IMPASSE ISSUES BETWEEN PASS AND FAA

The Professional Airways Systems Specialists and the Federal Aviation Administration are at impasse in their contract negotiations in the following bargaining units – Flight Standards (“FS”), Aviation Standards (“AVN”), AFS-700 and Manufacturing Inspection (“MIDO”). Employees in these bargaining units are employed across the United States in various FAA facilities. Many of the issues over which the Parties are at impasse are already included in other collective bargaining agreements in the FAA, including the agreement between PASS and the FAA covering the Airway Facilities bargaining unit. The FAA recently stated that it was preparing to submit the impasse to Congress so that the FAA would be in a position to impose the contract on FAA employees without further bargaining.  The following is a list of issues over which the Parties are at impasse.

1. Child Care Subsidy – The Parties have been unable to agree on the issue of adjustments in family income level necessary to qualify for child care subsidies.

2. Flexible Spending Accounts – The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on extending this program to PASS’s bargaining units.  During the last bargaining session, the FAA refused to discuss the issue.

3. Hours of Work – Bargaining unit employees have raised issues relating to the impact on their personal lives of changes in their normal work schedules.  The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on PASS’s proposal to solicit qualified volunteers for these assignments to lessen the impact of such changes. The FAA now takes the position that it has no duty to bargain over this issue.

4. On-The-Job Training – The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive contract article concerning the selection of OJT instructors, the delivery of OJT and  premium pay for OJT instructors similar to programs agreed to by the FAA in other bargaining units.

5. Professional Liability Insurance – Congress authorized agencies to reimburse certain inspectors for part of the cost of personal liability insurance to cover legal costs not assumed by the federal government. The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on the implementation of this program for its inspectors in the Flight Standards and MIDO units.

6. Reimbursement for Educational Expenses – The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive article dealing with reimbursement for educational expenses.  There is a disagreement over the fundamental goals of the reimbursement program. PASS believes the program should focus more on career development and education, rather than existing job training. 

7. Sick Leave Buyout – PASS’s proposal would permit employees who are participants in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) to receive a buyout upon retirement of 40% of the value of his/her accumulated sick leave. The FAA has agreed to this for employees in other FAA bargaining units.  The FAA refuses to extend this arrangement to employees in PASS’s bargaining units.

8. Temporary (Virtual) Assignment to Virtual Certificate Management Office (CMOs) –Several bargaining unit employees in Flight Standards work in a “virtual” environment. As such, many matters applicable in a traditional work environment do not apply or must be modified for a virtual work environment.  Although the Parties have reached understandings about several matters on this subject, the Parties have been unable to reach agreement on the integration of these employees into their “host offices,” assisting employees in their efforts to become competitive and qualified for virtual assignments, and adjustments to the Parties’ grievance procedure to accommodate the unique aspects of the virtual environment.

9. Existing Memorandums of Agreement – In the FS unit, the Parties have agreed that all existing memorandums of agreement/understanding will be void upon implementation of the new master collective bargaining agreement, except for those specifically attached as an appendix to the new agreement. The Parties have been unable to agree on the list of memorandum agreements to attachment to the new agreement.

10. Duration of the Agreement – The Parties have been unable to agree on the duration of the new collective bargaining agreements.  The FAA now seems to be indicating that it will include this issue in its submission to Congress so that it can impose the contracts on its employees for whatever duration is wishes.  

11. Implementing Memorandum of Agreement – The new agreements will include major sections dealing with converting employees to new pay systems, including pay-for-performance features, and new performance management systems.  In PASS’s negotiations with the FAA in the Airway Facilities bargaining unit, certain details of the new agreement were included in a separate memorandum agreement referenced as the Implementing MOA.  The Implementing MOA would, among other things, establish joint workgroups dealing with the details of the new systems.  PASS proposed a similar Implementing MOA for the four open agreements. Despite bargaining over and agreeing to these subjects in other contracts, the FAA now refuses to bargain with PASS over the following issues, which would be part of the Implementing MOAs:

• Staffing Agreement – Insures safe and efficient staffing levels, particularly in the inspector workforce.
• Employment Guarantee – Protects existing employees against layoffs during term of contracts.
• Alternate Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) procedure for employees who are converted to the new pay system – ADR process designed to save money and provide quick and efficient resolution of employee complaints relating to conversion to new pay systems.
• Superior Contribution Increase (“SCI”) system – Pay-for- performance component of proposed new pay system.  FAA wishes to impose standards without bargaining with PASS.
• Treatment of Air Traffic Revitalization Act (“ATRA”) pay – Insures that ATRA pay will be factored into pay for those currently receiving ATRA. 
• Pay adjustments during the life of the CBA – The FAA refuses to bargain over pay adjustments similar to those agreed upon in other FAA collective bargaining agreements.

12. Pay System – Under FAA Personnel Reform, the unions representing FAA employees were given the authority to negotiate new pay systems covering its bargaining unit employees. It is important to obtain “employee buy-in” for the new system.  However, the FAA wishes to impose the Core Pay System on PASS’s bargaining units despite major flaws in the system, which is strongly dislike by FAA employees covered by the Core Plan, including managers and supervisors.  The FAA refuses to discuss any modifications to the Core Plan, even though it has agreed to such modifications in other bargaining units. The Parties have been unable to agree on several structural components of new pay systems for these bargaining units. For example, some of the pay system issues in dispute are as follows:

• Incorporation of Air Traffic Revitalization Act (“ATRA”) pay into base pay.
• Minimum Annual Increases.  PASS proposed that bargaining unit employees would receive annual pay adjustments at least equal to the President’s Annual Comparability Increase, to be incorporated into the Organizational Success Increase (“OSI”).  The FAA proposes to provide a discretionary annual increase “up to” the amount of the presidential increase based on the achievement of performance goals outside the control of bargaining unit employees. The FAA’s proposed system is not “performance based” because annual pay increases are not linked in a real way to the performance of the impacted bargaining unit employees.  
• Superior Contribution Increases (“SCI”). PASS favors an SCI system similar to that which was negotiated in its FAA - Airway Facilities bargaining unit, and which has been briefed to the FAA Administrator as a true pay for performance system.  Under this system, all bargaining unit employees who satisfy defined individual performance criteria are eligible to receive an annual SCI pay increase from a pool of money formerly paid as part of step increases in the GS pay system.  The FAA proposes a tiered, quota system that artificially limits the number of employees eligible to receive an SCI increase, regardless of the quality of their performance.  Final SCI criteria cannot be negotiated until the Parties have agreed on Career Level Definitions, which the FAA refuses to discuss with PASS. 
• Promotions.  PASS proposed that an employee receive an 8% pay increase when promoted from one level to the next, and a 16% pay increase when promoted two levels. A two level promotion would be comparable to being promoted from a GS-9 position to a GS-11 position under the GS pay system.  Under the promotion section of the previously negotiated pay system covering the FAA-Airway Facilities bargaining unit, the FAA has misconstrued the Parties’ intent and limited the pay increase of an employee who received a two level promotion to an 8% increase.  The FAA refuses to rectify this obviously inequitable practice and the Parties remain far apart on this issue.
• Locality Pay.  PASS proposed maintaining the current “locality pay” system, and the FAA proposed deleting locality pay under the new pay systems. 
• On The Job Training (“OJT”) Instructor Premium Pay – PASS proposed that OJT instructors receive premium pay in the amount of 10%, as provided in other collective bargaining agreements between PASS and other unions in the FAA. The FAA refused to agree to OJT premium pay.
• Flight Premium Pay – PASS proposed that bargaining unit employees who are members of FAA flight crews or who fly in an aircraft for the purpose of meeting Event Based Currency (EBC) requirements, administering or receiving proficiency checks, administering or receiving flight training, conducting aircraft flight testing, or for any other purpose which involves serving in the capacity of a pilot receive flight premium pay in the amount of 10%. The FAA refused to agree to flight premium pay.
• Sunday, Night and Training Pay.  In the MIDO unit, the Parties have been unable to agree on these components of the pay system.

13. Career Level Definitions – Positions in the FAA will no longer be defined by traditional position descriptions. Rather, the various levels of each job category occupied by bargaining unit employees are defined by Career Level Definitions (“CLD”). Although there is no dispute between PASS and the FAA relating to CLDs for most of the bargaining unit positions, there are substantial disagreements over the CLDs for the “specialized” job category covering the position – Aviation Safety Inspector, particularly relating to levels 3 and 4 of that category. PASS’s primary concern is that the CLDs proposed by the FAA do not accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of inspectors who would occupy level 3 and 4 positions. As a result, promotions would be artificially depressed and career enhancing opportunities will be lost for many bargaining unit employees.

14. Pay Levels – The Parties previously reached an agreement concerning periodic pay increases for this bargaining unit, but the FAA revoked its agreement. In conformance with pay increases negotiated in the AF bargaining unit, the agreement provided for annual 1.5% pay increases for bargaining unit employees in the specialized job category over and above other pay increases set forth in the pay system. 

15. Performance Management System – Despite repeated requests, the Agency has failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to provide PASS with a copy of the performance management system covering these bargaining units.  This has interfered with bargaining because the performance management system is related to career level definitions and other aspects of the personnel system.

16. Awards Pool – In the MIDO unit, even though the Parties have tentatively agreed on some aspects of the article on awards, the Parties have been unable to agree on the establishment of a pool of funds for awards, and a section making it clear that awards are separate from pay-for-performance increases under the PASS-MIDO pay plan, over which the Parties are also at impasse.

17. Effective Date of CBA and Implementation Date – The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on these dates.