AFGE Local 2128
News Flash

Have you noticed the "NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES" that is currently posted on every bulletin board within Local 2128's area of bargaining unit jurisdiction? Well this posting is the result of a negotiated settlement to an earlier filed Unfair Labor Practice against the PLFA (District West). It seems that an agency representative in their zeal to present the agency defense for an upcoming arbitration hearing decided to interview specific bargaining unit employees as potential agency witnesses. The agency representative failed to notify the Local of their proposed meetings with these employees which included the discussion of this Local's union grievance. While most people think of the employee as having a right to representation, they often fail to recognize the fact that the union has institutional interests and the right to be represented separate from the employee. The union has the right to be present during any discussion of a grievance (which has been defined quite broadly). Without quibbling over the distinction that this violation involved a possible formal discussion or a possible union bypass, the parties worked out a mutually agreeable settlement with the assistance of the FLRA. The union and the employees are being given assurances that this type of ULP violation will not happen.

Local 2128 has filed exceptions to the arbitrator's decision and the FLRA has denied our exceptions. At times it seems that justice is a very steep mountain to climb. It is an established fact that once a party exceeds their time limits for filing an action, they are forever blocked from later filing. The agency didn't file a timely grievance or a ULP challenging the Local's repudiation of the July 14, 1999 Settlement Agreement and that should have been the end of it. BUT it wasn't.

It is also an established law that when a party files an appeal of an action under one appeals process, the party is locked into that appeals process and this is the only process that can be used for that one issue from that point forward. You cannot file a ULP and then turn around and file a grievance over the same exact issue. In other words, no one gets to take "two bites at the apple". Well it seems the agency has found a way around both of these established court practices. Let me explain.

The agency did not file a timely grievance (20 days) or a timely ULP (6 months) and that should have been the end of it. But it wasn't. The agency did file a late ULP charge against the Local for this repudiation and the Dallas Regional office of the FLRA dismissed their ULP charge. Again, that should have been the end of it, but it wasn't.

The agency was allowed to challenge the union's repudiation of the July 14, 1999 Settlement Agreement by their act of raising this issue for a second time as a "threshold" issue at the Arbitration hearing. This agency actually amended the union's grievance when they raised this issue before this arbitrator. The FLRA didn't see things this way and they ruled that the agency was not the party who raised the same issue in both the ULP and the grievance forum. The FLRA saw this Arbitration as purely a Union raised issue, therefore they said the agency did not raise the same issue twice, both under different forums. At this point the Local has filed a "motion for reconsideration" with the FLRA and we have pointed out the fact that it was in fact specifically the agency who raised this issue both during the ULP process and during the Arbitration process. The agency amended the union's grievance with their own issue which became the threshold issue that would be decided prior to the union's grievance merits issue. It is completely illogical to think that challenging the validity of the union's repudiation of the July 14, 1999 Settlement Agreement was the union's issue. This was the agency's issue 100%. We are again waiting for the FLRA to make a decision.

While the ongoing lawsuits in Federal Court involve many of our bargaining unit employees (class action or group lawsuits), please remember that these lawsuits are not filed by or on behalf of the Local. These lawsuits are a lawful relationship between the individual employee seeking relief under the FLSA and the attorney who is filing their lawsuit in Federal Court. If you want an update on the FLSA lawsuit you signed up for, you will need to contact the attorney who is representing you.

In a delay tactic, the PLFA (District West) has filed exceptions to this Arbitrator's Award with the FLRA. The exceptions were not properly filed because the agency did not serve a copy of its exceptions on the Local at our mailing address. The union asked the FLRA to dismiss the agency's exceptions, but the FLRA simply notified the agency that they had not properly served a copy on the union and they ordered the agency to properly serve the union with a copy by August 28, 2002. The agency did not properly comply with the FLRAs order and the union again requested the FLRA to dismiss the agency's exceptions. Again, the FLRA allowed the agency this filing mistake. Not knowing if the FLRA was going to dismiss the agency's exceptions or not, the Local filed its opposition to the agency's exceptions outlining the reasons why those exceptions should be denied absent a dismissal. We are now waiting to see how the FLRA rules.

In the mean time, the agency has discovered money that they could designate for CY 2001 Awards. In an effort to preclude compounding the same inequality and unfairness in administering the awards program as was identified by the arbitrator, the CMO's and the union have agreed to delay the distribution of awards until the FLRA issues their final decision on the exceptions to this arbitrator's decision. Once the FLRA decision is released (hopefully any day now), we will know exactly what remedy is appropriate and how the awards should be distributed.

Out of the five Contract Management Offices (DCMA Bell Helicopter, DCMA Dallas, DCMA San Antonio, DCMA Raytheon Greenville and DCMA Stewart and Stevenson) located within this Local's bargaining unit jurisdiction, the commander of DCMA Stewart and Stevenson was the only one that refused to wait for the FLRA decision on the agency exceptions and to join the Local in delaying CY 2001 performance awards. Even though the Union was actively bargaining in good faith with this organization, had already gone through Federal Mediation assistance, had called an impasse in negotiations and had requested Federal Services Impasses Panel assistance, this organization unilaterally and in bad faith implemented changes to the agency awards program. The Local had no choice but to file a ULP against the agency for this act. This intentional violation of the law may in the long run cause the agency more trouble than this organization ever anticipated.

This Union Grievance addressed the DCMA San Antonio's failure to implement FLEX and Compressed Work Schedules for some employees along with the agency's unilateral act of discontinuing negotiated AWS work schedules for other employees in order to implement 2^nd and 3^rd shifts and work shifts on Saturdays and Sundays. DCMA Bell Helicopter also jumped on this bandwagon and unilaterally discontinued Flex and Compressed work schedules for some employees when it implemented additional shifts.

We have received the arbitrator's management biased decision and he has ruled against the employees. Based on this decision, it would seem that management is free to violate the AWS Statute and our collective bargaining agreement at their whim. The union has filed exceptions with the FLRA and we are waiting for a decision.

After receiving the arbitrators decision noted previously, AFGE Local 2128 initiated action with the PLFA (District West HQ) in an attempt to negotiate a new Alternative Work Schedule Agreement more favorable to our bargaining unit employees and more in line with the AWS Statute. The PLFA has refused to bargain with the Local.

AFGE Local 2128 has now filed a ULP charge with the FLRA due to the PLFA refusal to bargain in good faith with the Local. The FLRA has investigated our charge of refusing to bargain in good faith and they agreed with the Local. The FLRA has now issued a "Charge Against the Agency" and a hearing date has been set in order to determine if in fact the agency has committed the ULP we allege.

The arbitrator has now issued an interim award where he has found the union's case meritorious. The arbitrator is allowing the PLFA an opportunity to cooperate with the Local in working out appropriate remedies to these past agency violations. The arbitrator has directed both parties to meet to discuss every outstanding issue to see if we can come to a mutually agreeable remedy. If we do not work out mutually agreeable remedies to these outstanding issues, the arbitrator will issue a final decision directing the PLFA to make remedies. Hopefully we can work this out between the Local and the PLFA so we can begin rebuilding our Labor-Management Relationship which is currently in the dumps.

This grievance addresses the problem of the PLFA refusing to grant employees working AWS Compressed Work Schedules with more than an 8 hour holiday. Employees on these schedules were being required to do all sorts of schedule changes just because of the occurrence of a holiday. Some adjusted their work schedules, some took annual leave, some used credit hours to make up for the hours in addition to 8 that they were normally scheduled to work on that day.

We now have a decision from the arbitrator and he has ruled in favor of the employees. His decision directs the agency to make employees whole by granting them back pay with interest for the holidays when they were only granted 8 hours off. He has ruled that the employees working 4/10 and the 5/4/9 work schedules were working compressed work schedules and they were entitled to the number of hours off for a holiday that they were regularly scheduled for, i.e., 9 or 10 hour holidays. This decision contained only one statement that the union disagrees with, he attempted to deny some employees a remedy under this award by declaring that employees working a 9 or 10 hour day that earned or used credit hours were working a "hybrid" work schedule. Hybrid work schedules are not allowed under the law. The union and the agency both filed exceptions to this arbitrator's award and we are waiting for the FLRA to issue a final decision.

As if this page doesn't already list enough grievances, the agency is continuing to take actions that violate the Union's and employees rights.

Recently DCMA Dallas held formal discussions with unit employees without affording the Union the opportunity to be present and they shut down the Fort Worth Office. This was done without prior notice being sent to the Union and without affording the Union the opportunity to negotiate prior to the change taking place. The DCMA Council has filed a Union Grievance over this with the DCMA Headquarters. The agency refuses to remedy the grievance and it has now been referred to arbitration. An arbitrator was selected to hear this grievance, but he quit after the parties could not agree on a date or place to hold this arbitration. We are now waiting on another listing of arbitrators.

With the agency causing all these grievances, now they want to interfere with the Union Representatives use of "Official Time" and the payment of travel and per diem associated with these representational duties. They also want to deny the Union the opportunity to call witnesses for these Arbitration Hearings. It seems the agency cannot justify their actions and win by playing fair, so they will do anything it takes in an attempt to have things their way. Of course these acts are a violation of our Union Contract and we have filed another Union Grievance addressing these violations. Earlier today I received word from the agency that they may be willing to settle this dispute. We are currently attempting to negotiate a settlement.

DCMA Raytheon Greenville had unfairly denied one of our employees a timely Career Ladder promotion because of a computer glitch. UPDATE: By mutual agreement, this grievance has now been resolved and the employee's promotion date is back in line with what it should have been.

DCMA Dallas has taken action against three bargaining unit employees for email abuse. The problem is not so much the imposing of disciplinary action for an infraction of the rules, the problem arises because management does not impose disciplinary action for just and sufficient cause. Management gets it in their head that they want to "punish" and/or make an example of some employee and they loose sight of the true purpose of disciplinary action. This improper and excessive discipline has been addressed in a grievance and is currently headed for arbitration. We selected an arbitrator, but the arbitrator suffered some kind of health related problem and had to withdraw. We are now in the process of selecting another arbitrator.

DCMA Dallas has removed an employee from employment. It seems the supervisor suspected this employee of not being at work for all the hours that the employee was documenting on his time sheet. The supervisor in a premeditated attempt to build an iron clad case against this employee did not confront or warn the employee that he thought the employee may be cheating the system. Instead, the supervisor engaged in clandestine actions designed to deny the employee any knowledge that he was being watched and his actions documented. In addition to this supervisor and his snitches, they had the Defense Criminal Investigative Service following and checking up on this employee as if he were some kind of hardened criminal. After gathering what they thought was a mountain of evidence concerning this employee's activity, about six months worth, they finally confronted him with a Notice of Proposed Removal. Needless to say, the employee was blindsided and not able to account for every minute that the agency said he was cheating and he was fired. The employee is now challenging this removal action by filing a grievance, but the agency, true to form, is doing everything they can to prevent this employee from having his day in court. The agency is actually attempting to claim that this employee has not even filed a grievance. The Local has already invoked arbitration and it looks like the Arbitrator will decide if in fact this employee actually filed a grievance and if the agency treated him right when they built their case and fired him.

Return to AFGE Local 2128 Home Page.