Ratification Update
April 21, 2006

This is an update for our members in the Technical Operations (formerly AF) unit.

PASS previously notified members that it had accepted the FAA’s contract proposal for all outstanding articles to reach a tentative agreement for a new collective bargaining agreement. Shortly thereafter, PASS started the ratification process, which ultimately results in the membership deciding the fate of the tentative agreement. Because ratification is such an important right for PASS members, I want to start by explaining what exactly ratification is and how it is conducted by PASS.

Ratification is the process that allows members to accept or reject the tentatively agreed upon contract terms. Ratification is accomplished in different ways by different unions. The PASS ratification process consists of several phases:

• In the preliminary phase, which is where we are now, PASS officials informally communicate with members about the terms of the tentative agreement and express opinions about the tentative agreement. During the preliminary stage, PASS will try to get as much information out as possible to better prepare members for the upcoming briefings.
   
• During the briefing phase, PASS officials and negotiating team members travel around the country providing face-to-face briefings to as many groups of members as possible to explain the terms of the tentative agreement in more detail and answer questions. Normally, the agency grants official time to negotiating team members and PASS representatives to attend these briefings. Given the current anti-union posture of the agency, however, I anticipate the agency being reluctant to allow official time for briefings. This means PASS will have to try to schedule briefings around work schedules, which might lengthen the time it takes to accomplish the necessary briefings. Regardless, PASS will complete all briefings that we believe are needed before moving on to the final stage, balloting.
   
• During the balloting phase, PASS mails a ratification ballot to every PASS members in the affected bargaining unit; in this case, it will be our Technical Operations (formerly Airway Facilities) unit. Once mailed, PASS normally provides 30 to 45 days for members to return their ballots. During this time, PASS also sends all new members (those who join during the 30 to 45-day period) a ratification ballot. As long as the ballot is received by the closing date, it will be counted. PASS then counts the ballots as soon as possible after the closing date.
   
• Once the votes are counted, PASS notifies members and the agency of the outcome of the ratification ballot. If the majority of members vote “Yes” (to accept the terms), the agreement would become effective following agency head review or 30 days after the vote. If a majority of members vote “No” (to reject the terms), the parties will return to the bargaining table and begin negotiations again.

The PASS ratification process may appear simple, yet it can be complex to carry out. Regardless of FAA pressure to complete the ratification process much quicker than we normally would, PASS will take the time needed to ensure that members have the information and answers that they need to cast an educated vote. To accomplish this, PASS will continue to share information as widely as possible in preparation for conducting briefings in the near future.

How long the ratification process will take to complete is anyone’s guess at this point. In a perfect world, it would be accomplished (from reaching a tentative agreement to counting of ballots) within 90 days. However, as I mentioned, the process is dependent to some extent on the agency’s willingness to cooperate. As of now, it appears that the process can be completed under the same basic schedule that was used in connection with the ratification of the 2000 agreement. We will continue to keep you updated on any changes or new information related to the ratification ballot.

On another topic, confidential management sources have provided PASS a copy of the agency’s recent message to managers regarding the tentative agreement. The message is from John Zalenchak, ATO lead, Tech Ops/PASS negotiation team. In it, Zalenchak makes a few statements that I want to address before members begin seeing copies of his message.

First is his statement that “On March 30, 2006, PASS suddenly concluded negotiations by agreeing to the Agency’s current offer for all unresolved articles. This occurred even though there were more than 40 articles still not discussed, including the pay provisions.”

As I stated in my last update, although the agency is trying to imply 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.

The parties exchanged complete proposals in January, before bargaining even started, thus allowing each side to be fully aware of the position 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.

It was 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 Federal Labor Relations Authority (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.

Zalenchak’s next claim is that “Our proposals and counter proposals were presented in good faith with the ultimate interest of achieving a new agreement that is fair for employees, more cost effective, and less restrictive on management rights.” If this claim were true, there would be no need for the FAA to say on Thursday, March 30 (the date that the tentative agreement was reached), that, “The FAA once again reiterated its position that it wants to continue the negotiations in an effort to reach a fair, voluntary agreement.” If the FAA’s “proposals and counter-proposals were presented in good faith, with the ultimate interest of achieving a new agreement that is fair for employees,” why would the agency still be interested in continuing negotiations with PASS “to reach a fair, voluntary agreement?”

Zalenchak further added, “We do not agree with Mr. Brantley’s assessment of our proposals and quite frankly many provisions of the Union’s proposals would be difficult to maintain or justify in any sensible business environment. Though we question the recent actions by PASS’ leadership, we will continue to work towards finalizing a negotiated agreement.” Luckily, Zalenchak’s (or any other manager’s) opinion concerning my assessment of the agency’s proposals is irrelevant. PASS’s assessment is based solely on the differences between the current agreement and the one the agency wants to impose on employees, and I am confident that it will stand up to the scrutiny of PASS members, who possess the only opinions that matter. (For the record, PASS’s assessment is not something put together by me in a vacuum; it was developed by a group of members and staff, including the negotiating team, the regional vice presidents and assistants representing the affected members, and PASS’s legal staff. While I am appreciative that Mr. Zalenchak holds me in such high regard, I cannot take the credit alone.)

Finally, I want to respond to the agency, through Zalenchak, questioning the actions of PASS leadership. Here is another quote from his recent message:

The following information provides guidance toward discussions with employees during Contract Negotiations, Impasse proceedings and the Ratification process.

The following “do’s” and “don’ts” serve as general guidance during this time period:

DO:

• If asked, do give credit to both the union’s and the FAA’s efforts to try to resolve the many significant issues during bargaining.
• If asked, do give credit to all FAA employees in general for maintaining their professionalism.
• Contact your servicing Human Resources Management Division first if you have particular question(s) with regard to these processes or proposals.
• When appropriate, you can correct the record with respect to any false or misleading statements made.
• Read the information and other facts on these negotiations, which can be found on the FAA website or other official updates to managers and supervisors.

DO NOT:

• Engage in discussions to attempt to persuade employees about the FAA’s position. For example, if you are challenged by a BUE about the FAA’s position on a specific issue, DO NOT ENGAGE in a debate about the merits of the FAA’s or the union’s proposals. Simply state that you can only discuss what you know to be factual and that you are not in a position to persuade or dissuade BUEs.
• Speculate on or interpret what the FAA’s or union’s proposals mean.
• Bypass the Union by negotiating or otherwise deal directly with BUEs over negotiable conditions of employment.
• Interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
• Make light of the impasse, ratification or other pending resolution actions between the FAA and any labor organization. These are extremely important issues to the FAA and all of its employees – including those who are in different bargaining units.

It would seem that Mr. Zalenchak would be well served to heed his own advice. Questioning the actions of union leadership is not consistent with his guidance to other managers to “give credit to both the union’s and the FAA’s efforts to try to resolve the many significant issues during bargaining,” and not to “Engage in discussions to attempt to persuade employees about the FAA’s position…, Speculate on or interpret what the FAA’s or union’s proposals mean,” or “Make light of the impasse, ratification or other pending resolution actions between the FAA and any labor organization.”

Apparently, the guidance is meant to apply to field managers and supervisors rather than headquarter managers who have so successfully managed the agency’s negotiations. I guess the double standard doesn’t apply just to bargaining unit employees.

In closing, I want to restate my belief that ratification is one of the most important rights that a union member has. Ultimately, that is how members exercise their ability to say, “This is an agreement I can support” or “This agreement is an insult and I want the agency to hear loud and clear that it is unacceptable!” If it is possible for FAA management to learn from its mistakes, I hope that a “No” vote by the membership will educate FAA management about what PASS members are not willing to accept simply because the agency feels it is in complete control of the bargaining process.

In all of its previous contract ratifications, PASS has recommended that members vote “Yes.” However, given the terms that the FAA wants to impose on employees, your elected officers are strongly encouraging members to vote “No” on this ratification. I cannot stress strongly enough that this is not an agreement that PASS supports and I believe it is critical that every member vote when they receive a ballot, and that the vote they cast is “No!”

Please remember that until 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 addressed through appropriate legal action as soon as PASS is made aware of such a change! Please notify your regional vice president or the PASS national office if you believe a change has been made.