FAA EMPLOYEES AND BARGAINING LIMITATIONS

About PASS

The Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS) is the oldest and second largest FAA union, representing approximately 11,000 FAA employees in five separate bargaining units throughout the United States and in several foreign locations. The largest PASS bargaining unit is the Air Traffic Organization Technical Operations unit, consisting of systems specialists and technicians who install, maintain, repair and certify the radar, navigation and communication systems making up the air traffic control system. The Flight Standards and Manufacturing Inspector (MIDO) units consist primarily of aviation safety inspectors responsible for inspecting every aspect of the commercial and general aviation industries. Additionally, PASS represents flight inspection pilots, procedures development specialists and airborne technicians in the Office of Aviation Standards (AVN), as well as administrative employees in the FAA’s Aviation Registry (AFS-700).

History of Contract Negotiations

• The FY 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-50) exempted the FAA from most of the federal personnel system under Title 5 of the U.S. Code and ordered the agency to develop its own personnel system.
• The FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-264) established a new process for resolving certain bargaining impasses that were related to the new personnel system, which involved mediation before the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) and involvement by Congress.
• The 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act does not clearly define the types of disputes covered under the new process. The FAA interpreted the provision to mean that it had authority to impose contract terms unilaterally without the agreement of employees’ representatives or ratification by the employees themselves.
• According to the FAA’s misinterpretation of the law, if the FAA declares that contract negotiations are at an impasse the administrator can send the matter to Congress. If Congress does not act on the contract within 60 days, the FAA’s contract offer will be automatically imposed on employees. The FAA’s view of personnel reform completely ignores the fact that Congress specifically and completely restored Chapter 71 of the U.S. Code as part of the system.
• The FAA’s view of personnel reform removes any independent third-party involvement in resolving bargaining disputes and provides no incentive for the agency to bargain in good faith. The agency is operating under the belief that it does not need to make bargaining concessions if it can simply wait the 60 days and unilaterally impose all of its bargaining demands.

Current Status of PASS Contract Negotiations

Currently, contract negotiations are at impasse with four of PASS’s five bargaining units, representing 3,500 employees across the United States in the Flight Standards, AVN, AFS-700 and MIDO bargaining units. It appears that the FAA is preparing to submit these impasses to Congress so that the FAA will be in a position to impose the contract on FAA employees without further bargaining.

Many of the issues over which the parties are at impasse are already included in other collective bargaining agreements in the FAA. Some of these issues include: childcare subsidies, flexible spending accounts, changes in work schedules, on-the-job training, professional liability insurance, reimbursement for educational expenses, sick leave buy out, duration of the agreement, inadequate and unsafe staffing, job security, pay system, pay adjustments during the life of the contract, and the performance management system.

There are no foreseeable next steps regarding these impasses as the FAA has only threatened to submit the contracts to Congress but no action has been taken.

PASS recently accepted the FAA’s contract proposal for PASS’s remaining bargaining unit, Air Traffic Organization Technical Operations. Although the proposal was disappointing throughout and downright insulting in many areas, the FAA’s behavior at the bargaining table made it clear that it was not interested in real bargaining and was intent on simply going through the motions in order to declare impasse and submit the contract to Congress as soon as possible. Some of the lowlights of the agency’s contract offer include a “pay for someone else’s performance” pay plan, a deeply flawed “pay banding” system, no right to flexible work schedules, no employee input in determining watch schedules, and no negotiating over changes to working conditions at the regional or local level. Refusing to allow an unfair contract to be forced on employees under the FAA’s misinterpretation of the personnel reform laws, PASS opted to send the contract to members for a ratification vote in order to give them a voice in the process and demonstrate to the administrator that employees were overwhelmingly against the agency’s plan. The hope was that this would cause the administrator to reconsider the agency’s bargaining positions when the parties returned to the bargaining table.

On August 3, 2006, following a record voter turnout, PASS members in the Technical Operations bargaining unit almost unanimously (98 percent) voted against the tentative agreement. Based on the membership vote, PASS informed the FAA that it wished to return to the bargaining table to negotiate a fair and mutually acceptable collective bargaining agreement for Technical Operations. At this time, it is unclear when the process will begin due to pending legal proceedings initiated by the FAA in an attempt to force the rejected agreement on its employees. Until PASS members successfully ratify a new collective bargaining agreement, the current agreement remains in effect.

Problems With the FAA’s Current Interpretation of the Process

Through its misinterpretation of the law, the FAA is attempting to use Congress to impose onerous working conditions on employees and bypass the negotiation process. The FAA’s actions will unquestionably lead to increasing problems with employee retention and recruitment. If the FAA is allowed to force its contract terms on employees, the exodus of skilled employees will no doubt outweigh any recruitment efforts. Allowing the agency to use Congress to impose its will on employees will chip away further at the morale of an already despondent workforce.

Congressional action requested:

The conflicting statutory provisions have caused considerable confusion for the FAA administrator, FAA employees, the courts and other agencies, such as the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP). We suggest that Congress take action to clarify that the FSIP has jurisdiction over the FAA and that binding arbitration before a board of experienced arbitrators is the preferred method of resolving bargaining disputes such as those currently facing the parties. This is a system that has worked successfully in the Postal Service and would be appropriate for the FAA. Rather than forcing Congress to be directly involved in resolving disputes over internal agency personnel matters, PASS believes it is more appropriate to require both parties to submit all outstanding bargaining impasse issues to binding arbitration under the direction of the FSIP, an impartial third party with special expertise in these matters.