rd
3 Level Review
June 28, 2005
FOR THE UNION: Andy Cantwell, Jon Ramsden, Mike Verderamo, Dave Guess
FOR THE AGENCY: Rich Belmonte, Larry Kuo, Robbie Wright, Charles Oxford, Jim Dickinson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-0976-ZJX-03 Failure to bargain over removal of an employee from the bargaining unit
(Advocate: Dave Guess)
10/19/04— Agency Research. They want to look into national workgroup agreement on Article 7.
No notice given to the Union about taking someone out of the unit to a temp sup detail. 4/1/04 for 5/29—Graham
removed from operational schedule. (also see 04-2549-2576). Agency position is that the Union knew more than 30 days
in advance. There was no written request to negotiate. Also, their position is that if the person is coming out of the Unit
beyond the posted watch schedule they have no duty to bargain. We provided copies of other settlements in NSO
outlining what the practice in the region is, and of the national contract interpretation workgroup document. They
frequently forget this document exists!!.
12/14/04—Agency Research. Agency says that the facility did coordinate with the area rep. Still waiting for
info/documents from the facility proving this.
2/16/05—Agency Research. Management provided an email thread that they say proves that there were appropriate
discussions with the area rep. Charlie wants to do some personal research on agency position in the recent past.
4/20/04—Agency Research. Charlie wants to talk with the people who signed the national workgroup document. If they
say they agreed to the requirement to give 30 days notice and negotiate, then it is his intent to sustain the grievance with
no remedy, and put out guidance to the field that they have an obligation to bargain. We will resolve this asap, but at least
rd
before next 3 level.
6/28/05—Sustained.
On May 11, 2005, we sustained grievances (NC)SO-04-0976 & 2549-2557-ZJX-03 during Third Level Review with
NATCA.
As a result of this decision at Third Level Review please initiate measures to complete the following actions: We agreed
that the Agency shall recognize its obligation to provide 30 days notification as required in Article 7 and negotiate the
impact if appropriate, however, management may invoke the operational necessity provisions contained in Section 2 & 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-2188-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2189-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2230-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2235-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2238-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2241-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2242-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2245-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2248-ZJX-03
Inequitable CIC assignments. Agreement is that if you are next, you will be asked if you want to be relieved to take CIC (if
you are on a another position) or will be called back from break to be CIC. This employee was not handled IAW the local
agreement. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
10/19/04—Union Research.
12/14/04—Agency Research.
2/16/05—Agency Research. The agency was unable to reproduce any documentation that would show the distribution of
CIC. Once they enter the data into the T&A, they discard it. We provided the documentation showing the times in
question. Charlie wants to take it, go back to the facility, and find out why they couldn’t provide it, and verify it.
4/20/04—Agency Research.
1
6/28/05—Agency Research. Charlie’s problem with these is that the individuals claim they were not given CIC duties and
we have no way of knowing what they were doing. The agency provided a spreadsheet showing that (from their position)
there is not an appreciable difference in the equitable distribution of did duties. There was some large anomalies, but they
don’t see these as problematic. He is not willing to settle the grievances because he has no way of knowing what the
employees were doing during the time they felt they should be offered CIC. We pointed out that the agency is going to
have to get this information at some point, for arbitration, so we cannot just make it go away because they cannot get the
manager to provide information. Charlie is going to go back to the facility one more time and attempt to get the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-2549-2557-ZJX-03 Failure to bargain over removal of an employee from the bargaining unit
(Advocate: Dave Guess)
10/19/04— Agency Research. All grievances are the same. One for every day that the employee is removed from the
schedule. This group is for June. Same as 04-0976. (Work with it –0976).
12/14/04-- Agency Research. Agency says that the facility did coordinate with the area rep. Still waiting for
info/documents from the facility proving this. Same as 04-0976. (Work with it –0976).
2/16/05—Agency Research. Agency position is that these differ from 0976 in that the employee lost their security
clearance and as such they are not authorized to be in the operational quarters without an escort. Charlie and David will
get together to break them out and categorize them and see which ones are tied to 0976 and which ones are not.
4/20/04— Agency Research. Charlie wants to talk with the people who signed the national workgroup document. If they
say they agreed to the requirement to give 30 days notice and negotiate, then it is his intent to sustain the grievance with
no remedy, and put out guidance to the field that they have an obligation to bargain. We will resolve this asap, but at least
rd
before next 3 level. (2558-2576 are not germane—the employee had lost his medical clearance, which renders the
action less than deminimus.)
6/28/05-- Sustained.
On May 11, 2005, we sustained grievances (NC)SO-04-0976 & 2549-2557-ZJX-03 during Third Level Review with
NATCA.
As a result of this decision at Third Level Review please initiate measures to complete the following actions: We agreed
that the Agency shall recognize its obligation to provide 30 days notification as required in Article 7 and negotiate the
impact if appropriate, however, management may invoke the operational necessity provisions contained in Section 2 & 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-2794-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2795-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2796-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2797-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2798-ZJX-03
NC-SO-04-2799-ZJX-03
Inequitable CIC Assignment. One person skipped 6 times in one day. (In reality, he was only skipped 4 times. Date:
June 30, 2004. 0846L, 0932L, 1045L, 1244L.) (Advocate: Dave Guess)
12/14/04—Agency Research.
2/16/05-- Agency Research. The agency was unable to reproduce any documentation that would show the distribution of
CIC. Once they enter the data into the T&A, they discard it. We provided the documentation showing the times in
question. Charlie wants to take it, go back to the facility, and find out why they couldn’t provide it, and verify it.
4/20/04—Agency Research.
6/28/05-- Agency Research. Charlie’s problem with these is that the individuals claim they were not given CIC duties and
we have no way of knowing what they were doing. The agency provided a spreadsheet showing that (from their position)
there is not an appreciable difference in the equitable distribution of did duties. There was some large anomalies, but they
don’t see these as problematic. He is not willing to settle the grievances because he has no way of knowing what the
employees were doing during the time they felt they should be offered CIC. We pointed out that the agency is going to
2
have to get this information at some point, for arbitration, so we cannot just make it go away because they cannot get the
manager to provide information. Charlie is going to go back to the facility one more time and attempt to get the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-2962-ZJX-03 Basic Watch Schedule Removed an individual from BU without notice. Agency says
they negotiated with the Area Rep and it occurred 14 days after the Union claims. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
12/14/04—Union Research. Agency Research. Rep says he found out about the person being removed by way of people
complaining about their schedules being changed to cover the shortages created by the action. Agency says the
employee was removed after coordination with the area rep. Walt needs a copy of the schedule.
2/16/05—Agency Research.
4/20/04-- Agency Research. Charlie wants to talk with the people who signed the national workgroup document. If they
say they agreed to the requirement to give 30 days notice and negotiate, then it is his intent to sustain the grievance with
no remedy, and put out guidance to the field that they have an obligation to bargain. We will resolve this asap, but at least
rd
before next 3 level.
6/28/05---- Sustained.
On May 11, 2005, we sustained grievances (NC)SO-04-0976 & 2549-2557-ZJX-03 during Third Level Review with
NATCA.
As a result of this decision at Third Level Review please initiate measures to complete the following actions: We agreed
that the Agency shall recognize its obligation to provide 30 days notification as required in Article 7 and negotiate the
impact if appropriate, however, management may invoke the operational necessity provisions contained in Section 2 & 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-3100-GPT-03 Inequitable Treatment Employee issued LOR for inappropriate comments. The Union
has strong reason to believe that a non-bargaining unit employee received only an oral reprimand for even more egregious
inappropriate behavior. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
8/8/04—Union Research. Awaiting information to be provided on any discipline given to another employee for a similar
offense. Another information request issued at the table.
10/29/04—HIA pending being provided information. ULP filed.
12/14/04-- HIA pending being provided information. ULP filed.
02/16/05-- HIA pending being provided information. ULP filed. ULP was dismissed. We are going to appeal the denial
and a new information request was issued.
4/20/04—Hold In Abeyance. Appeal filed on 3/14/05.
6/28/05-- Hold In Abeyance. Appeal filed on 3/14/05
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-3102-PBI-03 OSHA (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
8/8/04—Union Research.
10/29/04—Union Research.
12/14/04--Union Research.
2/16/05—Union Research.
4/20/04—Union Research.
6/28/05—Union Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-3248-PBI-03 OSHA—Bird Mites (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
12/14/04—Union Research.
2/16/05—Union Research.
4/20/04—Union Research.
6/28/05—Union Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-04-3262-GSO-03 Working Conditions—Outside appearance of the building. Bushes and stumps. Standing
water. Uncut grass. (Advocate: John Gainey)
11/8/04—Union Research. Tied to 3254.
3
12/14/04—Agency Research. Union Research. Going to find out the status of the work to be accomplished.
2/16/05—Management says that the bushes and stumps have been removed. They decided not to put mulch because of
moisture and mice. There is a lawn maintenance company now taking care of the grounds. Union says they still have 4
inches of standing water at the base of the building. Bill will work the standing water issue and get back with John.
4/20/04—Hold In Abeyance pending tree removal/landscaping.
6/28/05—No Further Action. Project completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0018-ZJX-03 Management refuses to provide OPF data requested under article 22 at the local level.
They claim the information has been requested at the national level and that request supersedes the local request.
(Advocate: Jay Barrett)(Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
4/20/04—Agency Research. As of yesterday, no OPF’s had been provided. We have guidance from Bill Buck stating that
Art 22 requests would be honored, but anything under 7114 would not.
6/28/05—Hold In Abeyance. In the past 6 weeks the national level HR has given the ok to send the opf’s out ho the
facilities that were requested under art 22. Charlie is going to check to see if it is done. As info, they are sending a
complete copy of the opf to the employee for them to keep.
ZJX is providing ASO-14 with the names and SSAN’s of the remaining employees. ASO-14 said they could turn it around
in 2-3 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0028-ZJX-03 Denied Annual Leave. Request made months in advance. Not available when the
schedule was posted, but management did not carry him over to the requested list. No leave became available, therefore
there was no ultimate harm. Management raised timeliness of grievance and that a grievance had already been filed on
the issue. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
4/20/04—Agency Research. Oxford wants to go back to the facility and find out what they are/have been put in place to
ensure this does not happen again.
6/28/05—Agency Research. Charlie has no information yet. Will ―press issue again.‖
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0039-ZJX-03 Failure to give briefing on arrival of Air Force One and associated fighter CAP. Employee
was required to read the briefing package while on the sector. Recently another similar situation resulted in an OD, and
the facility was charged with the error. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—No Further Action. Management position is that this was not a good idea, that a briefing this extensive should
not be done on position, and that if some OE/OD results from this supervisory action, then who that deal should be
charged to will be dealt with at the time. They feel that while it is not the best method of doing business, but they feel that it
may happen in certain circumstances. Bottom line for us is that while it was a stupid idea, they have a right to be stupid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0040-ZJX-03 Failure to relieve controller from position when sick leave was requested. (Advocate:
John Gainey)
6/28/05—Settled. The Agency shall take the following action: The Parties at the regional level recognize that the
grievance was sustained at the local level but that a remedy could not be mutually agreed upon sufficient enough to
resolve the grievance. The Agency agrees that the term ―SHALL‖ as contained in Article 25, Section 2, means shall. The
Agency further agrees to approve an employee’s request for sick leave in accordance with the provisions of the party’s
collective bargaining agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0041-ZJX-03 Inadequate staffing for ―Super Bowl.‖ Facility management approved OT for the mid
after the superbowl. Due to a miscommunication involving the OM, there was no OT assignment made. As a result,
employees went over 2 hours. Sustained at local level. Apology’s made to affected employees. The real issue is skipped
OT that was committed to the Union. Remedy is to apply the skipped OT MOU for the person that would have gotten the
OT. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research. Charlie wants to go talk with Rick Miller to see if he is willing to compensate the employees
with some amount of TOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
NC_SO-05-0047-ZJX-03 Holdover Overtime Bypass. Management gave hold over overtime to the wrong person.
They gave it to the employee who had an 80 hour higher balance than the other eligible employee. (Advocate: Dave
Guess)
6/28/05—No Further Action. The employee who got skipped flexed in 10 minutes on the front of the shift and as such was
not eligible to work during the period the period that management determined there was a need (0030-0130).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC_SO-05-0048-ZJX-03 Formal meeting where disciplinary action was threatened and no rep was offered and the
Union was not afforded the opportunity to be present. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Union Research. Agency Research. The agency will provide a statement from the sup showing this was not a
disciplinary discussion and that no notes were taken during the meeting. Upon receipt of this information, this issue will be
No Further Action because it can be used to ensure this discussion cannot be used, in the future, for progressive
discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC_SO-05-0049-ZJX-03 Formal meeting without Union representation. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05— Union Research. Agency Research. The agency will provide a statement from the sup showing this was not a
disciplinary discussion and that no notes were taken during the meeting. Upon receipt of this information, this issue will be
No Further Action because it can be used to ensure this discussion cannot be used, in the future, for progressive
discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0050-ZJX-03 Failure to process CA-16 properly. (Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—No Further Action. CFR’s require the full name and address of the physician or medical facility. When this info
was provided to the agency, the CA-16 was issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0051-ZJX-03 Improper securing of SF-71’s, with SSAN’s, when returning them to employees.
(Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—No Further Action. Grievance sustained at local level. This grievance is no longer an issue. Problem resolved at
local level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0081-ZJX-03 Skipped OT. (Associated with 05-0082). Same day, different employee. (If employee is
made whole in 0082, this is moot.) Employee declined the 11-7 that 0082 wanted and didn’t get, but wanted the original
3-11. Management made the decision to use 11-7 not 3-11. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-0082-ZJX-03 Skipped OT. Employee was called for OT for a night shift. Sup went on to someone else,
but only after making the decision to use the OT on a day shift instead of a night. Our position is that he should have gone
back to the number one employee (grievant) when they made the decision to use the OT on a day shift.
(Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC_SO-05-0109-ZJX-03 Meeting with FACREP where Ops Manager lost his temper. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Elevate. All we wanted was for management to tell us they would direct the Ops manager in question to stop
touching employees. Management is unwilling to give the Ops Manager a directive to cease and desist from touching
bargaining unit employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC_SO-05-0129-ZJX-03 Inequitable distribution of CIC. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC_SO-05-0130-ZJX-03 Inequitable distribution of CIC. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
NC_SO-05-0142-ZJX-03 Management failed to provide OJT to an employee to complete his CIC training (2001)
and as a result, CIC pay was lost for an extensive period. The issue was brought to managements attention in mid 2004.
That is when the agency became aware that the ojt had not been conducted that would have allowed the employee to
perform CIC duties and receive CIC pay. The only real entitlement would be to go back 20 days prior to the filing of the
grievance (timeliness issue). (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research. Union Research. Agency is willing to put him back into the CIC class and get him the ojt so
that he can perform CIC duties, but is unwilling to give a make whole remedy that involves any back pay without a dollar
amount. Dave will get the money information and Charles will get the class info.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1262-BNA-03 Management failed to follow all provisions of employee ODP. (Advocate: Jon
Ramsden)
6/28/05—Union Research. Waiting on documentation from the FACREP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1264-BNA-03 Implementation of CRU-ART without negotiations. (Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—Elevate. National issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1265-BNA-03 Formal meetings (CRU-ART training) without notice to the Union.
(Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—Elevate. Tied to 1264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1360-A80-03 Violating FAR’s by holding controllers over and working past the 10 Hour point when no
emergency exists. Management position is that they did it to prevent aircraft from getting to a critical fuel situation, which
is an emergency situation. What they did not consider is that the airlines are required to have an alternate airport in the
event they get to certain fuel status situations, and this does not constitute an emergency.
(Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05— Elevate. Agency position is that preventing these airplanes from being delay is equal to an emergency. They
are going to do whatever they have to do to provide this service to the user. They could not answer what was the
imminent situation that caused the management official to determine that this was an emergency situation, and not just a
situation where aircraft may have to go to an alternate location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1393-ZMA-03 One Day Suspension Inappropriate comment in the workplace. (Advocate: Jon
Ramsden)
2/16/05—Union Research.
4/20/04—Union Research.
6/28/05—No Further Action. The team unanimously believes that based on work record we would not prevail in front of a
third party in having this discipline overturned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1394-ZMA-03 Training Failure. (Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
Employee Statements
Training Order ---OJF
6/28/05—No Further Action. The review board did not identify training or procedural problems and recommended
continued training based on personal issues experienced during training. These issues were not raised as issues until
after the training failure. The 8/12 hours that 2 other employees got as ―free‖ time was not ―materially‖ sufficient to make a
rd
determination of disparate treatment. The team unanimously felt that we would not prevail in front of a 3 party in getting
the grievant reinstated into training. It would require an arbitrator substituting his judgment for that of the management
official. Arbitrators will not do this as a normal course of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1424-NMM-03 OD. Employee Charged operational deviation after Flight Data discarded the flight
progress strip showing the flight plan actually issued, versus the flight plan the departure controller expected the aircraft to
fly based on the information in front of him (old flight plan). (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6
4/20/05—Union Research. Agency Research. Management will provide documentation (data plot) showing the aircraft did
not go into the main bang during the time that the grievant was working the position, but instead radar contact was lost and
not called as such. If the employee had called the aircraft radar contact lost when it was lost, he would (should) have
initiated action to determine its position. This would have prevented the operational deviation. If this information as
presented by management is accurate, we do not believe we will be able to prevail in front of a third party in having the
grievant absolve of responsibility and removed from the operational deviation.
6/28/05—No Further Action. The a/c should have been called radar contact lost and procedures followed to protect non
radar. We do not believe that a third party would be convinced that the failure to follow the procedures for losing radar with
an aircraft were not contributory to this OD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1429-MEM-03 RDO changed, without employee consent, in lieu of paying overtime, to attend
and EEO hearing. (Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
Statements
6/28/05—Union Research. Management position is that the employee agreed to the change and provided documentation
showing a discussion was had with the FACREP on Oct 28, 2004 indicating the employee agreed to the change in work
schedule and only requested that the scheduler get with him to work out the details. Management also believes that Art 32
allows them to make the change because it had determined that OT would not be used (incorrectly—art 32 deals with
changes with less than 7 days notice, not more than 7 days.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1435-TPA-03 Cancellation of Guaranteed leave slots and converting all leave requests to Spot Leave
status. Management claims grievance is untimely. (Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
Supporting Docs re: Persons Harmed
4/20/04—Union Research. Management position is that the leave slots were still available, only re-categorized.
Additionally, their position is that when this was done, there was no leave requested, therefore no one was harmed. They
allege that someone entered leave requests, after the fact, for numerous employees and signed a supervisors initials, to
make it look like the requests had been on file. The supervisor denies that he initialed the requests. Additionally, while the
documentation shows a cancellation of the guaranteed status from the signing of the new MOU, effective May 1, 2005, it
was not applied, except for the period of SNF, therefore there was no harm to any employee. No employee who requested
leave under the ―guaranteed‖ rule, had it denied.
6/28/05—Elevate. Management holds that no employees were harmed. That any leave that was available before the
cancellation of the MOU was available after.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1465-GPT-03 Sick leave restriction letter. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
4/20/04—Hold In Abeyance. (pending resolution of national grievance over placing employees on AWOL vice LWOP.) As
far as the actual letter itself, we had no information to refute managements position to the degree that we would prevail in
front of a third party neutral. Additionally, in NC-ACE-99-199-R90-3, the arbitrator very clearly stated that taking sick leave
in conjunction with days off, and using sick leave as soon as you earn it is grounds for issuing a sick leave restriction letter.
(―The Arbitrator finds and believes that, based upon the evidence presented, a reasonable man would conclude that
Grievant may have been abusing sick leave because of the pattern of conduct presented by Grievant’s use of sick leave
as soon as it accrued.‖) (―The pattern of conduct shown to exist in this case is just as distinct as the pattern of conduct
would be where sick leave was always taken on a Friday and/or a Monday in coordination with an employee’s regular
Saturday and Sunday days off.‖)
6/28/05—No Further Action. After review, this letter was in accordance with the regional MOU on SL.
NC-SO-05-1525-JAX-03 Shift change due to medical disqualification. (Advocate: Jay Barrett)
(Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
4/20/05—NEUTRAL. Lower back problems. Prescription meds that disqualify him. Requests SL. Only takes the meds
for 3 days (Th/F/S). Mon, wants to go back to work. Flt sgn says no, they need a med status report. Requests admin
duties. Approved. Denied ability to work a scheduled mid shift because he had been replaced on the mid because they
did not know when he would have gotten his med back. Turns out that the flt sgn really did not need the status report, but
the employee used 5 hours of SL to get it.
6/29/05—Settled. This issue was scheduled to go before the Neutral Evaluator but was settled prior to the session.
7
The Agency shall take the following action: Restore 3 hours of Annual Leave previously taken by the employee within 60
days of the date of this agreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1527-SDF-03 Employee denied pay from effective date of promotion/transfer. Reported for duty Oct 31,
2004. Started training Nov 1, 2004. Payroll did not reflect her being at the facility until Nov 28, 2004. The sup/manager all
agree that she has been at the facility since Oct 31, 2004. The manager has been unable to get it fixed.
(Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
4/20/05—Agency Research. ETSU agrees. They have exhausted its means to get this fixed. HR refuses to process the
SF-50. They are going to get Boro involved to see if he can get it fixed.
rd
6/28/05—Settled between 3 levels. Pay has been corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1528-MEM-03 OE Employee charged with OE when there was a loss of separation caused by
another controller violating the local SOP. (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—Elevate. Management position is ―can’t do a thing with an OE.‖
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1530-AGS-03 3 Day suspension for inappropriate comments to, and about, other employees.
(Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
6/28/05—No Further Action. Employee retired before serving the suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1535-MGM-03 Employee had approved leave at end of shift. Decided to stay and eat lunch before he
left on leave. Management charged him for the leave (while he was eating lunch). (Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—No Further Action. Employee declared FMLA which was approved even though the shift was short. If the
employee wanted to cancel any portion of that leave, he should have reported back for duty and not unilaterally placed
himself on a meal break.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1536-MGM-03 Employee put on Administrative Leave while an investigation was in progress. Employee
exonerated, and made whole for differentials, but not Holiday Pay or CIC Pay. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
6/28/05—Agency Research. Agency believes the employee got paid the holiday pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1537-CAE-03 Official time delegation, at the facility level, denied. (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
NOTES For NEUTRAL
NOTES For Neutral.DOC
6/28/05—Settled. The Agency shall take the following action: Restore 16 hours of Annual Leave taken by the grievant
within 60 days of the date of this agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1547-GSP-03 Manager denied Union an opportunity to be represented on the Eval Team during a full
facility evaluation due to staffing. (Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—Elevate. Issue is already at the national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1550-CSG-03 Incorrect information on pay setting. Employee was offered 2 different positions during
processing of termination of training. The information he was given for the facility he selected was incorrect. After
checkout in new facility, no expected pay raise was forthcoming, and additionally, the agency is collecting overpayment as
a result of his pay improperly being paid, for several months, at his old facility rate. (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—Elevate. Management position is that the pay setting was a mistake, they are4 not bound by that mistake, and
they are not going to fix it. The Union position is that as a result of FAA reform back in 1996, the FAA was given the
authority to negotiate pay, giving them discretion over the pay setting of of its employees. For example, if the FAA chose
to pay all employees at CSG $100K per year, it has the authority and discretion to do so. There is no congressional
appropriation that would prohibit it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1552-CSG-03 Management refuses to negotiate an AWS with 10 hour shifts.
(Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
8
6/28/05— No Further Action. This is not a grievance. The issue should have gone to impasse through the negotiation
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1554-GSP-03 Management failed to afford the Union Representative an opportunity to attend the
evaluation final debriefing. (Advocate: John Gainey)
6/28/05—Elevate. Facility Evaluation issue from 1547-GSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1556-CSG-03 Management unilaterally terminated local credit hour policy. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
6/28/05—No Further Action. This is not a grievance. The issue should have gone to impasse through the negotiation
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1561-TPA-05 2 Hours Hold Over OT. A problem with Cru-X caused an employee not to be able to sign
out at the end of his shift. As a result, he had to stay 5 minutes beyond the end of his shift, creating an entitlement to 2
hours of work, and OT. (Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—Elevate. Rather than take responsibility for fielding a program that does not work, the ATM at TPA chose to
rd
attack the employee and accuse him of not doing his job properly by not signing off position. Then, at 3 level,
management took the position that the relieved employee has the responsibility to ensure the relieving controller signs on!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1572-TPA-05 Failure to provide First Aid Training as required by Art 53, Section 8, and have at least
one bargaining unit employee trained. The language in article 53 section 8 dealing with one per facility is intended to
deal with a facility that does not have any volunteers. In that case, management had a responsibility to train at least on
other person (may be from management.) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—Sustained. As a result of this decision at Third Level Review please initiate measures to complete the following
actions: We agreed that CPR training will be accomplished in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and in
th
the 4 quarter of this fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1573-TPA-05 Annual Leave inappropriately approved ahead of other employees. 3 other employees
th
were ahead of the 4 for annual leave for all or a portion of the leave that employee 4 was requesting. Management
approved employee 4’s leave, bypassing and harming employees 1-3. (Advocate: Dave Guess)
6/28/05—Agency Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1574-TPA-05 Employee working Local Control forced to be CIC during busy period, in violation of FAA
order, because facility was not staffed properly, and no other CIC qualified employees were available, and the other 2
people working in the tower (non BUE’s), were not qualified to work Local Control. (Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
6/28/05—No Further Action. Management took action to ensure that those employees who were not CIC qualified are now
CIC qualified. Should the same or a similar staffing situation occur, those employees could be CIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1576-TPA-05 Supervisor working Flight Data position which could have interfered with her ability to
perform her supervisor duties. (Advocate: Jay Barrett) (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—No Further Action. While it may not be the most desirable situation, supervisors frequently work positions due to
staffing constraints. There is no way around the right to assign issue. The team felt we would not prevail in front of a third
party by substituting our judgment for the supervisors in that she clearly felt it was within her abilities to perform the
functions of both positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1577-ZMA-03 Termination of training without appropriate skill enhancement training. The employee did
not receive skill enhancement training on identified training deficiencies. Training review board recommended
termination. We need to obtain a copy of the training review board recommendation.
(Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
6/28/05—Union Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1620-TPA-05 STARS implementation without the full functionality of the AIT function that TPA
previously had. (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
9
6/28/05—Elevate. STARS implementation was to ensure no loss of functionality. As implementation was/is a national
issue, this issue needs to be dealt with at the national level. Neither the facility nor the region have any ability to change
this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1673-TPA-05 Assignment of OT to non-bargaining unit employees. Local order states OT shall be
assigned from the list of BUE’s. These individuals are not in the BU, and therefore not on the list. As such, they should
not have been assigned the OT. (Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—No Further Action. We lost this issue at arbitration in 1993 at GSP. The arbitrator stated that 2 things must
st nd
occur: 1 , management must determine that OT will be used, 2 , management must determine that the OT will go to a
nd
BUE. In this case, the 2 did not occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1676-MGM-03 Denied requested shift swap, had a different shift swap approved, then had annual leave
approved, which in effect gave the same shift as if the original shift swap had been approved!!
(Advocate: Jon Ramsden)
6/28/05—Union Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1678-MGM-03 Refusal to negotiate ground rules and I&I for CRU-ART implementation.
(Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—Elevate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-SO-05-1697-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1698-1715-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1716-1727-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1716-1727-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1733-1737-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1738-1745-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1746-1768-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1769-1775-MGM-05
NC-SO-05-1777-1781-MGM-05
Management refuses to allow controllers to modify their shift from a Flex shift, to a ―hard‖ shift to facilitate the employee
electing to earn credit hours versus exercising their right to flex in and get off duty 8 hours later.
(Advocate: Mike Verderamo)
6/28/05—No Further Action. Management is correct in that they are not required to approve the earning of credit hours
(absent a locally negotiated agreement). The team suggests that the Union issue a proposal to have a policy that would
allow the employee to convert the flex shift to a hard shift, and then be able to work for credit hours outside of the assigned
shift with the approval of management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10