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 obtainedThe parties are not identified to maintain confidentiality.



Parties Agree that Agency will Reinstate Compressed Work Schedules 

The Agency notified the Union of its intention to terminate the compressed work schedules for several employees.  The parties engaged in negotiations for several months before the Agency sent the Union its last offer.  The Union objected to the final offer and attempted to request assistance from FSIP.  However, for various reasons, the Union did not request assistance for three weeks.  The Agency implemented the new work schedule terminating the compressed work schedules. The Region decided that the Agency, not the Union, had the duty to request approval from FSIP before terminating compressed work schedules according to the plain language of 5 U.S.C. 6131(c)(3)(D).  This statutory provision states that an agency may not terminate an alternative work schedule unless (1) the contract covering the alternative work schedule is terminated or expires or (2) FSIP approves the termination. Legislative history is also clear that “In no circumstances may an agency terminate a schedule which is subject to a negotiated agreement before the Panel makes a final determination.” The Region assisted the parties in reaching the following agreement: A notice posting (e-mail and bulletin boards) and a return to status quo ante.  The status quo ante remedy was delayed for 30 days to allow the Agency to give the employees thirty-days’ notice, as required by the contract, before changing schedules.  It also serves the practical purpose of ensuring employees can prepare for the change in work schedule.  (5/14)

Parties Agree to Create a Form to Clarify Union Representatives

The Region assisted the parties in reaching a party settlement in this case, which was one of numerous cases involving alleged refusals to recognize Union representatives.  Many of the cases involved situations where employees were technically not entitled to representation, but this particular case involved coercive statements as well.  The Region recognized that the problem was mainly a bad relationship and assisted the parties in creating a Representation form that will clarify the identity of the appropriate representative in a given situation, and an agreement to jointly attend web-based FLRA Basic Statutory Training on the Rights and Obligations under the Statute.  (5/14)


Parties Agree to Bargain Locally Over Impact and Implementation of a New Attendance System

The Agency refused to bargain locally over the impact and implementation of a new time and attendance system. The parties previously bargained at the national level, but the Agency refused to bargain locally as required by the Master Agreement. The Region issued complaint and the agent obtained a post-complaint bilateral settlement
requiring that the Agency bargain locally with the Union and post/electronically distribute a Notice.  (8/14)



Union Agrees to Refrain from Urging Employees to Support Work Stoppage

The Region negotiated a post Complaint bilateral settlement of an alleged call for a work stoppage. The Union had allegedly urged employees not to appear for work on their new work schedules because it disagreed with the agency position. In the charge filed by the agency, it was agreed that there was no actual work stoppage. The parties entered a bilateral settlement in which the Union agreed to refrain from such activity and posted an appropriate Notice, with electronic distribution.  (8/14)



Parties Agree to Resolve 4 ULP charges Alleging Information Request Violations

The Region facilitated a post-complaint bilateral settlement agreement at an agency, resolving 4 cases where the agency failed to timely provide data. The Settlement Agreement provided for posting of a Notice, signed by a high-level official, along with electronic distribution.  The Settlement Agreement motivated the agency to revamp its processes for responding to data requests – and the agency now appears to be responding to requests and providing data in a timely manner. (8/14)

Parties Agree that Manager will Sign and Identify Violation in E-mail Sent to Employees

The Region facilitated a pre-complaint resolution in a case where the Charging Party alleged that a supervisor threatened to increase the severity of an employee’s disciplinary action if he pursued the matter through the Union. The settlement required the offending manager to sign and electronically distribute a Notice To All Employees, identifying the violation.  (5/14)


Parties Agree to MOU Concerning Data Requests, Formal Discussions, and FLRA Joint Statutory Training

The Region facilitated settlement of three ULPs. In the MOU management agreed to respond to data requests submitted by the Union; rescind a memorandum for record that was issued to a Union representative for what he did while engaged in protected activity; and allow Union representatives to speak at formal discussions. And, under the terms of the MOU, within 6 months of the agreement, the parties will ask the FLRA for joint statutory training.  (5/14)

Parties Agree to MOU Agreeing to Negotiate Work Space and Safety Issues and to Post the MOU on Bulletin Boards

The Region settled three ULP cases during investigation. The charges alleged unilateral changes in employees’ work space in a leased building, and safety issues related to management’s installation of locks on examination rooms. In the MOU the parties agreed to negotiate, and also agreed to post the MOU on agency bulletin boards, and email it to unit employees.  (5/14)



Unilateral Settlement Agreement Includes Email and Physical Posting Concerning (a)(1), (2), and (4) allegations

The consolidated complaint in these cases alleged a violation of Section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute when a high-level manager told the bargaining unit employee that she should not be in the Union and that she should probably look for another job.  The complaint also alleged a violation of sections 7116(a)(1),(2),(4) when the Agency forcibly removed the employee from the premises in reprisal for her filing of a grievance and the unfair labor practice charge.  The Region brokered a unilateral settlement that included a strongly worded email/physical posting signed by a senior manager and advisor to the Cabinet Department Head. The Agency also agreed that a senior manager would complete the FLRA's web-based statutory training as a condition of settlement.  (5/14)