Table of Contents
Disputes: Unfair Labor Practice or Grievance?
News From President Mac...
OASIS Funding
As this issue of NAATS News was being finalized, Congress was closer to deciding next year's funding level for the Department of Transportation and for the FAA. In particular, the House's modest reduction in FY 1998 funding for OASIS was reversed by the Senate.
The OASIS money ($1 million) was cut by the House in the belief that previous delays in the program meant that the full amount requested by the Administration ($4.9 million) was not necessary at this time. However, NAATS' lobbyists was able to locate an appeal document from the FAA showing that the $1 million cut in FY 1998 would have the effect of costing the FAA up to $2.5 million in later years principally through increased maintenance costs on M1FC equipment.
After discussing their cut with House appropriations staff, NAATS lobbyists briefed Senate staff shortly before their version of the bill was to go to the Subcommittee for a vote. Happily, we were able to convince the Senate that a $1 million cut in OASIS funding this year was "penny-wise and pound-foolish." We expect the House to agree with the Senate's action when the two meet later this summer to iron out the differences between the two bills.
Garvey
Also as this issue was being finalized, Jane Garvey's nomination to head the FAA was to be voted upon. By the time you read this, she will probably have been sworn in. Contact Irv or me for more information on NAATS government relations activities.
The SIR 2 calls for a multi step acquisition plan. The first Phase will be the installation of six sites throughout the country with SEA as the first or key site. In this phase, dates are referenced to months after award of contract. The agency is determined to hold to the August 25, 1997 as the date for the contract.
SEA IOC (initial operational capabilities) by 10 months after contract award.
SEA FOC (final operational capabilities) by 13 months after contract award.
The balance of the first phase the following facilities will have FOC capabilities by 17 months after contract award: MIA, IKK, OAK, FTW, BDR.
Installation for the remainder of the sites will be by the agency exercising options.
Option 1 to be exercised by September 1, 1998: ENA, LAN, MCN, BUF, COU, FAI, JNU, PIE, GNV.
Option 2 to be exercised by November 1, 1998: RNO, HNL, SJU, ANB, DAY, CLE, DCA, IPT, EKN.
Option 3 to be exercised by February 1, 1999: STL, RDU, RAL, ABQ, PRC, HHR, SAN, CXO, SJT.
Option 4 to be exercised by April 1, 1999: DRI, MLC, JBR, HUF, LOU, MIV, ISP, BGR, AOO.
Option 5 to be exercised by August 1, 1999: BTV, PNM, GRB, GFK, DEN, CPR, HON, AND, BNA.
Option 6 to be exercised by November 1, 1999: MKL, GWO, MMV, GTF, ICT, OLU, FOD, CDC, RIU, BOI.
Option 7 to be exercised by January 1, 2000: These are the remote workstations for the Alaskan sites: Ketchikan, Sitka, Barrow, Deadhorse, Kotzebue, Nome, Northway, Cold Bay, Dillingham, Homer, Iiamna, McGrath, Palmer, Talkeetna.
There are also more options for technology refresh and for the capability of temporary remote sites (i.e., Oshkosh).
These time frames for installation are contingent upon funding from Congress, the time frames can and may change as a result of political interest. For more on that issue, look to Jeb or Irv.
Our congratulations to STL AFSS for their selection as Facility of the Year. Considering all the adversity our unit members have endured and continue to endure at this facility it's our feeling that the selection couldn't have been more appropriate. Nice job!
I was privileged to be invited and to attend and address the PASS convention in Las Vegas on June 5. The convention theme recognized their 20 years as a federal sector labor union. I congratulated them and stressed the importance of our continuing to work together on common issues. I also had the opportunity to discuss a number of matters with PASS President Jack Johnson and NATCA Vice President Mike McNally. We all agreed that we have much to gain by pooling our efforts when appropriate.
Because of a scheduling conflict President McAnaw couldn't attend the ABQ AFSS Pilot Appreciation Celebration on June 7 so I got the opportunity to substitute for Mac. I also got to attend the facility NAATS meeting that weekend. It was great to discuss issues and exchange views on a number of topics with the ABQ membership. My thanks for all your hospitality.
NEW CONTRACT: As many of you know prior to the initiation of the actual bargaining on the new contract we are determined to have meaningful ground rules in place. The ground rules will specify the methods and means of how the bargaining will be conducted. We feel this is necessary in light of our experience with the FAA team last during negotiations for our present agreement.
We held some discussions with the FAA in April and thought we had some initial agreements on matterssuch as team size, dates for bargaining sessions, etc. We then submitted our Union 1 ground rule proposals, as agreed, on April 25. The FAA team was to respond on May 16. Well, the Agency team missed that deadline by about a month and then, when they did finally respond, they didn't address most of our proposals.
While the 1993 contract remains is full force and effect, our hope is that the FAA team will respond in a meaningful way so that we can proceed with the negotiations. We intend to continue to ignore the misrepresentations, posturing and rhetoric and we're determined to address the substance of our concerns.Our paramount issue, which has been patiently explained to the FAA Chief Negotiator on three different occasions, is the FLRA's "covered by" doctrine. Our sister union PASS has an excellent article in their June/July 1997 PASS TIMES written by their Counsel Mike Derby which discusses the "covered by" doctrine. Although the article is titled "Disputes: Unfair Labor Practice or Grievance" it provides a good accounting of the intricacies of the doctrine and why it is so important for us to reach an agreement with the FAA on its application to our new contract. With PASS' permission, Mr. Derby's article is reproduced below:
PASS members and representatives frequently ask whether a particular dispute with the FAA or DOD should be filed with the FLRA as an unfair labor practice or under the collective bargaining agreement as a grievance. Although in most cases the answer is clear, the issue becomes somewhat complicated when the subject matter of the dispute is related to an article in the collective bargaining agreement.
In 1993, the FLRA adopted what is known as the "covered by" doctrine, which was supposed to provide guidance to FLRA Regional Offices on when to accept or reject unfair labor practice charges concerning claims that an agency has refused to give notice to and bargain with the union. In short, if a matter is deemed to be "covered by"the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the FLRA will reject the unfair labor practice charge and suggest that the dispute be handled under the grievance procedure. The problem is that by the time the FLRA gets around to making its decision to reject the charge, the time limits for filing a grievance have long passed. Although some skeptics believe that the "covered by" doctrine was only developed so that the budget-challenged FLRA could quickly and substantially reduce its case load, the doctrine appears to be here to stay. Thus, it is important to be aware of the doctrine's fundamentals.
The "covered by" doctrine has three prongs. If any one of three prongs is satisfied, a matter in dispute will be considered "covered by" the parties' agreement. Prong 1 is called the "expressly contained" test or the easy prong. In other words, if the matter at issue is expressly contained in the agreement, it is "covered by" the agreement. The FLRA will ask itself "whether a reasonable reader of the agreement would conclude that the agreement settles the matter in dispute." Prong 2 is called the "inseparably bound up with" test, or the more complicated prong. This means that the matter in dispute, although not expressly contained in the agreement, is "commonly considered to be an aspect of the matter in the agreement." Prong 3 is called the "reasonably should have contemplated" test, or the much more complicated prong. According to the FLRA, this means that the "parties reasonably should have contemplated that the collective bargaining agreement would foreclose further bargaining over a matter in dispute, even though the subject of the dispute; is not expressly contained in the agreement or an aspect of a matter in the agreement."In applying the test since 1993, the FLRA has interpreted the test to mean that "if the agreement contains an article that deals with the general subject matter of the dispute, absent a contrary past practice or bargaining history to show otherwise, the matter would be covered by the agreement." Thus, the FLRA looks to the general subject matter of the dispute and then looks at the parties' agreement to see if that subject is part of the agreement.
What if the agency refuses to bargain based on a mistaken belief that the parties' agreement already covers the subject matter of the dispute and grants the agency the right in a certain way? The FLRA has ruled that the agency need not prove that its interpretation of the agreement is correct (that question can be answered by an arbitrator according to the FLRA), but only that the subject of the dispute is "covered by" the agreement under one of the above-described prongs.
For PASS representatives in the field, I strongly suggest that you develop a good working relationship with one or two FLRA field representatives in the FLRA office having jurisdiction over your facility. All FLRA offices have "officers of the day" who are responsible for answering questions from the field. When in doubt about whether an agency transgression should be the subject of a grievance or an unfair labor practice charge, call your FLRA contact for informal advice, or call your Regional Vice President, Regional Assistant, or Regional Business Agent.
Hello everyone. I wasn't going to write an article for the newsletter this month. Then I just received word that Ms. Gina Pickering, NAATS NFP National Coordinator has been selected for a supervisor position at FTW AFSS. So I have two things to discuss with you.
First I want to thank Gina on behalf of everyone in the Flight Service option for her dedication to the partnership process. Gina has been a driving force in partnership long before it became a national program. The Southwest Region has led the way and Gina was the first partnership coordinator. The NFP Partnership training was developed by Gina and her Southwest region NFP partner. Gina would be the first to say that NFP training is not complete yet: it is a continuing learning process that will never end. I also want to thank Gina for being an excellent advisor and friend. Gina, you will be missed by the membership the Board and myself.
The second item is that I will be looking for a replacement for Gina. I have asked your respective Regional Directors for recommendations. I expect to make a recommendation to the Board and have a new coordinator selected by August 30th. If you are interested, I suggest you contact you respective Director.
Congratulations Gina!
Until next month...
1-800-WX-BRIEF
Use It Or Lose It!
Our Address:
This and associated pages and their contents are Copyright � 1998; National Association of Air Traffic Specialists.
All Rights Reserved.This page was last updated on April 10, 1998.
Please send any comments, problems or questions regarding this site to our Webmaster.
