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 obtainedThe 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 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 inco