Ratification Update
April 4, 2006

Well, it only took a couple of days for the FAA to begin its propaganda campaign regarding the recent tentative agreement between PASS and the FAA on a new collective bargaining agreement covering employees represented by PASS in the System Operations (formerly Airway Facilities) bargaining unit. While it may have been a quick response, it was certainly disappointing in its lack of originality. As a result, it was very ineffective in achieving its goal–influencing PASS members about the union’s actions during negotiations.

You see, the misinformation coming from the FAA is not meant to bolster its legal case against PASS; in reality, the FAA has no case. Instead, the agency hopes that it can turn members against the union, thereby forcing union leadership to play the agency’s game. Let me assure you: This will not happen.

What is most amusing is the agency’s attack on PASS for accepting its offer! Essentially, the agency is saying, “Nobody would agree to the offer we made, so PASS must be up to something!” If there is one thing that reveals the most about the agency’s contract proposal, it is that the FAA now rejects it themselves.

I want to take some time now to respond directly to the misinformation coming from the FAA. Normally, it would be more politically correct to say that the agency’s statements are “inaccurate” or “incorrect.” However, those terms allow a certain amount of reservation regarding the intent of the person making the claims. In this case, I am beyond giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. The agency is engaged in an all-out propaganda attack and its statements to date have been intentionally deceptive.

What follows is a factual response to the FAA’s dishonest statements:

FAA Statement: “PASS effectively walked away from the table, despite the fact that only two negotiations sessions have been held to date and only 68 of the 116 proposed articles in the contract have even been initially discussed. More than 40 articles have not been discussed at all, including those on pay.”

Truth: The implication is that PASS abandoned negotiations and simply “walked away” from the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. PASS tentatively accepted the agency’s offer, thereby concluding negotiations, at which point both parties walked away from the table.

As for the number of articles proposed and discussed, the agency is again trying to cloud the issue by implying that there was never an opportunity to bargain or that that parties were not aware of each other’s positions.  What the agency does not say is that the parties exchanged complete proposals in January, before bargaining even started, thus allowing each side to know the stance of the other from the beginning. In addition, the FAA notified PASS just before the second session that it considered more than half of the articles and provisions “non-negotiable.” The agency made it clear during negotiations that anything it considered non-negotiable would not be discussed by the agency. So to say that there were more than 40 articles that were not discussed at all is untrue.

What made this move even more malicious is that the FAA declared subjects non-negotiable with PASS that it had recently agreed to with at least one other union. The agency’s chief negotiator made it clear that if PASS wanted to force the issue, we could go to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and if the FLRA ruled in the agency’s favor, it would then go to the other union and take away those provisions as well. That way, PASS would be the “bad guy,” not the agency. Unfortunately for the FAA, PASS has a good relationship with its sister FAA unions and would never allow such a devious tactic to drive a wedge between PASS and any other union.

Quite simply, the agency is angry because it was unable to get every article to impasse. It quickly became obvious to the PASS negotiating team that the agency intended to drive the negotiations to impasse, where it could follow its preferred approach of imposing contract terms on employees. The FAA’s strategy was clear: steer negotiations to impasse by proposing outrageous contract terms while also refusing to discuss the union’s proposals. If the union doesn’t like the agency’s refusal to negotiate those provisions, push the union to file appeals with the FLRA, thereby eating up precious bargaining time in litigation. (Remember, it was the agency that insisted upon, and got, a deadline imposed on the negotiations by the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP).) While the clock ticked away, the agency would follow the path of least resistance, taking an impasse to Congress before forcefully imposing the contract on employees represented by PASS. In the end, it would not matter how the FLRA ruled because there would be no time left to negotiate anyway.

The members of the PASS negotiating team are intelligent and professional. They caught on pretty quickly, and it was very clear to them that the agency was not interested in a negotiated agreement. The agency’s negotiators were arrogant and condescending toward PASS’s proposals, and they refused to discuss many issues that are important to PASS members.

FAA Statement: “The FAA once again reiterated its position that it wants to continue the negotiations in an effort to reach a fair, voluntary agreement.”

Truth: The FAA made this claim on Thursday, March 30. On Monday, April 4, the agency’s chief negotiator agreed to meet with PASS’s chief negotiator to “sign off” on the remaining articles. Under this process, articles signed by the parties are considered tentatively agreed upon (TAU). Why would the agency sign off on the articles if it felt that the union was making the agreement in bad faith?

FAA Statement: The FAA claims the reason for the ULP is the failure of PASS to negotiate in good faith.

Truth: I will repeat my question from the previous response, why would the agency sign off on the articles if it felt that the union was making the agreement in bad faith?

FAA Statement: “Ironically, a solid basis for the FAA charge can be found in a letter from PASS itself. The union’s chief negotiator wrote to the FAA yesterday, stating that PASS ‘hereby agrees to all of the Agency’s remaining bargaining proposals.... In addition, PASS hereby withdraws its proposals concerning the following articles and appendices….’ Then, ‘since all articles have been either tentatively agreed upon or withdrawn, our negotiations are concluded, subject to membership ratification and agency head review.’

“But, here’s the kicker. The letter concludes by stating that because of the FAA’s ‘regressive’ bargaining positions and its treatment of PASS and its members, ‘we will not be in a position to support this agreement during the ratification process.’ In other words, they’re saying, we’ll agree to whatever, but it doesn’t mean anything because we’re urging PASS members not to ratify it.”

Truth: The agency’s charge against PASS is based on the fact that PASS was open and honest with the agency about what we are doing! Apparently, the truth is so disturbing to the FAA that it cannot deal with it in a rational way. We have been honest with the agency about what we are doing precisely so it could not take our actions as anything other than what they are–a good faith effort to reach agreement with the agency.

It seems to me that the agency believes that because PASS does not feel that the current tentatively agreed upon contract is appropriate for the employees PASS represents, PASS cannot agree to the agency’s offer. The law is clear on this matter: either party can agree or not agree with anything it chooses. To imply that PASS can only reach a tentative agreement with the agency on provisions that the union will support is not supported by law. The agency is simply angry that PASS would take this approach rather than to continue the negotiations until the imposed deadline is reached, thereby taking any decision away from PASS members. I will not allow that to happen.

FAA Statement:” And, oh, by the way, the so-called ratification process will take 90 days, they tell us. You draw your own conclusions.”

Truth: There is so much anger in the FAA’s statements that it is almost hard to respond in earnest, but I will try. The agency is implying that 90 days is somehow excessive for ratifying an agreement. On the contrary, 90 days is very reasonable, and is consistent with the time it has taken to ratify previous agreements. The agency is usually open to whatever time frame the union wants since it expects a successful ratification in the end. The difference this time is that since PASS is not supporting the tentative agreement, the agency wants to try to shorten the time that the union needs to communicate with members regarding the tentative agreement. Rest assured, PASS will not be rushed and will take the time that we feel is prudent to communicate with members regarding the terms of the tentative agreement and to conduct the ratification ballot.

Ironically, the agency’s actions do not support its claim that it wants to conclude these negotiations as quickly as possible. In fact, with the agency’s unfair labor practice charge pending, PASS will have to consider holding off on the ratification ballot until the FAA’s legal challenge is decided.

FAA Statement: “This is not the first time FAA has had to appeal for a third party to become involved in these negotiations. Last year, FAA appealed to the Federal Services Impasse Panel (FSIP) after an impasse was reached over the basic ground rules of the negotiating process. FSIP ruled in favor of the agency, which argued for a reasonable time frame to conduct and complete the negotiations, versus an open-ended process with no end time. As a result of the FSIP ruling, the parties began negotiations on February 6, 2006, and were scheduled to conclude by July 21, 2006.”

Truth: Again, the agency chose to leave out some critical facts. The impasse over ground rules was not solely about an end date for negotiations. Another big issue for PASS was the agency’s refusal to acknowledge PASS’s right to ratify an agreement. Well, it is easy to see why the FAA did not want a ground rules agreement providing for ratification. First, the agency fights for almost a year to keep ratification language out of a ground rules agreement, then the agency files an unfair labor practice charge against PASS when we tentatively accept the agency’s offer, subject to membership ratification. It seems the agency is intent on keeping a decision on a new contract out of the hands of PASS members!

I wanted to respond to the most outlandish claims the agency has made so that PASS members are aware of what is truly going on and can make decisions based on facts, not on the FAA’s “spin.” It is very important for members to have the truth available to them in the coming weeks and months. The FAA will make every effort to contaminate the ratification process with untrue claims that PASS is somehow acting inappropriately. The agency may even try to convince members that the tentative agreement is good for them (although that is a stretch, even for the FAA). Regardless, please contact your regional vice president, regional assistant or the national office with any questions regarding the tentative agreement, the ratification process or the status of the agency’s legal charges against PASS. Also, please visit www.passnational.org and www.passcontractalert.org for up-to-date information.

In closing, I have to share what happened at the table when PASS offered to accept the agency's proposals, as related to me by every member of the PASS negotiating team. The FAA negotiating team was dumbfounded and even asked if this was a joke. They were speechless. They could not believe that PASS would accept their proposals! If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the agency’s intentions, I don’t know what would.

We will keep you updated on the status of the ratification ballot and the pending litigation.

Fraternally,
Tom Brantley
PASS President