Taken from an email sent by former NFFE Local 1998 President Bill Beardall to PPT Management officials on March 6, 2002
From September 2001 to February 2002, I had the opportunity to visit a majority of our Passport offices and do training with our local representatives. We focused on the contract with additional discussion on the grievance process. As we discussed various portions of the contract, representatives frequently asked questions about various issues within their offices. The notes that follow are not directed at any specific office, but are a general summary of the issues that were raised during my visits. I did one to two days training with representatives from the following offices: PPT/BN, PPT/CG, PPT/CPC, PPT/CT, PPT/HN, PPT/LA, PPT/NO, PPT/NY, PPT/NPC, PPT/SE, PPT/IML.
Since the revocation of EO 12871 early last year, partnerships in most offices have floundered or ceased to exist. This article was based on the Partnership Agreement signed between the parties in 1995. EO 12871 was revoked prior to the completion of the contract. Adjustments were made in the language removing reference to EO 12871 and changing the term Partnerships to Union/Management Councils. Article 4 is part of the contract and it needs to be honored by both parties. Many representatives are frustrated with the current lack of commitment by management to this process.
Section 4: “It is the purpose of this Agreement to involve employees and union representatives as full partners with management representatives.” Some representatives are frustrated that management dominates these meetings or just uses them just to make announcements. I have explained to our representatives that “full partner” means that, within the context of the council meeting itself, each attendee has equal status in the discussion and decision making process. The regional director is not the leader of the meeting, nor is the union representative. I have suggested that the council may decide to have co-chairs from each party.
Section 9: “The Council will make decisions by consensus.” I found that in many instances, representatives and management officials did not fully understand the definition of consensus and were not using this procedure as directed by the contract. I provided the following definition of consensus which is supported by information sent out to all regional directors by Ken Hunter in July 1995:
A group reaches consensus when all members agree upon a single alternative, and each group member can honestly say:
1. I believe that you understand my point of view and that I understand yours.
2. Whether or not I prefer this decision, I support it because
- It was reached fairly and openly, and
- It is the best solution for us at this time.
I also left a handout, Consensus Guidelines (Attachment 1), drafted by the FMCS.
In May 1999 Passport Services sponsored partnership training at FSI done by the FMCS. That training became the catalyst for the development of partnerships throughout the system. Many good things resulted from that. As part of a future joint training session with union representatives and management officials, part of it should include additional training in the processes that make union/management councils work. (see Section 8).
Another reason that union/management councils should be given encouragement and support is that the contract lists several items to be considered by these councils, including:
1. Determinations on office attire (Art 6, Sec 7)
2. Discussions on the awards program (Art 19, Sec 6b)
3. Working out Alternate Work Schedule Agreements (Art 26)
4. Drafting duty officer schedules and rotations (Art 27)
Article 6
Section 1a: Without making a judgement on several different situations cited, there is a sense among several union representatives that they are facing “reprisal” for union activity. In one instance, a former representative was unable to be promoted (career ladder) during the time he/she served as a union rep. It becomes suspicious when shortly after this representative gives up his/her affiliation with the union that he/she is promoted. I know of another instance when there was discussion of denying an award because of union activity. When Local 1998 can document violations of this provision of the contract and USC, we will file ULPs. Throughout my training, I emphasized the union’s responsibility to honor the provisions of Article 5 and 5 USC 7106. In like manner, Local 1998 hopes to build a cooperative relationship with management and would like our rights respected.
Section 2a: There seems to be confusion, by both parties, as to what constitutes a “formal discussion”. I provided to our reps guidance from the FLRA about formal discussions (Attachment 2).
Section 5/Section 15: One of the biggest complaints I have heard (not all offices) is the problem of managers correcting employees in front of their peers. There were reports of managers doing it rudely, demeaning the employee, and even using profanity. Without question, both employees and managers need to adhere to the spirit of these sections. We shouldn’t even have to spell it out in the contract. But it is a major complaint. Please remind the RDs/ARDs to have their managers and supervisors do their corrections in private, behind a closed door where others cannot hear. In past years I have seen employees corrected in front of the staff and it is extremely embarrassing to everyone present.
Section 10/Section 13a: In a few instances, employees have been told they cannot call HRD about personnel problems, that all queries must go through management and/or the secretary.
Article 7
Section 5b: Several Local 1998 representatives continue to have a difficult time working with management over the two hour block. We discussed this at the September meeting. Hopefully, the meeting minutes will help clarify this. Our goal in negotiating this block of time was to set a time when union representatives could study and prepare to better fulfill their representational function. In her response to the September meeting minutes, Florence stated: “Time to study the contract is okay within limits, but not on an ongoing basis.” We generally agree with that statement, but there are sufficient other labor relations materials to keep representatives studying and preparing indefinitely. I have suggested to our representatives that along with the contract, they familiarize themselves with appropriate sections of the FAM, CFR, and USC. I have provided training materials to the reps. NFFE and IAM also have training/informational materials. I have directed them to the websites of OPM, FLRA, FMCS, OSC, and other relevant sources.
One of the concerns that Florence has expressed in the past is that the president does too much of the representational work in the regional offices. I fully agree and we have been working hard to change that. I have emphasized to our office representatives that we need to comply with Section 3a of this article, which makes the lowest level union representative the initial point of contact. Because of our widespread nature as a local (17 offices/15 cities) it is difficult to dispense sufficient training to our local representatives, thus the importance of these union officials taking the two hour block, primarily for study and preparation to fulfill their duties. I can tell you after being out in the field, that our representatives need that study time.
Section 6: There continues to be some confusion over the procedures for obtaining “concurrence” for the use of official time. Hopefully, the September meeting minutes will help clarify this.
Section 5: Bulletin Boards. We have had instances of management placing notices on the union bulletin board without consulting the union. Subsections b & e place responsibility for the bulletin board with the union. No one, including union members, bargaining unit members, or management, should place anything on the bulletin board without consulting with union representatives.
Article 10
Section 3: Union representatives need to be given the opportunity to speak to new employees about the role of the union. This has not been happening in some instances.
Article 11
This has not been a problem, but you may want to discuss with RDs/ARDs that training under this article applies to more formal training rather than the less formal training sessions I have conducted over the past few months. This was discussed at the September meeting.
Article 12
Section 2: This is probably one of the most frequent violations of management officials at the regional level, failing to provide “reasonable advance written notice to the Union and the opportunity to negotiate any new or change in personnel policy or practice affecting working conditions of unit employees.”
Section 6e: FYI, during my training visits we talked about making 7114(b)(4) information requests. I provided to our representatives guidance provided by the FLRA (I can provide that to you if you would like) and emphasized the importance of demonstrating a “particularized need”. I advised them, in most instances, to keep these requests as simple and informal as possible.
Section 7: We spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this section on career ladder promotions. This continues to be one of the biggest issues among bargaining unit employees.
Subsection d: One of the requirements of this section is that the supervisor “promptly recommends promotion” when the preceding requirements have been met. We have had numerous instances of supervisors sitting on paperwork for weeks, even months. Just a reminder to make timely promotions, when warranted, a priority.
Section 10: We have had instances of employees fulfilling the responsibilities of a higher graded position for more than 30 days and have not been paid at the higher grade even though they met the other requirements.
Article 18
This is an article that we discussed in detail and many concerns were raised by local representatives, including:
- Section 2: Measurement of performance extending beyond the actual duties.
- Section 3: Numerous questions on using the most accurate methods available. Many concerns that the methods used are not as “fair and objective” as possible.
- Section 4: Failure to provide performance standards and critical elements within 30 days after the start of the appraisal period. Employees have not been given the opportunity to participate in the “establishment of performance standards…”
- Section 5: How work is measured when workloads are not sufficient for performance to be measured against a standard. Use of the pro-rata method. Using a “No Rating” when an employee has not been given sufficient tasks to be measured against an element.
- Section 8: Failure of supervisors to hold 2 job performance discussions during the year. Failure to notify employees at the time problems are perceived. Providing the performance appraisal within 30 after the end of the performance cycle.
In most sessions, we did not discuss this article in depth, but there is great frustration among many employees about how the awards program is administered. As noted in Section 6b, u/m councils can have an important role in “developing practices and policies to improve the program.”
Article 20
We spent a considerable amount of time talking about the grievance procedure. It has been my policy as president to work at resolving problems as the lowest possible level. But I did advise every representative that if they are unable to resolve the problem informally, then we have the negotiated grievance procedure to address those problems and they should use it when warranted.
Article 21
We talked about grievance mediation in our training sessions and I suggested that representatives always point that out as an alternative when proceeding through the grievance procedure. You may wish to discuss with the RDs what to do when an employee or their representative requests use of this procedure. I advised our representatives to let me know when such a request is made so that we can “jointly initiate” a request.
Article 25
Section 5: We have a conflict between this section and Article 26, Section 3a. The intent during negotiations was for u/m councils to set the lunch period, with a minimum of at least 30 minutes. I advised union reps that the status quo remains in place unless the u/m council makes changes (Art 26, Sec 3b).
Article 26
Most of the issues related to this article were hammered out during negotiations. There is a lot of interest by employees in flexiplace (Sec 4c).
Article 27
This is a new article and many employee were not aware that they are entitled to cell phones/pagers/calling cards (Sec 3), compensation for taking and receiving phone calls at home (Sec 4), authorization for a second employee when there are safety concerns (Sec 5), and reimbursement for mileage/transportation (Sec 6). It is my impression that not all supervisors are aware of these provisions.
Article 28
Section 3: I heard many stories about uncompensated overtime. As stated, employees are not compelled or permitted to work overtime without comp time or paid overtime.
Article 35
Section 10: Just a reminder that we have agreed that bargaining unit employees will not be under the supervision of contractors. It sometimes happens.
Please feel free to contact me about any of these issues. My intent is not to point any fingers, but to identify areas that our representatives identified as problems. I found through these sessions, that providing information and clarification helped resolve a number of issues that were festering in the minds of our representatives and bargaining unit employees. In at least three agencies I had employees and/or representatives raise issues that pertained to management rights. Once they understood the law and the contract, it helped them understand the reasons why certain things were done. They weren’t always happy, but they were satisfied with the answer.
I would appreciate any feedback you receive from the RDs and ARDs. I will be glad to pass appropriate information back to our representatives in order to foster greater respect for the contract by both parties.