Third Level Update 1-28-04

3rd Level Review

January 28, 2004

Joe Formoso, Mike Verderamo, Jon Ramsden,

Dave Guess, John Gainey, Bart Countess



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

(NC) SO-03-2318-GPT-03 Issue: Agency failed to re-certify employee in a timely manner thereby resulting in a loss

of ability to earn holiday pay. The supe was a bit lackadaisical in re-certifying the grievant. The employee would have

been eligible if the supe had given a ride when the grievant said she was ready. Requested remedy: 9 hrs holiday pay, 5

hrs night diff. (Advocate: Jay Barrett)

rd

11/19/03—Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Sustained. We agreed that the employee was entitled to work on the holiday in question and shall be paid 9

hours of holiday pay and 4 hours of night differential within 60 days of the signing of this agreement .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-2379-ZMA Issue: Did the Agency properly suspend a BUE for failure to report an OE. Employee received a 3 day

suspension for failure to report an OE. Employee claims he believed he maintained separation using visual separation

rules. Mgt says sep was lost prior to visual separation being applied. Management says he ―knew, or should have

known― that separation did not exist . (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—NEUTRAL. We argued that the agency must decide whether this is discipline or performance, and in saying

―knew, or should have known‖, they were potentially inappropriately giving discipline for a performance issue. If the

employee knew and didn’t report, it is discipline, and if he should have known, but didn’t, it may be a performance issue.

The following is the Arbitrator’s non-binding opinion within the agency did not accept:



It was the burden of the Agency to prove that Grievant failed to report an operational error or deviation, as he was

charged, in violation of ER-4.1 - 1.7.e. The question reduces to whether Grievant knew or should have known that

an OE had occurred or may have occurred. The summarized evidence would appear to establish that Grievant

saw or should have seen the flashing data blocks, indicating that a separation violation would occur without

change or correction, that he recognized the potential violation and issued a corrective instruction, but that a

violation of separation requirements occurred as or after the course correction was ordered and as or before

visual sighting was reported. Grievant knew or should have known that the screen display lagged the real time

location of the aircraft, so when he saw 1300 feet vertical separation and closing, he knew or should have known

that the aircraft were or shortly would be less than the required distance apart. Grievant had an obligation to

report that actual or possible OE. He failed to do so, thereby establishing his guilt of the charge.



The evidence would also appear to establish that Grievant promptly recognized conflict, perhaps even before it

occurred, took timely and appropriate action to separate the aircraft and shifted the responsibility to the aircraft to

maintain visual separation. The evidence would appear to establish that the closest proximity occurred after the

correction had been made and visual separation had been applied. Under such circumstances, and in the

absence of evidence of previous violations of similar nature, I would likely hold that the penalty of a three-day

suspension would be excessive and would reduce the penalty to a reprimand.



We must now make a decision to elevate or withdraw

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

NC-SO-03-2381-LEX-03-Agency/Union Research. Issue: Did management implement a change in working conditions

without negotiation. No package. Operational Oversight Initiatives. Change to the duties of Radar Data without

negotiations (I&I). Change created a pre/post brief period. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Withdrawn. Documentation to support the allegations in the grievance was not provided.









1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2408-CVG O/E Projection Separation Loss of separation between 2 aircraft on headings (090 and 270), except that

second aircraft did not take assigned heading (270. He flew approx 215). He turned into path of the other aircraft.

Additionally, there was vertical, until the controller descended aircraft number 2 after turning him 270. Key question is

―would separation have been lost even if the second aircraft had flown the 270 heading.‖ If so, the team agrees that it

was a controller error for not ensuring separation. If not, then we fight to remove the error since it was solely the result of

pilot action. (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Elevate. The teams conclusion was that the agency was charging the error based on inaccurate data.

Additionally, the data shows that the pilot never flew the assigned heading. He rolled right through 270 to 210. As a

result, even if the 270 heading would have resulted in an error (and we do not concede that it would have), the controller

would have had ample time to take other action. The agency refused to even write a letter to AT-20 asking for a

reclassification.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nd

NC-SO-03-2432-PDK-03- Issue: Harassing CIC thru "performance discussions" Synopsis: OS Hernandez, 2 guessing

CIC actions. Performance counseling based on technique/opinion. (Advocate: John Gainey)

We cannot make a determination about the disposition of this grievance until data is provided. Hold until the grievance or

ULP is disposed of.



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Hold in abeyance until information is provided by the ATM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2433-PDK-03- Issue: A7 notification, Synopsis: PDK ATM/ASO-500 implementation of CiC staffed as

separate position from July 16 – July 29. MGT views this as an assignment of work under Artilce 5. No I & I. Management

has right to make this assignment of work but it is a change and requires notice & I & I (Advocate: John Gainey)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Union Research. We need to determine impact. Need to discuss AL/Spot leave/Training/Termination of

training/Schedule build numbers/etc. Impact needs to be more than de minimus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2434-PDK-03- Issue: A53 , Synopsis: Freon leaking for several says, AF advised on 7/26 no response, AF

again advised of leak no response, On 7/28/03 the fire alarm sounded & twr evacuated due to smoke/poisonous Freon

gas emissions. 1 BUE transported by ambulance due to vomiting. Looking to restore 1.5 SL. (Advocate: John Gainey)

CA-1 was filed – entitled to excused absence for remainder of day

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—SETTLED ―We recognize that the failure of Airways Facilities to act immediately created an unsafe

environment, therefore, the grievance is sustained. However, as the situation has been resolved, the remedy

is denied.‖

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2435-PDK-03-Union Research. New Package. Night Diff/Holiday pay for military duty. Agency having a

problem in not getting a definitive position between 2 different lines of business. AT says yes, HR says no. Requests

NATCA to go to the national level with issue. (Advocate: John Gainey)



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Agency Research/Union Research. Facility has leave and schedule information back to Jan 2001. The

agency agrees to pay back pay, but they have no records prior to 2001. Payroll has agreed to pay if the employee can

show some kind of data showing schedule worked (that the agency does not have.) The only entitlement is to the

differentials when the employee was actually in a paid leave status.









2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2436-PDK-03- Issue: A18 CIC and A33 2hrs on posn Synopsis: BUE approaching 2 hrs TOP, CIC calls BUEs

on break to return to provide relief, OS Hernandez who is performing skills checks orders CIC to change plans and re-

assign BUE to another posn . Sup in tower, not signed on in charge, but telling CIC’s what to do. (Advocate: John

Gainey)



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Agency Research. Walt ants to get an interpretation from AT-20 on what the supervisor can and can’t do when

there is a CIC signed on and in charge.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2437-LEX Comp/Credit time usage Issue: Did management mistakenly charge comp time to an employee requesting

to use credit hours. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—Withdrawn. Employee signed for comp time but then put Credit Hours Used in remarks. Then, verified with the

sup that it was Credit Hours Used. Then redid the form and only checked CT and put nothing in the remarks. Employee

got charged for exactly what was submitted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-2443-MEM Release policy Issue: Did management violate Article 7 by refusing to negotiate with the Union over the

Union’s request to create a facility release policy (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—WITHDRAWN. There is no duty to bargain over substance (management right to hire/assign/etc.), but the union

did not submit a proposal to negotiate over procedures or appropriate arrangements for affected employees. If the local

wants to negotiate over those things, it is entitled to, and should submit a proposal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

03-2444-MEM Art 7 Issue: Did management violate Article 7 by failing to negotiate a change in the requirement to log

facility delays. Management is requiring BUE’s to log all Taxi times regardless of delay status. (Advocate: Jon

Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03— WITHDRAWN. There is already a procedure in place that is used when they are tracking delays. Change just

mandates it all the time. The team sees this as an assignment of work issue and there is no documentation to show any

appreciable affect on the employees other than to have to do the extra work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------

03-2465-LEX NATCA Bulletin Board Issue: Is the Agency required to provide a glassed in bulletin board to the Union.

(Advocate: Jon Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. The Union board is uncovered and someone placed unauthorized

material on it. Article 31 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement deals with covers on Union bulletin boards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2467-PDK-03- Issue: A18 CIC Synopsis: CIC in TWR, OS Hernandez (not signed on) issues orders for CIC

on positions rotation and breaks. Issuing specific vs general plan for CIC Sup in tower, not signed on in charge, but telling

CIC’s what to do. (Advocate: John Gainey)



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03—ELEVATE. Difference of opinion between the agency and Union on what is specific and what is general

guidance. This issue is already at the national level for arbitration. This should be tied to it.

-









3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2468-PDK-03- Issue: A7 notification Synopsis: While acting on behalf of absent ATM OS Hernandez creates

and issues a new ―Flight Track Form‖ for CIC to complete whenever outside inquiries are made regarding flts in/out of

PDK. New form (FD Tracking form) implemented by Sup without negotiations with Union. (Advocate: John Gainey)



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03— ELEVATE. Still using log that was not negotiated. Management position is that they can change the duties of

a supervisor and the CIC’s have to do the same duties and they do not have to bargain over the change in working

conditions of the bargaining unit employees just by virtue of the fact that they have assigned the duties to a supervisor,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

rd

NC-SO-03-2470-SJU-03 Returned to Local Level at 11/19/03 3 lvl

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2481-ZMA Breath Alcohol Test Issue: Did the Agency violate the alcohol testing policy by failing to inform an

employee not to smoke or chew gum between the initial test and the confirmation test. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level



1/28/03— WITHDRAWN. The only way to get an alcohol/drug test overturned is to show a ―fatal error‖ occurred. None

what shown here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2482-ZMA Area 1 Vision Statement Issue: Is the Agency required to re-assign a management official who has a

record of violating law, rule, policy, contract and common sense to a position with no contact to the bargaining unit.

(Advocate: Jon Ramsden)

rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level.



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. The Union has no entitlements as pertains to the assignment of duties to

management personnel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-2510-MEM Training Failure Issue: Did the Agency improperly deny a request by a BUE training failure to transfer to

ELP. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



rd

11/19/03-- Not discussed. Carry over to next 3 level



1/28/03— WITHDRAWN. As a training failure, the employee is subject to assignment to a new facility in the southern

region in accordance with the southern region training failure MOU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------

NC-SO-02-0622-ZTL-03-Abeyance. OE/OD. ASO has requested AAT-20 reclass the error. Awaiting response. Agency

cannot get one. NATCA will make inquiries through our Liaison. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Hold – Jenkins has responded by re-submitting the packages to Ferrante – Ramsden will follow up with Mike

Hull.



1/28/03—Union Research. Our ATX liaison has indicated he has done all he can do to push this, and the other OE

grievances through the system. The region has received a response from AAT-20. All our requests for reclassification

have been denied. We will review and make decision to elevate or withdraw. Agreement was reached not to put this to

the neutral evaluation process should we choose to elevate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0102-P31-03-Abeyance. OE/OD. ASO has requested AAT-20 reclass the error. Awaiting response. Agency

cannot get one. NATCA will make inquiries through our Liaison. (Advocate: John Gainey)



11/19/03--Hold – Jenkins has responded by re-submitting the packages to Ferrante – Ramsden will follow up with Mike

Hull.



1/28/03—Union Research. Our ATX liaison has indicated he has done all he can do to push this, and the other OE

grievances through the system. The region has received a response from AAT-20. All our requests for reclassification

have been denied. We will review and make decision to elevate or withdraw. Agreement was reached not to put this to

the neutral evaluation process should we choose to elevate.



4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0104-P31-03-Abeyance. OE/OD. ASO has requested AAT-20 reclass the error. Awaiting response. Agency

cannot get one. NATCA will make inquiries through our Liaison. (Advocate: John Gainey)



11/19/03--Hold – Jenkins has responded by re-submitting the packages to Ferrante – Ramsden will follow up with Mike

Hull.



1/28/03—Union Research. Our ATX liaison has indicated he has done all he can do to push this, and the other OE

grievances through the system. The region has received a response from AAT-20. All our requests for reclassification

have been denied. We will review and make decision to elevate or withdraw. Agreement was reached not to put this to

the neutral evaluation process should we choose to elevate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

rd

NC-SO-03-0109-P31-03-Abeyance. Facility Cleanliness. Agreement reached at last 3 level to have a meeting between

AT, AF, NATCA, PASS to develop a plan to the facility cleaned. Last discussion with FACREP indicates facility

cleanliness still unsatisfactory. Both parties will do follow up with the facility to find out status and what still needs to be

done. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Money issue – AF operating with restoration money. Purely economics will have to wait

until they get a budget handoff. Jenkins will get with Manager on Action Plan to get Facility up to cleanliness Standards.

Osterdahl stated that it looks like this has drug on for a long time, and that he will take over follow up.



1/28/03—Agency Research. Still nothing from the agency. They said Will Estes has been too busy with his other duties

to get this information to the region. Walt will get with me later this week/next week with the Estes action plan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-246-ZME Decertification. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



11/19/03--Neutral – Does a previous OE constitute a ―Documented Performance History‖ Agency position is that no

previous issues then a deal then another deal 5 days later the first deal is a documented performance deficiency to allow

decertification on second deal. Agency presented information on previous documented performance deficiencies. We

need to verify. If accurate, most likely will withdraw. If not, it will go to Neutral Evaluation.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-247-ZME Decertification. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



11/19/03-- Does a previous OE constitute a is ―Documented Performance History‖ Agency position is that no previous

issues then a deal then another deal 5 days later the first deal is a documented performance deficiency to allow

decertification on second deal. Agency presented information on previous documented performance deficiencies. We

need to verify. If accurate, most likely will withdraw. If not, it will go to Neutral Evaluation.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-248-ZME Decertification. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



11/19/03--Neutral - Does a previous OE constitute a ―Documented Performance History‖ Agency position is that no

previous issues then a deal then another deal 5 days later the first deal is a documented performance deficiency to allow

decertification on second deal. Agency presented information on previous documented performance deficiencies. We

need to verify. If accurate, most likely will withdraw. If not, it will go to Neutral Evaluation.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.









5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0287-A80-03-Agency Research. Issue: Consistency of training for MCN/CSG controllers. We provided a

spreadsheet showing inadequate amounts of training. Employees are not being afforded the opportunity to be successful

as a result of management exercising their rights to use employees for staffing. Management agreed to go back to the

facility and review training times for consistency. The agreed to include the Union in these discussions. (Advocate: Jay

Barrett)



11/19/03--Union Research – Mgt position is that all employees who were not successful all got the same type of training,

albeit very minimal. They believe there is no disparate treatment because all employees were treated the same. We will

look at new data provided and either withdraw or schedule for next neutral evaluation.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. Advocate contacted everyone at MCN/CSG. 4 or 5 may want to go back. 3 only if it will be at

agency expense. Every person contacted felt they were not successful in training because they were not afforded the

opportunity to receive the full classroom training that other employees were given. This issue was put before the

arbitrator in a neutral evaluation. The following is the arbitrator’s non-binding opinion (which to date the agency has not

accepted):

It appears that the Union could prove that the training program which was provided for the first 7

Macon/Columbus controllers and the program presently being provided for controllers transferring into Atlanta

TRACON differed in material respects from the program provided to the 11 Macon/Columbus controllers presently

assigned to Atlanta TRACON and the six such controllers formerly assigned there but washed out of the program.

Whether the training provided to those 17 controllers is fair and equitable in a manner which is consistent with the

joint commitment of the Parties to train to succeed must be determined on an individual basis. The dispute would

be remanded to the Parties with the instruction that each training team assess whether additional classroom

training, ETG training, one-on-one coaching or other specific additional training opportunities is appropriate and

report that result to the Training Department, which shall provide the requested opportunities. The records and

assessments of the six Awash-out@ controllers should be assessed by the Review Team or other appropriate

entity designated by Management to ascertain if the differences in training between the prior and present

programs and the training they received had a material impact on their individual abilities to meet required

standards. If the conclusion in the case of an individual controller is yes, then they should be afforded opportunity

to return to the program to receive that opportunity.



The team must make a decision to elevate or withdraw.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0290-A80-03-Agency Research. Action Plan for Performance Management. Big issue region wide about

OE/D reduction guidance put out by Rick Day. Bottom line—it is internal agency guidance. Most facilities will not

generate grievance activity. In this case, there was one specific change that would have required negotiations. The

manager imposed, albeit unwritten, a new currency requirement. All employees have to work at least 24 hours per month

in the TRACON or undergo a skill check. While this may be a management right, it is a change and would require I&I

bargaining. Employees have already been subjected to this policy. Rick Day wants to go back to the facility to verify that

they implemented a change to currency requirements. (Advocate: Jay Barrett)



11/19/03--Union Research – Management talked to ATM – ATM position was that this had been going on for years.

Union knew about it. Management position is that there is no new requirement to give a skill check based solely on the

numbers of hours worked in the TRACON the previous month, but the number of hours is used only as a tool to determine

possible proficiency. FACREP needs to verify if all employees with less than 24 hours in the TRACON are getting skill

checks.



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. Information provided to us indicates that this has only happened on a

single occasion and there is no indication that it is still going on.









6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0297-A80-03-Agency Research. EEO investigation—Union Representation. Employees were denied Union

representation and the Union was not afforded the opportunity to be represented. Union position is that this was a formal

meeting. (Advocate: Jay Barrett)



11/19/03--Neutral or Elevate – Article 56 / 6 says an employee may have a union rep upon request. Our position is that

this is a formal/grievance meeting, and as such we are entitled to be represented regardless of the wishes of the

th

employee. This falls in line with the decision by the DC Circuit Court. Agency position – 9 circuit court decision says

EEO complaint is not a grievance.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. The FAA Attorney would not allow a rep in when controllers were interviewed because they were

not the scope of the investigation. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a

result of inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not

heard and will be rescheduled in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-302-A80 Issue: change in working conditions. Synopsis: FAA changed cleaning contractors, in doing so the BU @

A80 no longer receives Charmin toilet paper and the paper towels are inferior. (Advocate: John Gainey)



11/19/03--Hold – Paper towels – manager has said they would go to a higher grade when the existing supply is

exhausted.



1/28/03—Hold in Abeyance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-303-A80 Issue: Failure of the Agency to provide A7 notice to Union concerning weather modification to ASR-8.

Synopsis: On 8/27/03 memo placed in R&I binder concerning weather mod to ASR-8 stating that this modification is

ongoing. 2 days later 8/29/03 FAA gave NATCA memo stating that modifications completed. Check with A48 workgroup

were negotiations conducted at national level. (Advocate: John Gainey)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Management position – they only were required the 2 levels they previously had and were

not required to use the enhanced levels until they were trained. They are going to find out if there was an option of not

using wx until trained .



1/28/03—SETTLED. Controllers did not have an option to use or not use the weather features. Settlement agreement

language: We recognize the responsibility of management to conduct appropriate training on any new equipment prior to

installation, and that in this case, the training was done after the fact. This was not intentional and based on information

from a higher headquarters level.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-0308-A80 Unfair and inconsistent training. The Employee requested to be recycled through the training program

due to not being given an adequate number of hours. This grievance is closely related to the facility training grievance

A80-287. Grievance sustained locally but remedy not fully granted. (Advocate: Jay Barrett)



1/28/03— Union Research. All parties, including the training team and the review board, agreed that what the employee

wanted was not necessary to be successful. Management feels that all are happy now. We will check into it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-0314-A80 Formal Meeting without union representation. An EEO settlement meeting was held and the union was

not afforded the opportunity to be present. Exact same issue as A80-297 (Advocate: Jay Barrett)



1/28/03—NEUTRAL. This was an EEO settlement meeting that the Union was not afforded the opportunity to attend.

This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of inappropriate ex parte

communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and will be rescheduled in

the future.









7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0315-ZTL-03-Abeyance. O/D. ASO has requested AAT-20 reclass the error. Awaiting response. Agency

cannot get one. NATCA will make inquiries through our Liaison. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Hold – Jenkins has responded by re-submitted the packages to Ferrante – Ramsden will follow up with Mike

Hull.



1/28/03— Union Research. Our ATX liaison has indicated he has done all he can do to push this, and the other OE

grievances through the system. The region has received a response from AAT-20. All our requests for reclassification

have been denied. We will review and make decision to elevate or withdraw. Agreement was reached not to put this to

the neutral evaluation process should we choose to elevate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

NC-SO-03-0318-ZTL-03-Abeyance. O/E. ASO has requested AAT-20 reclass the error. Awaiting response. Agency

cannot get one. NATCA will make inquiries through our Liaison. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Hold – Jenkins has responded by re-submitting the packages to Ferraute – Ramsden will follow up with Mike

Hull.



1/28/03— Union Research. Our ATX liaison has indicated he has done all he can do to push this, and the other OE

grievances through the system. The region has received a response from AAT-20. All our requests for reclassification

have been denied. We will review and make decision to elevate or withdraw. Agreement was reached not to put this to

the neutral evaluation process should we choose to elevate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0324-ZTL-03-Agency Research. Issue: Sunday Pay and Mid shift start times and forced earning/using of

credit hours. Employees scheduled for a shift that does not afford 8 hours of work on a Sunday every week. T&A clerk

changing T&A info showing employees earning/using CH’s that they did not sign for. Affects Areas 1 and 4. Affects Sat

night/Sun morning mid. Since Sep 1998- Oct 2002. Approx $11K-$13K in question. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research – Agency decided they are in violation, but need to find out how to compensate and how much.

Also in dispute is period for remedy. Agency needs to see if they can amend the T&A’s to go back 20 days. We will

provide Jenkins with an information request for T & A data.



1/28/03—Agency Research/Union Research. Dave gave the agency an information request, but it appears it got lost in

the 540 shuffle, because Penny Barber, who it was supposedly assigned to, knows nothing about it. Dave will follow up

with her.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------

03-0347-CLT Watch Schedule (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— Union Research. Issue was sent back to the facility in June/03 for resolution. As such, the region has not

package. Facility could not resolve the problem and have remanded it back to the Region. FACREP sent us a package.

rd

Will be dealt with at the next 3 level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

NC-SO-03-0348-CLT-03-Abeyance. Fire alarm system upgrade. Contract has been let. Work begins in Nov. Approx 4

months to complete. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Hold in Abeyance-



1/28/03—Hold in abeyance. Project not completed yet.









8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-356-CLT-03 OPERATIONAL ERROR – Section 11. ASH5702 departed 18L, assigned East Departure but

called West Departure. West was expecting ASH5757 to depart 18R. ASH5702 checked in with West, West issued,

―ASH5757 turn right heading 250.‖ ASH5702 read back, ―250 5702.‖ ASH5702 turned in front of ASH5757 departing 18R.

Neither aircraft was tagged. ASH5702 was charged a pilot deviation. Due to the proximity of the runway, there was no

time to prevent the error from occurring if the controller had realized that the wrong aircraft had taken the control

instruction. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--We haven’t developed a position. Belmont will provide transcript with times. If Controller caught ReadBack

error immediately and took immediate action – Our position is the error was procedural (and related to the waiver the

facility operates under) and not Controllers.



1/28/03— Withdrawn. Controller radar identified the wrong aircraft. This aircraft used his call sign 4 times before the

controller realized his mistake. The team was unanimous in that this was an operational error that we could not prevail in

getting overturned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-357-CLT-03 AF manager agreed to buy a new refrigerator with money from the 02 budget. The refrigerator

still has not been purchased. AF still intends to buy the refer when money is available. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Hold in Abeyance – Agency still intends to purchase refrigerator when the funds become available. Agency

working under restriction to only spend money for restoration purposes (until the CR ends and we get a budget) Notice

our expectation is that it is purchased when budget is done.

rd

1/28/03— Hold in abeyance. We asked the agency to do follow up prior to next 3 level and after the budget is passed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-358-CLT-03- Shift Swaps. Can employees trade shifts after their respective shifts start? Article 32, section 5.

Change did not result in OT, or violate the basic work week. Employees were attempting to trade day shifts so they can

trade midshifts that night. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Emp 1 has 630 comes in @615a for credit hours. Emp 2 has 715 comes in at 630a for

credit hours. 630 has mid-wants to give it to the 715 guy. So 715 guy can work mid. Mgt said no because shifts had

already started. Ops Request was met. No OT used.



1/28/03— Sustained. Language from Sustain Letter: We agreed that the employees were entitled to swap shifts as

requested and the grievant shall be paid all differentials he would have been paid if the shift swap had been approved

within 60 days of this agreement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-359-CLT-03 Does credit hours earned constitute a ―regularly assigned shift‖ as stated in Article 80, section 5?

BUM has an error on his Friday (Friday). BUM is scheduled to work a CH midshift on his second RDO (Sunday). Facility

nd

cancels his CHE because his status is undetermined and replaces him with OT. (2 OE in 2 years requires ATD approval

prior to return to duty). Employee had taken another employee’s ―regularly scheduled shift.‖ (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Neutral – Management had not started the remedial training plan. Union position is that they had no authority

to prevent the employee from working for the credit hours earned. We want 8 AL restored, unless in a use/lose status. If

so, then restore 8 CH. Agreed statement of case for arbitrator: Does committing to work for Credit hours make it a

regular assigned shift?



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-360/362-CLT-03 Article 32, section 5 – Does a requested shift change have to be to a published shift to be

approved? CLT NATCA believes that nothing precludes management from assigning any shift. Change would have

enhanced the operation. This debate stems from a dispute over the 8-4 shift that was just taken out of the local orders,

and management wants it put back in. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – (Suggested language for settlement agreement: Management may, at its discretion and at

the request of an employee approve a shift other than those that currently exist as part of the BAWS or local orders.)

1/28/03— SETTLED. The parties agreed to the following: Management may, at its discretion, and at the

request of the employee, approve a shift other than those that currently exist as part of the Basic Annual Watch

Schedule or local orders.

9

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

NC-SO-03-361-CLT-03 Shift Swaps. Can employees trade shifts after their respective shifts start? Article 32, section 5.

Change did not result in OT, or violate the basic work week. Employees were attempting to trade day shifts so they can

trade midshifts that night. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Emp 1 has 630 comes in @615a for credit hours. Emp 2 has 715 comes in at 630a for

credit hours. 630 has mid-wants to give it to the 715 guy. So 715 guy can work mid. Mgt said no because shifts had

already started. Ops Request was met. No OT used.



1/28/03— Sustained. Language from Sustain Letter: We agreed that the employees were entitled to swap shifts as

requested and the grievant shall be paid all differentials he would have been paid if the shift swap had been approved

within 60 days of this agreement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-364-CLT-03 Employee counseled for performance of CIC duties. He took an operational position while signed

on CIC. Management maintains that numerous personnel were available (8) and thunderstorms were in the area.



11/19/03--Agency Research – Union position: Management has the right to disagree with what an employee does in the

performance of his/her duties. The method by which they do this is performance management. While there may be a

difference of opinion there is no violation of any provisions of 7210.3 2-6-2. We want the record of conversation

invalidated.



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. After further review and discussion and given the totality of the

circumstances, the team felt that management had a right to disagree with the technique an employee uses in managing

resources. The supervisor did this and made a record of the conversation. The team felt that we would not prevail in

convincing a third party that management was not justified in its actions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-0372-MIA-03-Agency Research. OWCP issue—Leave Buy Back. Timeliness of processing leave by back

paperwork. Agency has no way to change employees tax burden ($346.90). There is no known time requirement for

processing of paperwork. Agency says a letter was issued to the employee explaining the process of getting money back

on subsequent year tax return. They are trying to track down a copy. We do not have a copy in the grievance package.

(Advocate: Mike Verderamo)



11/19/03—Abeyance. Employee has paid the agency his portion of the leave buy back and gotten the guidance on how

to be reimbursed in the filing of his 2003 taxes. Will hold until tax specialist verifies this will happen.



1/28/03—Hold in abeyance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------

NC-SO-03-1134-A80-03 CIC Pay. The A80 TMC’s rotate to ZTL on a recurring basis. While there they are not

certified on specific ZTL positions and therefore are not earning CIC pay with the rest of the TMC’s in rotation.

(Advocate: Jay Barrett)



1/28/03— Withdrawn. The employees do not meet the requirements to be CIC and therefore are not entitled to CIC pay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

NC-SO-03-1139-BNA-03- Union Research. New package. Special Treatment. Computer Access. (Advocate: Bart

Countess) Special Treatment: Computer Access. BUM’s have been told they cannot hook-up personal computers to FAA

phone lines. The Automation Specialist is being allowed to keep her personal computer hooked up to FAA lines at her

desk and is used exclusively for personal use. (NOTE: This female staff specialist is Sherry’s ―golden girl‖ and is allowed

to do things that no else is allowed to do. She is the same one at the center of 1140-BNA). (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Union Research – Agency position is that this was a one time event that lasted about 2 weeks. The employees

work computer was out of service and she voluntarily asked to use her personal laptop computer while it was being

repaired. She no longer uses her laptop at work, and does not have it there any longer. Find out from Facility Rep that it

is still going on, on a routine basis.



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. FACREP has confirmed that the practice has ceased.









10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-1140-BNA-03- Special Treatment: Excused Absence. Over the last several years, numerous controllers have

asked for official time to attend funerals, including for family members. Each request has been denied. Both Bob Snook

and Kelly Fleming have direct and specific experience with these requests. Sherry granted official time – no annual leave

charged – to the Automation Specialist to attend the funeral of a family member. When the union challenged the ATM on

this issue, she stated that if they pushed it she would be forced to rescind the policy. Apparently, she did issue a

memorandum that is supposed to be in the package in Atlanta. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Union Research – Manager has unknown (at least to all employees) policy of giving excused absence to staff

specialist and not to BUE. Management says there is no policy. Our position is that there is a policy as is evidenced by a

letter rescinding said policy. FACREP needs to provide a copy of letter rescinding policy.



1/28/03— SETTLED. The Parties agree that there was a practice in place that provided duty time for some employees to

attend funerals. The agency agrees that the practice is/shall be terminated and shall not be implemented again.

Additionally, the four employees who got four hours of excused absence to attend the funeral of a family member of

Shannon McCullough shall be charged annual leave, comp time, credit hours or leave without pay for the 1 hour.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-1152-P31-03-Agency Research. O/E. 03 Letter of reprimand for not reporting an OE. Agency position is the

employee knew, or should have known he had a loss of separation. We withdrew the grievance on the O/E at the October

rd

3 level. Staffing was short, drug testers showed up and management allowed the testing to drag on, causing the member

to be forced to work without help. He was extremely busy! We removed the O/E grievance, now the FAA needs to do the

right thing and remove this action. Not sure if the right number is 2327 or 2377 (Advocate: Bart Countess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Agency wants to validate – How many A/C was he working, wants to listen to voice tape

and if Will (ATM) said the Region is making him give the Letter of Reprimand.



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. The grievant passed away, and as such, there is no longer an active

bargaining unit employee training record to expunge.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-1569-ZJX Grievant: NATCA Local ZJX Issue: Did the Agency violate Article 38, Section 9 by failing to offer two

hours overtime to an employee held over past the end of her shift? (Advocate: Dave Guess)

Issue: Employee held over 2 min past end of her shift. SISO data does not show her working (she forgot to sign on).

Agency position is that she was not held over, she just signed off after the end of her shift.



11/19/03--Union Research – We are going to find out if she actually got paid 2 min OT if so we must decide if we will go

forward.



1/28/03— Withdrawn. T&A shows the employee did not receive 2 minutes of OT and as such, we have no evidence

whatsoever that the employee had an entitlement to any OT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

03-1713-ZJX Error Free Performance Award (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. Facility has confirmed that all employees got the awards they were

entitled to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-1774-ZJX OE (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Agency Research - Employee was distracted by URET during the immunity period. Union position is that

claiming distraction by URET gives immunity. The MOU says there will be no local interpretations, so management does

not have the right to claim the MOU doesn’t apply because their interpretation is the distraction was not from URET.

Agency want to verify with one of their negotiating team members on the intent of this provision of the MOU. This is a sup

from BUF who was the lead for the agency.



1/28/03—Agency Research. Walt wants to discuss with the individual from BUF. This has not been done.









11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

03-1775-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1776-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1777-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------

03-1778-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

03-1779-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.









12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-1780-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-1781-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

03-1782-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1783-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-1784-ZJX Letter of Admonishment to an employee for creating a disruption in the operational area.

(Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Union Research. There is no provided evidence that the disruption did not occur, only 10 additional

grievances claiming disparate treatment when others did similar things and supposedly did not get counseled. No

corroborating evidence was provided to the charges in the 10 grievances. Without any, we cannot show any disparate

treatment. Dave will follow up with the facility and if we do not get any evidence to support the grievances, they will be

withdrawn.









13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

03-1785-ZJX Record of Conversation issued to an employee for taking long breaks. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Union Research –



1/28/03— Withdrawn. Management has a right to document conversations with employees. There was no evidence

provided that supports a charge of disparate treatment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-1786-ZJX-03 An employee has a transfer request on file to ZFW. The Agency has hired into ZFW from

outside the bargaining unit, but will not approve the transfer request. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Withdrawn. Employee had no entitlement to go to ZFW. He was a developmental and had no entitlement

under the Article 58 PCS MOU.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2174-BNA-03 Disparate treatment --FAA does not protect union property and materials left in the building

with the same level of care as the property and materials of the staff and management. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— Agency Research. Someone removed documents and a credit card form the Union office. We requested

ROI (manager says she turned it over to security and compliance). Agency says they will provide it. MV will follow up

with Walt.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2176-BNA-03 Airport Authority and China Air. Art. 7 - Changed the preferred taxi route of China Air 747's

from recommended to required without negotiations. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— Agency Research. China Air has an interpreter on board—pilots do not speak English (they have a waiver).

They keep messing up the preferred taxi route. Airport Authority has asked for more control by ATC. Management poit

out an amendment to the local order. Sections 1, 2 and 3 are simply assignements of work with no documented negative

effect on employees. Section 4 is not an appropriate assignment of work (Rick Day) and they need to work something out

with the airport authority.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2180-BNA-03 Earn Credit Hours for OE Review Board . Rep came in on his RDO to participate in an OE

Review Board, but the board never convened. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. Employee got credit hours for coming in to work (what he agreed to).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2260-SJU-03-Agency Research. Parking lot issues at SJU. Rick day wants to have an opportunity to look

into it and possibly make direct contact with the airport authority to resolve the issue. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Rick Day wrote a letter to PR Port Authority . Agency will provide us a copy.



1/28/03— Hold in abeyance. Got a copy of the letter. We now wait and see if it does any good.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2279-ZTL-03- Agency Research. Pay Status. (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Agency Research – Was he on OWCP when he got reinstated or was he on Disability Retirement. OWCP says

he was on OWCP until Apr 99 Agency agrees that if he was on OWCP when reinstate his pay would be set different than

if he was on Retirement. We provided Documentation showing he was on OWCP. Agency going to verify and if genuine

will correct pay. Tom Boro to follow up.



1/28/03— Hold in abeyance. Pay has been adjusted, but employee’s SCD has not been adjusted. Aslo, not getting

annual leave at the proper rate and has not been retroactively credited with leave he would have earned. Dave will work

directly with Boro.









14

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-03-2287-ZTL-03 Personnel Actions (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Agency Research. Delay in promotion. Hired in AEA/ZNY. Came to ASO. Region would not pick her up

because of some medical issue that AEA did not catch. BUT, the agency allowed her to come to ZTL. When she got D1,

they couldn’t promote her because her pay was still controlled by the Eastern Region. When ASO got control of it, they

said HR rules prohibited retroactive promotions.



Boro says that she didn’t meet the administrative requirements for promotion because she did not have her security

clearance done. He is going to check into it further.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2293-ZTL FMLA (Advocate: Dave Guess)



11/19/03--Agency/ Union Research – agrees that it is not FMLA Agency position is that the employee has to establish that

there is a serious Health Condition before they are required to approve. Need more info on what can be required under

CBA vs FMLA.



1/28/03— Agency Research. Walt wants to look into it further before we go to the neutral.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2296-ZTL Issue: Did the Agency violate a local order in Area 4 which requires team training at least once a month at

ZTL. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



11/19/03--Union Research – No proof provided in package. Jon will follow up with ZTL to determine if proof exists of the

violation.



1/28/03— Withdrawn. No proof provided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

(NC) SO-03-2313-GPT-03 Issue: Agency Failed to pay employee pay differential while on military duty. According

to OPM guidance employees on military leave are entitled to differentials except for Sunday pay. The grievance was

Sustained at the local level. Requested remedy: Back Pay IAW 5596 (Advocate: Jay Barrett)



11/19/03--Union/Agency Research – Management says correction to T & A’s have been done



1/28/03— Union Research. Waiting to hear back from FACREP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(NC) SO-03-2314-GPT-03 Issue: Agency Failed to pay employee pay differential while on military duty. According

to OPM guidance employees on military leave are entitled to differentials except for Sunday pay. There is some

discrepancy as to timeliness on this grievance. Requested remedy: Back Pay IAW 5596 (Advocate: Jay Barrett)



11/19/03--Union/Agency Research – We need to find our if correction to T & A’s have been done, and if not, make a

determination based on the agency claim of not being timely. Agency will talk to payroll about using a formula versus

doing research to figure how to make employees whole.



1/28/03— Union Research. Waiting to hear back from FACREP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

(NC) SO-03-2316-GPT-03 Issue: Employee called at home without being offered union representation. The supe

was trying to determine who approved the OT the grievant worked the day before. This does not fall under a weingarten

meeting. It may be an article 6 section 3 violation. However, Meetings with employees to gather information regarding

agency operations, whether conducted in a group or individually, do not constitute formal discussions. Defense Logistics

Agency, Tracy, 48 FLRA 744, 93 FLRR 1-1260 ; IRS, 14 FLRA 698, 84 FLRR 1-1468. Requested remedy: 8 hrs OT.

(Advocate: Jay Barrett)



11/19/03--Neutral –CIC approved 2 hours OT when the employee went over 8 hours on a physical. Supervisor call

grievant at home - RDO- to find out ―who approved OT‖ – 8 hours OT. Union position is that calling employee at home

puts her in a duty status, and since it was an RDO, she is entitled to 8 hours OT.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.







15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

(NC) SO-03-2317-GPT-03 Issue: Employee called at home without being offered union representation. See 2316.

(Advocate: Jay Barrett)



11/19/03--Neutral – Requested remedy: 2 hrs OT. Same situation from above, except this was a call to the person who

was CIC. This was a duty day, so the Union position is she was put back into a duty status and entitled to 2 hours OT.



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

03-2484-PDK Preferential Shifts Agency is giving preferential shift assignments based on religious accommodations.

Mgt must assign shifts IAW A32 and then make accommodations under A26/S5. BUT, this is not a religious issue, it is an

education issue, and accommodations under A32/S5 cannot affect others unless they agree. Union position is that no

matter what the issue is (religious or education) management cannot make the accommodations they are making.

(Advocate: John Gainey)



11/19/03—Agency Research. Issue presented because of the ongoing harm to all other employees. Agency is going to

investigate whether the issue is religious or education.



1/28/03— Agency Research. Agency did nothing. Walt/Boro wants to have the opportunity to look into it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0001-ZJX-03 Operational Deviation (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Union Research. (Confidential in nature)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0002-ZJX-03 Operational Deviation (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Union Research. (Confidential in nature)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0003-ZJX-03 thru NC-SO-04-0009-ZJX-03 OT on Sunday (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Elevate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0012-ZJX-03 Operational Error (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. (Confidential in nature)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0017-ZJX-03 thru NC-SO-04-0029-ZJX-03 OT on Sunday (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03—Elevate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0035-ZJX-03 thru NC-SO-04-0038-ZJX-03 OT on Sunday (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03—Elevate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0050-ZJX-03 OT on Sunday (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03—Elevate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0051-ZJX-03 ? (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Withdraw at Local request

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0052-ZJX-03 ? (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Withdraw at Local request







16

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0053-ZJX-03 ? (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03— Withdraw at Local request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0054-ZJX-03 Suffered and Permitted vs. 2 OT (Advocate: Dave Guess) Employee was held over 4

minutes. Grievance was sustained and the agency offered to let him work 2 hours at some other time (in their response).

rd

1/28/03— Union Research. Will be put on list for next 3 level.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-0054-ZJX-03 Mid shift staffing---3 to 2 (Advocate: Dave Guess)



1/28/03—Union Research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1053-ZME-03 Placement of Developmental’s (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



1/28/03— SETTLED. The parties agreed to the following: Management has the right to determine training needs (i.e.,

whaty teams training will be conducted on), but placement of developmental’s into those slots will be done by seniority

among the developmental’s, when requested by the Union.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1054-ZME-03 Credit hours on midnights Employee routinely works a credit hour mid from 0000-0800.

There was a sups mtg where they said that there is no work on this shift, not to approve it. They would allow 2230-0630,

but employee would not work 2200-0000 because of 24 hour restriction. They would not approve 0000-0630 (said he had

to work an 8 hour shift). Three things to consider. 1) There was no notice provided to the Union as a result of the

change in working conditions that came out of the sups mtg. 2) Sips approved others working this shift after the sups

meeting and after this request was denied. 3) They routinely approve Credit Hours Earned in less than 8 hour blocks.

(Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



1/28/03—Union Research. We want to see if 0000-0800 is still being approved and if the employee was really denied

0000-0630.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1102 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03—Union Research. We just received info from FACREP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1103 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03— Union Research. We just received info from FACREP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1104 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03— Union Research. We just received info from FACREP.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

04-1105 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03— Union Research. We just received info from FACREP.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------

04-1106 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03— Union Research. We just received info from FACREP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------

04-1107 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03— Union Research. We just received info from FACREP.









17

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1109-BNA-03 Employee called at home on two consecutive days investigating an OE and possible

cover-up. BUM was encouraged by ATM to change his shift to come in and participate in the investigation.

(Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1110-BNA-03 Change of shift to accommodate OE investigation. Employee called at home on two

consecutive days investigating an OE and possible cover-up. BUM was encouraged by ATM to change his shift to come

in and participate in the investigation. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of

inappropriate ex parte communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and

will be rescheduled in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1111-BNA-03 ATM had rep's "rep day" cancelled but never assigned him a shift. When the rep shows up

3 hours before what normally would be his shift to prepare to represent BUM's in a investigatory meeting, manager goes

out of her way despite the protest of the rep to assign him a shift. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— NEUTRAL. Rep day was scheduled on the schedule. ATM cancels rep day due to staffing (for the next day).

Did not assign a shift to be worked. Rep came to work at 1000 to do rep stuff on his own time from 1000-1300. For his

day of the week he assumes a 1300 shift. He is in the Union office, on his own time, and the ATM says she wants to talk

to him. He says no, I’m on my own time. She persists. He tells her if she insists, she has to put him on OT. She says no

to the OT, and continues on making an assignment of work for him to be on a 1300 shift for that day. He says thanks for

the OT and signs for it. She changes the sign on sheet and denies the OT.



This issue was scheduled to go before the arbitrator in the neutral evaluation but as a result of inappropriate ex parte

communications between the Agency and the Arbitrator about this grievance, it was not heard and will be rescheduled in

the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1114-BNA-03 Weingarten Investigation. Employees questioned by Ops manager about covering up an

OE without union rep. (Advocate: Bart Countess)



1/28/03— Agency Research. Union Research. Ops manager stops employees in hall. Says he needs some

information about the cover up of the error. Clearly a Weingarten situation. Agency says the conversation/questioning in

the hall did not occur. That the employees were only notified of a meeting that management was going to have. We need

to find out what questions were asked and what the answers were.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1131-AGS-03 Release date negotiated with Union (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



1/28/03— Union Research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------

NC-SO-04-1176-AGS-03 Release date negotiated with Union (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)



1/28/03— Union Research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------

04-1199 PDK ? (Advocate: John Gainey)



1/28/03— Union Research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1223-DAB Nepotism (Advocate: Mike Verderamo) 1/28/03—ELEVATE

04-1224-DAB Nepotism (Advocate: Mike Verderamo) 1/28/03—ELEVATE

04-1225-DAB Nepotism (Advocate: Mike Verderamo) 1/28/03—ELEVATE

04-1226-DAB Nepotism (Advocate: Mike Verderamo) 1/28/03—ELEVATE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1287-P31 30 Day Agency Head Review (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)



1/28/03— Elevate.



18

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1288-P31 Ground Rules—P31/PNS LOA (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)



1/28/03— Sustained. The agency recognizes there is no difference between negotiate and formulate within the auspices

of Article 7 Section 8. The agency also recognizes its obligation to negotiate ground rules in accordance with Article 7,

Section 8 and to memorialize any agreement reached, in writing, at the request of the Union.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1299-DAB Nepotism (Advocate: Mike Verderamo) 1/28/03—ELEVATE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1304-SRO Flu Shots (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)



1/28/03— Agency Research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1305-SRO Ground Rules—CRU-X (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)



1/28/03— Elevate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

04-1307-DAB Nepotism (Advocate: Mike Verderamo) 1/28/03—ELEVATE









19