OGC SETTLEMENT CORNER
WHAT IS THE OGC'S PURPOSE IN POSTING SETTLEMENTS OBTAINED IN ULP CASES?
The OGC encourages parties to voluntarily resolve their disputes at all stages of the ULP proceedings. To that end Regional Office agents assist the parties if they indicate a willingness to discuss resolution. As a result, parties have entered into numerous novel settlement agreements resolving pending ULP cases. The OGC's purpose in creating this page is to educate parties on the possibilities for reaching novel settlements and innovative remedies that meet their needs. We will update this page periodically whenever an interesting settlement is obtained. The parties are not identified to maintain confidentiality.
Parties Agree that Agency will Provide Information Requested before Signing the Settlement Agreement
This case involved an information request concerning a proposed disciplinary action of a bargaining unit employee whereby the Agency provided some, but not all of the information that the Union requested. The Union sought the agency's referral of incident and the report provided to the Chief and the complete investigative file for the BUE facing a suspension. After contacting the parties, and agent ascertained what it would take to resolve the case. The Union sought the rest of the information and bulletin board & e-mail postings; the parties then compromised at e-mail posting only after the Agency provided the requested data a week before signing the agreement. (11/14)
Agent facilitates Private-Party Settlement Agreement to Establish a Labor-Management Committee
The Union alleged that the Agency refused to bargain about the establishment of a labor-management committee. Although the parties engaged in some bargaining, they ultimately reached impasse. When the Union brought the matter to FSIP, the Agency asserted it had no duty to bargain under the Statute over the creation of a labor-management committee due to the Agency’s quasi-military status. As a result of the Agency’s position, FSIP did not assert jurisdiction over the matter. The Union then filed a ULP charge alleging the refusal to acknowledge the duty to bargain violated the Statute. The Region issued a complaint noting that Authority precedent establishes that labor-management committees are negotiable and alleging the Agency committed an unfair labor practice by asserting it had no duty to bargain. After issuance of Complaint and Notice of Hearing, and with the assistance of a regional agent, the Agency acknowledged its duty to bargain and the parties’ signed a private-party agreement in which they established a labor-management committee. (2/15)
Parties Agree to Incorporate Hours of Work Article into the Collective Bargaining Agreement
In June, the Region approved a bilateral Settlement Agreement between a Union and an Agency. The Union alleged that the Agency refused to honor a previously negotiated article concerning hours of work. The Region persuaded the parties to enter an agreement that called for a traditional posting and an email posting. Furthermore, the Agency agreed to incorporate the Hours of Work Article into the CBA within 20 days of signing the agreement. (11/14)
Agency Agrees to Rescind a 5-Tier Performance Plan and to Reappraise Employees and to Bargain over Procedures and Appropriate Arrangements for Implementing a Revised Performance Plan
The Region obtained settlement in a case which alleged that the Agency violated the Statute when it implemented a 5-tier Performance Management Appraisal Plan for certain employees, without providing the Union the opportunity to bargain over the change. The Agency agreed to post and email a Notice to all Employees and to rescind the 5-tier PMAP, reappraise the employees and make them whole, if appropriate, and give notice and bargain with the Union the appropriate arrangements and procedures for implementing new or revised PMAP. (11/14)
Parties Agree that Agency Will Rescind an Employee's Performance Appraisal and to Reappraise Her Without Taking into Consideration Her Protected Activity
The Region obtained settlement in a case which alleged that the Agency violated the Statute when it discriminated against a bargaining unit employee for engaging in protected activity and made a Statement which interfered with employee rights under the Statute. The Agency agreed to post and email a Notice to All Employees and rescind the employee's 2012-2013 performance appraisal and to reappraise the employee without taking into consideration her protected activity, and make her whole for any benefits she did not receive as a result of the discriminatory appraisal. (11/14)
Parties Agree to Resolve 4 ULP charges Alleging Informat