Attached is an arbitration decision we just received this afternoon sustaining a grievance filed by PASS on behalf of an Administrative Coordinator in Houston ARTCC who is currently working a 5/4/9, and was denied a 4/10 AWS schedule. Before going to a 5/4/9 in Sept 07, she had worked the 4/10 since March 2005.
Again, just as the last case we won in the Central Service Area barely a month ago, management's position was basically that management can simply declare "operational requirements" and has no obligation to provide any kind of tangible proof to the Union. At the hearing, when asked what constituted the "operational requirements," the first-level supervisor basically recited the list of the grievant's job duties and tasks that had been introduced as evidence. Arbitrator Woodward, just like Arbitrator Barnard before, did not agree with their position. Rather, this arbitrator, just like the last, correctly agreed with our position that since the language in Article 51, Section 4, was crafted within the meaning of Title V, Chapt 61, and rolled over verbatim from the 1992 AF CBA, then that Chapt 61 criteria still applies and the Agency must show a tangible adverse impact. Since the Agency failed to show an adverse impact a/k/a operational requirement, the arbitrator upheld our grievance and ordered management to allow the grievant to work a 4/10 AWS. The arbitrator's comment at the top of page 12 that management should leave the grievant "alone" to work the 4/10 AWS is especially telling as this is the 3rd time we have had to fight this battle for this particular grievant. Obviously, the arbitrator took note of that, just as he took note of the two supervisors' lack of credibility regarding the employees' work habits.
We can only hope that this win will finally make management realize that, while management does determine operational requirements, there are certain obligations that must be met and tangible evidence that must be presented before denying/discontinuing employees' AWS schedules. It is not as easy as just standing up and declaring "operational requirements" for all to hear.
The Agency does have 30 days to appeal this decision to the FLRA. We found out today that the Agency is not going to appeal the last CSA AWS case involving the NASTEP evaluators. Hopefully then, they will do the right thing and comply with this arbitrator's order right away. If so, then management will be doing the posting for that case and this case at the same time. We, of course, will have both notices posted prominently together on the PASS bulletin board at the Southwest Regional Office, which happens to be right across from the cafeteria.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Allyn Van Vechten
Labor Relations Specialist/Paralegal
Professional Aviation Safety Specialists
1150 17th Street, NW Ste. #702
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-7277
(202) 293-7727 Fax
Labor Relations Specialist/Paralegal
Professional Aviation Safety Specialists
1150 17th Street, NW Ste. #702
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-7277
(202) 293-7727 Fax
