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

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)

BOSTON

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)

CHICAGO

Parties Agree to Settle Three Charges Concerning the Union's Request for Information under the Statute

The Region's agent facilitated the parties' private settlement in which the parties' agreed to the following:  (1) the Union agreed to withdraw three pending charges; (2) the Agency agreed to complete its full response to the information requests within 14 days of the execution of the agreement; (4) the Agency agreed to respond to future Union information requests in a timely manner; and (4) the parties agreed to attend joint FLRA statutory training on information requests at a mutually agreeable time and place within 120 days of the execution date of the agreement.   (5/15)

Agent Facilitates Private-Party MOU Reminding Parties that Agency may Lawfully Implement Changes to Correct an Unlawful Past Practice

The MOU in this case was achieved that reminds the parties that an Agency may lawfully  implement changes to correct an unlawful past practice.  The MOU required the Agency to bargain afterward, upon request from the Union and upon submission of negotiable proposals by the Union.  The underlying illegal past practice concerned bargaining unit employees combining their thirty-minute lunch break with two fifteen minute breaks to extend their overall lunch period.  (4/15)

 

DALLAS 

In a Bilateral Settlement Agreement before Issuance of Complaint Agency Agrees to Rehire Employee and Provide Back Pay

The Agency conducted a reduction-in-force -- known as a Business Based Action" -- for several non-appropriated fund employees.  The Agency did not inform the Union before conducting the reduction-in-force and only leaned of it after an employee contacted the Union the day after she was let go.  In settlement, the agency agreed to rehire the employee and to pay her back pay from the time that she lost her position.  (4/15)

DENVER

Parties Agree that Union Can Conduct Lunch-and-learn Sessions

Before issuance of a complaint, the regional office agent facilitated a settlement agreement where the parties agreed to coordinate the date/time for future lunch-andllearn sessions.  In doing so, they will take into consideration mission requirements, and duty status of those who wish to attend.   (4/15)

SAN FRANCISCO

Parties Agree that Agency will Use a Notice of Complaint which is a Revision of the Agency's Memorandum of Instruction

A regional agent worked with the parties to develop a settlement agreement post-complaint.  The complaint alleged that a Memorandum of Instruction written to chastise a union representative when engaged in protected activity violated the Statute.  The Union representative was disciplined when she asked to see a video of an incident that occurred at a DHL site.  The representative advised the DHL employee that the video might be subpoenaed by the employee’s attorney in a discipline proceeding.  The DHL representative then complained to Agency management about the Union representative, alleging that she threatened him with a lawsuit.  The manager was aware that the Union representative was acting in her Union capacity at the time, but still followed the Agency’s standard practice of sending a “Memorandum of Instruction” to the Union representative to advise that the Agency received an external complaint.  The memo characterized legitimate Union activity as “unacceptable.”  The region concluded that the memo interfered with the Union representative’s protected activity.  In working with the parties toward a settlement, the regional agent discovered that the Agency sent similar memos to other employees.  The Agency’s attorney agreed that they were all kind of confusing.  The Agency rewrote the memos for this and future cases, to avoid unlawful and confusing statements and to comply with the parties’ contract.  So the Agency rescinded the memo in this case, and replaced it with the new version renamed "Notice of Complaint" to be used from now on.  In return, the Union accepted a letter from the Director, rather than a traditional notice.  (6/15)

Parties Agree that Agency will Send an E-mail Notice to Employees Concerning the Settlement of the Charge

With the assistance of a regional office agent, the parties agreed to settle a charge before issuance of complaint. The charge alleged that the Agency failed to respond to the Union's request to bargain over unused office space.  The Region determined that the subject of the charge was "covered by" the parties' master agreement, but that the Agency violated the Statute by failing to respond to the request to bargain.  The parties agreed that the Agency would send a nationwide e-mail Notice of the Region's determination to unit employees.  It acknowledged that it violated the Statute by not responding to the Union's proposal in this case and also acknowledged its duty to respond to all proposals from the Union in the future.  (4/15)

Parties Agree to an Alternate Procedure for Scheduling Days Off

The complaint alleged that the Agency unilaterally changed the bargaining unit employees’ work schedules to preclude consecutive days off for those who worked weekends. Management claimed that the change was in response to a union grievance. The Regiln's Agent assisted the parties in reaching a bilateral, post-complaint settlement. The parties agreed to an “alternate” status quo remedy. Rather than rescinding the current schedules and reinstating the previous schedules, the Agency agreed to an alternate procedure for employees requesting a regular day off.  The Notice also addressed the Agency’s implementation of the new schedules when negotiable proposals were made. The Agency agreed to negotiate until impasse, seek FMCS assistance, and then go to the FSIP if an impasse was reached. Finally, the Agency agreed not to raise a negotiability issue before the FSIP, which would cause the FSIP to reject the case. (4/15)