect, dignity, common courtesy and consideration, and will be treated equitably.
By allowing constant interruptions throughout the day, these employees are not being treated with common courtesy and are not being treated equitably. The Union requests that in order to comply with the bargaining agreement, it should be made perfectly clear to all that the former AFPM/ACSM’s are no longer the “go to people” and a simple e-mail or announcement at an up-coming Adjudication meeting should be made by a member of management. No other Adjudicator would have the same interruptions on a daily basis.
The Union is not disputing Management’s right to assign work as referenced by the December 19, 2003 memo from Florence Fultz abolishing the existing AFPM/ACSM, positions, nor are we arguing the negotiability of the Union’s proposals. We are however, addressing specific contract violations, outlined above, that involve the Impact and Implementation of this action by Management.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carol L. Aguilar
Acting Union President
NFFE Local 1998