RSS FeedsOGC 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.
ATLANTA
Agency Agrees that Feds Feed Family Program will not be a Part of the Performance Standards
The Agency had unilaterally implemented a new performance standard where employees were to be measured on the number of customers they could persuade to spend $10.00 to purchase a bag of sundries to support the FEDS FEED FAMILY program. The parties entered into a post-complaint bilateral settlement where the Agency agreed to put out a clarification to employees that the program was not part of the performance standards and posted a notice. (3/13)
A Status Quo Ante Remedy will be Unnecessary if Parties are Successful in Bargaining Over Changes to Compressed Work Schedule
The Region facilitated a settlement which involved a unilateral change to the compressed work schedule. The Agency maintained adverse impact but did not follow the appropriate procedures for bargaining and FSIP determination. As a compromise, the Union agreed to delay the status quo ante remedy for 45 days, to allow the Agency time to negotiate over the new schedule. However, if no agreement is reached within 45 days, the Agency will return to the sttus quo ante. (1/13)
BOSTON
Agency Agrees to Refrain from Interfering with Employees' Exercise of Statutory Rights
A group of twenty teachers filed an informal group grievance under the CBA complaining about the Principal’s policies and behavior. Shortly thereafter, the Principal called a meeting where she berated teachers about the grievance. Around the same time, she began conducting in-class observation visits in the classrooms of the teachers who had signed the grievance, something she had rarely done before. After the ULP was filed, the Principal was reassigned to another position within the school system. The Region settled the case, post-complaint, with a notice posting which contained language describing the unlawful conduct and assuring employees that the Activity would not interfere with employees’ rights in the
future. (3/13)
Parties Agree that Activity will Provide Copies of Sanitized Performance Appraisals Coded for Race and Sex
The Union asked for copies of the performance appraisals for all the employees in one unit, sanitized but coded for the race, sex and approximate age of the employees. The Activity provided the appraisals sanitized, but not coded to indicate the race, sex and age of the employees. The Union then specifically asked for the race, sex and age information and the Activity refused, in part because this information would, it claimed, compromise employees’ identity and thus violate the Privacy Act. The Region worked with the parties and they reached the conclusion that only the age information would tend to reveal the employees’ identity. Based on this conclusion, the parties agreed to a post-complaint bilateral settlement agreement where the Activity would provide the requested information, coded for race and sex but not age. (3/13)
DALLAS
Parties Agree to Settlement Concerning Weingarten Violation
The Region issued Complaint alleging that the Agency had failed to stop its interrogation of an employee during an investigatory examination despite repeated requests by the employee for union representation. The Region resolved the case with a post-complaint settlement that provided for the removal of written statements given by the employee at the meeting from agency records, an agreement not to rely upon any information provided by the employee now or in any future actions, and the posting of a Notice, with electronic (email) distribution. (3/13)
Parties Agree to Post Notice and to Distribute Notice Electronically Concerning Requirement that Agency Give Union Notice of Formal Discussions
The Region issued Complaint alleging the Agency had held a formal EEO mediation in which it discussed and resolved a dispute with an employee by providing future job placement opportunities and other benefits which could impact other unit employees without notice to the union and affording it an opportunity to be represented. The Region resolved the case with a post-complaint settlement agreement that provided for the posting of a Notice in which the Agency recognized its duty to provide appropriate notice to the union of formal discussions, which also would be electronically distributed. (3/13)
DENVER
Parties Agree to Status Quo Ante Relief Concerning Allowed Work Hours
The Region facilitated post-hearing settlements in a pair of cases involving now-closed facilities. A former Regional Director issued complaint alleging, among other things, that the Activities violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (2) by requiring the President and Vice President to be escorted by military security personnel while on the Activities’ premises, and that the escorts were required because of their Union activities and status as Union representatives. Both had been terminated from their positions. While their arbitration cases were pending, they continued to function as Union representatives, but management barred them from the facility unless they were escorted everywhere they went. The complaint also alleged that the posting of military escorts initially inside the Union office, and then later at the entrance to the Union office had a chilling effect on employee rights in violation of section 7116(a)(1). The ALJ initially dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The Union appealed, and the Authority remanded the case to the ALJ. The ALJ then issued a decision on remand finding no violation on either allegation. Between the time of the Authority’s remand and issuance of the ALJ’s decision on remand, the Respondents closed their facilities (and the Union ceased to exist) and transferred their functions to a new HRC facility. The Region overcame issues of mootness by not only persuading the new HRC facility to effectively step into the shoes of the Respondents, but also settled the case by the new Commander’s agreement to issue a memorandum to all personnel at the new facility describing the bases for the underlying complaints and management’s support for employee rights under section 7102. (3/13)
SAN FRANCISCO
Parties Agree that Agency will Provide Data to the Union Requested under the Statute
The Union requested information to represent an employee in a grievance and the Agency refused to provide it. In a post-complaint bilateral settlement agreement, the Agency agreed to provide the Union with the information by a certain date and time so that the Union could prepare its case for arbitration. (1/13)
Agency Agrees that Support Staff Will Assist Correctional Officers in the Separation of Inmates for Safety Reasons
The Region issued complaint alleging a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute. A Correctional Officer and a supervisor had a disagreement on the handling of "hot trash," which is garbage that must be kept from inmates for security reasons. The Union resolved this issue with the Warden. Later, the employee asked the same supervisor to allow support staff to assist the Correctional Officer when inmates had to be separated for safety reasons. The supervisor responded that he would not allow support staft to help, because of the "hot trash" matter. The parties agreed in a post-complaint bilateral agreement that support staff will assist Correctional Officers in the separation of inmates. The Agency agreed to post and electronically distribute the notice to employees. (1/13)
WASHINGTON
Parties Agree that Agency will Adhere to Electronic Searches Agreement
The Region issued complaint against the Agency, alleging that it had repudiated a negotiated agreement limiting electronic searches of Agency's staff. The investigation revealed that the Agency had breached the agreement repeatedly for