A Message from PASS National President Tom Brantley:
August 3, 2007

This update is to inform you that a decision was reached by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Administrative Law Judge who presided over the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) case regarding PASS’s ratification of the tentative agreement with the FAA for our Technical Operations unit.

The FAA filed the ULP charge in March of 2006 after PASS informed the agency that we would actively oppose ratification of the tentative agreement. As you may recall, among the agency’s contract demands were the following:

• No guaranteed pay increases.
• OSI at the agency’s complete discretion based on the achievement of phony “performance goals.”
• No increase at all if you are at the top of one of the agency’s gerrymandered pay bands. You receive nothing–not even a lump-sum payment! This would mean pay cuts for more than two-thirds of the employees in the bargaining unit.
• No right to Alternate Work Schedule (AWS).
• Watch schedule no longer negotiated. Work schedule to be determined solely by management.
• No “prime vacation time” periods designated for employees to take at least three consecutive weeks off.
• “Douglas Factors,” which are meant to protect employees from abusive supervisors, would no longer be part of the contract. With discipline subject only to FAA policy, supervisors would be allowed to discipline employees as they see fit rather than being required to follow strict criteria to ensure that the penalty is proportionate to the alleged violation and is not unreasonable.
• No regional assistants.
• No local or regional bargaining.

In addition, the agency declared more than half of PASS’s proposals “non-negotiable” and would not provide information or counterproposals when requested. The agency even refused to agree to provisions with PASS that had already been agreed upon with NATCA controllers.

After seeing the agency’s proposal and experiencing their outrageous conduct at the bargaining table, PASS concluded that the agency had no intention of reaching an agreement designed to meet the needs of both parties. It became clear that the agency’s offer was the best that could be obtained under the circumstances. Therefore, PASS accepted the agency’s proposal in March of 2006. However, PASS also made it clear to the agency that we did so to give the members an opportunity to voice their opinion, an opportunity the agency has tried so hard to deny.

While PASS members voted overwhelmingly not to ratify the tentative agreement (more than 98% of voting members voted No), the FAA pursued its ULP case against PASS. Although the charge was initially dismissed by the FLRA’s Regional Director in July 2006, the FAA appealed to the FLRA’s General Counsel, who granted the appeal and issued a complaint against PASS. The hearing was held in March of 2007 at the FLRA’s Washington office.

In his decision dismissing all charges against PASS, the Judge stated, “I do not consider it a coincidence that in the bargaining environment of the case, where the FAA has interpreted and applied its unique bargaining statute to deprive the Panel of jurisdiction to resolve bargaining disputes, one of its unions has sought to resort to a form of force: not economic, but political force, through the vehicle of a vote of its members on the agency’s proposals. This may not have been the academic exercise of reasoned discussion that the FAA hoped for, but then neither was its threat to submit its final proposals to Congress and implement them without permitting resolution by the Panel. The FAA may be correct in its interpretation of title 49, but such an interpretation invited a response by the Union, and the Union’s response in this case appears to me to be entirely lawful.”

Now that this case has been resolved, we will be contacting the FAA to make arrangements to resume bargaining for a mutually acceptable agreement. In a rational world, the FAA would read this decision and agree that it was time to return to the bargaining table in earnest. When discussing the FAA, however, rational thought is rarely the deciding factor used by the agency to determine its actions. I expect that the FAA will reject our offer to return to the bargaining table and will appeal the Judge’s decision to the three FLRA members, hoping for another bite of this rotten apple.

While the FAA has a legal right to appeal the decision, it does not have a legal right to change the terms of the current agreement until such time as PASS members successfully ratify a new agreement. PASS is aware that there have been rumors that the agency is planning to implement the tentative agreement, which was voted down by PASS members, pending the outcome of its appeal. As of this time, these rumors appear to be unfounded, though it would not be a stretch of one’s imagination to think that the FAA might try such a disgraceful tactic, counting on members being so miserable and upset with their new working conditions that they would put pressure on PASS to give in to the agency’s demands. However, I can assure you that PASS will never give in to the agency’s one-sided demands to circumvent collective bargaining and simply change the terms of our agreement to whatever the agency decides it wants.

As we have repeatedly cautioned, until such time as PASS members successfully ratify a new collective bargaining agreement, the current agreement remains in effect. Any attempts by FAA management to change the terms of the agreement without ratification by PASS members will be dealt with as soon as PASS is made aware of the agency’s actions! Please notify your regional vice president or the PASS national office if you believe an improper change has been implemented where you work.

We will continue to inform you of changes as we learn of them