Sisters and Brothers,
It’s been a while and I wanted to bring you up on some of the goings on in and
around Region X. There are so many things happening, and most are generally
covered in one of Paul and Trish’s updates. Hot issues such as the
AFN Clarification Decision, New Regional Office Buildings, FAA Reauthorization,
changes to FAATP, Engineering Services updates, and more is included in this
update. So as I have mentioned previously, I try not to overwhelm folks
by adding to the copious updates that already exist. But there are several
initiatives that bear discussing as they have special significance to each of us in
NRX. I hope each of you will read the entire update (and it is quite lengthy!)
The first issue was the AFN Clarification Petition and the following message was
sent to AFN BU Members in the affected units on March 5th:
Between November 2013 and January 2014, in the wake of FAA’s reorganization
of several lines of business into the Office of Finance and Management (AFN),
four petitions to clarify bargaining units were filed with the Federal Labor
Relations Authority (FLRA or Authority). The reorganization affected
approximately 2,700 currently represented bargaining unit employees (BUEs)
and six unions, including NATCA. Two of the initial petitions were resolved
through stipulation agreements between the parties leaving the bargaining unit
status of 1,500 BUEs located at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma unchanged. A hearing on the remaining two petitions
concerning the bargaining unit status of approximately 1,200 AFN
BUEs, currently represented by NATCA and five other unions, took place in
August 2014, in Washington, DC.
This week, NATCA received the Decision and Order of FLRA Regional Director
for the San Francisco Region Jean M. Perata. Rejecting the Unions’ arguments,
Perata found that the AFN reorganization was “very significant” and that pursuant
to the Authority’s standard for analyzing whether a bargaining unit is appropriate
under § 7112(a) of the Statute, one wall-to-wall unit of all professional and nonprofessional AFN BUEs or two separate wall-to-wall units of professional and
non-professional AFN BUEs is appropriate.
Because no one Union currently represents more than 70% of the BUEs in AFN,
Perata held that an election is required to determine representation.
Pursuant to § 7105(f) of the Statute and the Authority’s Regulations, any party to
this proceeding may elect to file an application for review with Authority within
sixty days of a decision. During this sixty-day period, bargaining unit status and
representation will remain unchanged. Further, if any party files for review with
the Authority, the bargaining unit status of all AFN BUEs will remain the same
until the Authority issues a final ruling, and if necessary, a representation election
is concluded.
NATCA is in the process of analyzing this Decision and Order to determine
whether we should file an application for review to the Authority. We will provide
regular updates as we move through this process. If you have any questions,
please contact your Facility Representatives.
During the recent NEB Meeting, this past week, the board listened to the issues
as presented by NATCA Staff and determined that we will not file an appeal to
the FLRA’s ruling which ordered a full election. Let me explain. While
NATCA did stipulate to a basic status quo remedy through an AFL-CIO
mediation, we have always believed that if there were to be an election for all of
AFN, we would welcome that and we would be in it to win it! Filing an appeal at
this point would only delay any election and is not necessarily in the best interest
of our membership. So while NATCA is not appealing, it is possible that other
unions may file an appeal and the process will drag out further.
One piece, that is somewhat related to this decision is the continued
consolidation of ACQ and ALO Contracting Officers (CO). As part of the
AFN/ARC Optimization, the Agency determined they wanted to consolidate CO’s
from the legacy regions to the service centers in Atlanta, Ft. Worth, and
Seattle. From the beginning in about 2010, this effort has never been well
communicated with the union’s. The Agency has said the optimization plan is a
5-year plan and they did not want to force people to move if it wasn’t necessary,
i.e. they would try attrition first. In recent days, there have been multiple rumor’s
from different regions that the Agency is now moving forward again with the
intent of completing the Optimization by the end of FY 17. I had a conversation
with Ray Towles, ARC-1 on March 19th to discuss this issue. While we did not
resolve anything, I did have the opportunity to share some concerns, namely
that we don’t have any MOU on this piece of the optimization and we need one. I
also explained that when this plan was developed, there was an expectation that
the engineers would all have relocated to the service centers and that did
not happen. So it made no sense to make a wholesale move of CO’s to the SC’s
when one of the primary customers, ATO, still has a presence in the
regions. Ray didn’t commit to change anything at this point but he did agree to
go back to AFN and ACQ and have a discussion on the matter. That discussion
has led to another meeting on March 31st with myself, Ray, Nathan Tash ACQ-1,
and Paula Lewis AFN-3. I have also received the support of Vaughn Turner,
ATO VP of Technical Operations who agrees that moving ALL CO’s from the
regions would not be in the best interests of Tech Ops or Engineering Services. I
am hopeful that this meeting will help AFN leadership understand that this
decision is a bad and one and they should agree to re-examine their plan.
Another hot few issues right now are the new Regional Office Building Projects in
ASW, ANM, and AWP. NATCA and the FAA have a Scoping Agreement that
identifies how we will handle these new building projects. The process
has worked as expected in ASW and that building is close to completion. The
plan is for some groups to start moving in later this year. The projects in ANM
and AWP are significantly more complicated due to a 25% reduction in
required space. This reduction stems from government-wide policy which calls
for the overall government footprint to be reduced by 25%. However, the intent
of our scoping agreement was to provide a consistent, collaborative approach
to how the space would be addressed. This includes the LOB space
configuration, cubicle sizes and furniture among other items. Like everything
nowadays where budgets and politics are involved, the new building projects are
a huge challenge for our membership. The unfortunate reality is that we will
have to figure out what our interests are as they relate to space and be prepared
to work to ensure our interests are met but there will be some sacrifice. In the
present economic environment, we just can’t have everything we want or have
had in the past; that is just the reality of the current times.
The most pressing issue facing ALL of us is the upcoming FAA Reauthorization
battle. The following message was sent to every NATCA member this past
weekend. Privatization of the NAS will be the fight of our lifetime, make
no mistake about it. We will have one opportunity to get this right if it
happens. And, judging by the alliances that have formed, there will be
transformational change. The following message was sent to every NATCA
member this past weekend; please read this again and be sure you understand
the issues and NATCA’s position:
This last week NATCA testified before the House Aviation subcommittee. If you
have not read our full testimony and watched the hearing then you should
absolutely do both. As we have put out on many occasions defending the
“status quo” is not an option. The status quo is riddled with funding
uncertainty. Sequester is set to take effect again on October 1 with projections
that the cuts to the FAA operations budget will be closer to $750 million
compared to the $253 million cuts we saw in 2013. The $253 million in cuts
forced the FAA to furlough every employee for one day per pay period for eleven
pay periods. As you recall we were able to rally, advocate, and work with
Congress as it passed a law that allowed the Administrator to move the $253
million from AIP to plug the shortfall in operations budget allowing the FAA to
stop the furloughs.
The current state of the FAA and our status as government employees are
certainly not the status quo we advocated for and defended in the 90s. With that
said, our preferred position is to remain government employees in an
Agency/Structure outside of the world of sequester, government shutdowns, and
short-term funding bills (CRs). We seek a funding system that is predictable and
allows for hiring, training, modernizing, and infrastructure improvements not
furloughs, staffing shortfalls, tower closures, and aging equipment and buildings.
We are preparing for any scenario that we may have to deal with in order to
protect the membership and the system. That includes, but is not limited to,
pay, benefits, pensions, and work rules. We will not support, and will
aggressively oppose, any bill that does not protect those things, as well as our
ability to exist as a union, negotiate all work rules, pay/benefits, and have a fair
dispute resolution process.
To be clear, NATCA opposes privatizing the ATC system, as that model creates
the wrong incentive – profit. Please do not buy into the sensationalized
headlines. Most of the press coverage had to do with a draft bill being offered
by former Chairman Mica. That bill was created by him for effect and drama and
will not be the vehicle for anything. We need to be concerned with and remain
focused on The FAA Reauthorization Bill when the current Chairman offers
it. We all need to take this issue seriously and understand the many challenges
ahead. We will continue to spread that message at meetings, via email, and
facility visits.
On another, yet also very important note, both the House and the Senate voted
last week on their budgets and both call for significant increases to federal
employee retirement contributions, changes to the calculations, and reduced
benefits for those already retired. We will be sending another email asking
you to click on our campaign and send an email to your Senators and House
members, thanking those that voted against it and relaying disappointment to
those that voted for it. The budget itself does not have the force of law but it
lays the groundwork for the direction we can expect from the appropriations
committees. Please participate in this call to action. There will be many battles
and bad bills that we will ask you to take action. As we stand together, we will
once more show the aviation community and the traveling public what we already
know: that their safe passage is well entrusted to the professionalism of the men
and women who make up the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
Brothers and sisters, thank you for the tremendous jobs you do, day in and day
out. Expect more correspondence from us as events unfold.
Also being proposed in FAA Reauthorization will be changes to Aircraft
Certification. It has been well documented that industry and Congress believe
that there are changes that can be made to the certification process to gain
efficiencies. NATCA has been in dialogue with congressional committee staff on
the subject trying to get a feel of where each party's interests lie. There are
broad areas of agreement however, the devil is always in the details so we will
need more detailed information before we can know for sure what to expect in
any legislation.
NATCA has also been sent notice that the FAA plans to revamp the FAA Travel
Policy (FAATP). We have been engaged for a while since the Agency sent us
their draft FAATP several months ago. So we know what they are proposing to
do and honestly, it doesn’t seem like it’s worth dealing with at this time since the
matter of FAATP is a “covered by” subject in both the Blue and Purple
Books. That is not necessarily true however for the Red Book. We had sent our
comments and concerns to the FAA and would like to see some items
changed. Unfortunately, the FAA determined that most of our proposals were
related to items that were not changed and therefore rejected our language. So
it may make more sense to just wait until the term agreements are being
renegotiated before we engage further, with the exception of the Red Book of
course. More needs to be done before any decisions to proceed
are adopted. We will be scheduling a meeting with the Agency soon to discuss
the options.
This week I will be a guest at the Engineering Services Manager’s Meeting along
with PASS VP Rich Casey. We will be having a “collaboration” lunch and will be
speaking to the collaboration taking place among our organizations. My role with
Jodi McCarthy will also be to reinforce the recent message from Paul Rinaldi and
Teri Bristol, defining exactly what collaboration means to NATCA and ATO. We
will be talking about the definition and the behaviors necessary for successful
collaboration. Here is the message that was sent along with the definition and
behaviors: (this signed collaboration definition agreement is attached separately
and is available on the NRX website’s home page, below the “NRX Update 3-3015” link)
We have also been busy with the roll-out of our ATSAP-X Program. ATSAP-X is
our own confidential, non-punitive, safety reporting program for our ATO
Members. This was another on of those programs that took a long time to get
off the ground, mostly due to the agency’s inertia. Al Arcese has been
designated as out Event Review Committee (ERC) member. Al has also been
helping to roll out the plan with briefings in Atlanta, Ft. Worth and Seattle. A
special thanks to our NSC Chair Steve Hansen and NSC Member Don
Schmeichel for all of their efforts to bring this program to fruition and get these
briefings completed. The ATSAP-X MOU is attached here: (this ATSAP-X MOU
is attached separately and is available on the NRX website’s home page below
the “NRX Update 3-30-15” link, as well as the NRX website’s 2014 Document
Registry under the MOU tab)
We are also beginning to see movement with the agency on the roll-out of the
AIR Safety Reporting Program (SRP). This is another program that has taken a
long while, much longer than anyone ever expected in fact. Unlike the
typical ATSAP with an ERC, the AIR SRP establishes an AIR Voluntary Safety
Reporting Board (Oversight Board) to review and analyze reports received and
determine the acceptance based on the criteria outlined in the MOU. The
Oversight Board then has the opportunity to create a Subject Matter Expert
(SME) Panel to address specific safety concerns. Like the voluntary safety
reporting systems, the AIR SRP is confidential and non-punitive. Tomaso
DiPaolo and Mike Collins are working with the Agency’s representatives on the
roll-out and training. And again, thanks to Steve Hansen for all of his efforts to
get to this agreement. I have attached the AIR SRP MOU here: (this AIR SRP
MOU is attached separately and is available on the NRX website’s home page
below the “NRX Update 3-30-15” link.)
I would also like to take a moment to talk about our recent roll-out of the
Professional Standards Program (PSP). We have rolled out the PSP in the
Northwest Mountain Region. The primary reason for rolling out here first was
the interest exhibited by the members of our ENM Local. We very much want to
roll this program out in other parts of the country. But we need a trained cadre of
members in each Region X facility and area so that we can implement
this important peer to peer program. In July of last year we solicited for
individuals interested in PSP, here is an excerpt:
The purpose of the Professional Standards Program is to promote and maintain
the highest degree of professional conduct among participants. A successful
Professional Standards Program will be measured by its ability to address
performance and conduct issues before such issues rise to a level requiring
corrective action on the part of the agency.
The reason this is important, is that it allows us to control our own destiny
through peer-to-peer methodology. You can find all the language regarding
professional standards under Article 52 in our CBA. However, I want to highlight
a particular section:
Section 7. The Agency may elect to use the PSP as an alternative to disciplinary
action under Article 10. Issues released to the PSC shall not be addressed
through other means or raised in the future to support other disciplinary actions, if
the PSC reports that the issue is resolved.
Not only will this program allow us to promote and maintain our professionalism,
it gives us the opportunity to address our own issues. Provided we report the
issue resolved, any issue referred to the program cannot be addressed or used
in any way as a foundation for progressive discipline.
So I am once again asking for your help. In order to make this program
successful, we need more trained cadre. We need people in every region if we
want to make this program the success it is in the Air Traffic Unit. If you are
interested, please send contact Ken Slauson, our Region X Lead for PSP
at kslauson@natca.net.
And at the last NEB meeting there was a decision to implement a national policy
regarding ULP’s. The intent of this policy is to ensure that as an organization, we
are not filing charges that have the potential for a bad decision that could impact
our strategic objectives. Here is that guidance:
The National Executive Board establishes the following policy for the analysis
and processing of unfair labor practice charges (“ULPs” or “charges”) by federal
sector employees before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) and
Federal Contract Tower employees before the National Labor Relations Board
(“NLRB):
When a Facility Representative seeks to file a ULP with the FLRA or NLRB, he or
she should consult with the Regional Vice President before filing. The
consultation with the Regional Vice President will address: the appropriate
charging party, the issues raised by the charge, the appropriate FLRA/NLRB
region for filing, potential supporting evidence for a charge, the relief sought,
whether a grievance or a complaint in another forum rather than a ULP is
appropriate, whether a charge is impacted by a previously filed grievance, and
any other relevant issues. If upon consultation, the Regional Vice President and
Facility Representative determine that the Union is the appropriate charging
party, the following process must be utilized.
When a Regional Vice President or his/her designee decides to pursue a ULP,
they should forward the complete case file to their Labor Relations Strategy
Group designee who will share the file with the Labor Relations
Strategy Group. The complete case file will include supporting evidence and
documents for the ULP, including a witness list, witness statements, and a draft
charge utilizing FLRA Form 22 available at http://www.flra.gov/webfm_send/3 or
NLRB Form 501 at http://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basicpage/node-3040/nlrbform501.pdf.
The Director of Labor Relations may then direct an analysis of the case by the
National Office Labor Relations Staff. ULPs submitted through this process will
be reviewed by the NATCA Labor Relations Strategy Group. Unless the Labor
Relations Strategy Group expresses concern with the validity of the charge the
ULP will proceed.
Settlements. The decision to accept a settlement of a ULP rests with the
advocate(s) assigned to the ULP case in consultation with the Director of Labor
Relations.
Let me finish by thanking each of you for all you do every day to ensure the
success of the NAS and our Union. And to the many, many reps who work on
behalf of our membership, thank you as well. As is always the case, there is
much work ahead for us. I’m more than certain though that we are up to the
challenge.
In Solidarity,
Mike MacDonald
NATCA Region X RVP
C-978-317-2852