DOD NSPS Meeting February 26, 2004
Ginger Graber, Brad Bunn, Tim Curry, George, Nesterczuk, Jeff Sumberg, FMCS - Rich Giacolone
Discussion began with the topic of those who will have a seat at the table. DOD states that they have invited the Unions with National Consultation Rights to sit at the table with 2 representatives each. Everyone else is considered an observer only.
Mark Roth spoke for all Unions and stated that the Unions have a problem with DOD unilaterally choosing who can be at the table.
Ginger; This is a DOD meeting - we do not have to have this, it is pre-collaboration and DOD has extended the invitation to the unions to gain their input to their proposal but, let there be no mistake, this is our meeting and our process.
Mark; We need to allow people to speak - in an orderly fashion - maybe we should discuss groundrules.
Tim; 1st issue will be discussion on groundrules and who will be speaking and how to be recognized.
Mark; There is a problem with the unions who do not have National Consultation Rights
Ginger; the meetings will go as we have planned
Mark; if this is any indication of the DOD overall plan and how they plan to work with the unions, it is unacceptable.
Various Union leaders spoke on why all opinions and concerns should be at the table and are heard.
Reconvene - It has been decided that FMCS will mediate. Rich Giacolone gave a brief biography of himself then started with the first issue of groundrules. We need to list concerns
Mark; Representation of non NCR unions - How they can speak and how to maintain order
Union - Same for NCRís, how to be recognized. These groundrules are only for this meeting
Union - Caucus rules
DOD - Time limits on comments. How will the union present their concept?
Union - Order of topics. Record Keeper? Will this be public information? What is OPMís role in the room? What was OPMís role in the creation of this concept?
FMCS - Key timelines? We have two days to go through this concept and have dialogue.
DOD - They will present their final proposal April 20, this will begin the statutory consultation period then they will implement Oct. 1st.
OPM - they are here to provide technical assistance to DOD
Union - Is it true that OPM has been a participant in the creation of this concept, we were told no. Is OPM here as an independent entity or here to defend DOD?
OPM - They were not involved in the creation of this concept - are here for guidance - they are interested in hearing the Unionís ideas.
FMCS - Next - how will one be recognized & how to determine what to speak about. Agreed to go through concepts in order.
DOD will present the concept and go through it point by point.
Union - This is not our concept; we want to hear from DOD and where they are coming from on their concept. There is a lot of clarification needed before we provide comments.
Will there be an opportunity to ask questions
FMCS - That goes to who will get to sit at the table and ask those questions?
Union - We will raise hands and be recognized then given a couple of minutes to speak. Everyone in this room should have the opportunity to speak.
FMCS - Next - Who call a caucus?
Union - we will let you know after the next break
DOD- - Let us be clear that this is not negotiations. We are concerned with caucuses. We have built in ample breaks, do not want this to turn into formal negotiations.
FMCS - There is a concern that DOD is here making all the decisions. Letís look at the process, who will speak?
Union - Letís try raising hands & being recognized - how can DOD say it wonít work if we donít try?
DOD - We asked for the Unions concepts but what was received was not detailed enough - we did not get what they wanted.
FMCS - OK, DOD will explain the concepts but he is worried about what happens after that.
Union - Just try it as we proposed then if it does not work, we could re-visit it. If there were problems with the way the process was going, wouldnít FMCS facilitate the process?
FMCS - Yes, but DOD is very specific about who they will allow to speak.
DOD - Record keeping - we did not specifically plan for this and are not taking verbatim notes - our note takers will compile summary notes, which will be placed on the website and available for review.
Union - will we get to look at them for review?
DOD - they are willing to let the unions look at the notes as long as we give them a quick turnaround and get back to them within 24 hours. Then they will put on the web - this will not be a counter/counter.counter process.
FMCS - we will now go through the concept paper then do Q & Aís afterward.
DOD - This concept was put together with National Security and management needs in mind.
#1 - Their goal was to create an independent 3rd party, streamlined, faster, it will operate with independence and autonomy. Of course firewalls will have to be created to make this happen. Unions will submit list of nominees that they want to sit on the board and the Secretary of Defense will select the participant. This board is envisioned to handle all disputes and grievances.
#2 - Fee for Service - for non-members, union will no longer have to represent all regardless, if a non-member the union could charge a fee. The union will develop their own fee for service structure.
#3 Bargaining Units - They were looking for a new way to structure and form bargaining units and balance this against agency needs.
The DLRB will take over what FLRA does now. Elections will be open to DLRB guidelines. The 50% is raising the bar but they want to get more adequate turn out from the bargaining unit. It is possible that they could bring in FLRA for disputes.
On the certification issue - for the record, there was no intent to exclude plumbers, electricians, etc.
#4 - This is to try to give employees a choice. They have a problem with being held responsible for a problem occurring when an employee cancels their dues and the deduction does not stop. They are also looking at a mechanism to collect the dues back for the employee.
#5 - They want more emphasis on the most critical issues - the ones with the most significant impact. Significant impact still needs clarification and definition but will be of a higher standard, cannot be only de minimus impact. The union will be informed of the change but there will be no duty to bargain.
#6 - This is to streamline a complex process and will supercede all CBAís. The union will be given department wide policies and will collaborate on the initiative but not the substance of the initiative. This will result in a department wide regulation. On the issue of management rights - this makes them no longer permissive; the additional list was felt needed.
#7 - National level bargaining will not be the only way, they recognize the fact that there will be unique situations and this will give locals a voice in consultation. Management must give the effort a good faith effort to address the unionís concerns.
#8 - National level bargaining will be on issues department wide. Right now, it is very fragmented resulting in many variations. They want fewer processes and discrepancies. This could occur at the DOD or component level.
#9 - Union rights - this is to simplify the criteria for formal discussion. If a meeting is called and is not intended to address changes in working conditions then the union does not have to be called in even if the meeting turns to address changes in working conditions.
Weingarten - Union would only be allowed to attend if a designated representative.
They will have to develop criteria on how long the investigative process will be held up awaiting a union representative to become available to attend the meeting.
FOIA - this is an existing process and they want to use it.
#10 - Official time - this was to simplify and have a standard process.
#11 - complaints - this is being dealt with on a separate track where they are trying to streamline. When a local has an issue (ULP or grievance), it needs to go to the DLRB. They are trying to expedite the process, it will start at the level of recognition.
The consult process will result in a policy document so the intent is that the traditional CBA will go away. If an issue is contained in an existing CBA and there is no policy to supercede it, it will remain in effect until it is superceded by a new policy which will be done by the Ďconsultí process.
Removal of Chapter 71 - They are looking at transforming the system - to make changes. There is no provision to do this if chapter 71 remains.
Union - What is the correlation between the proposal received and National Security?
Mgmt - We are not going to enter into debate on why we believe this impacts national security.
Union - Have you received legal advice as to whether your proposals are legal within the parameters of the law?
Mgmt - We just explained, we are not going there, we will only speak of/to the concepts proposed in terms of how they will apply.
Union - What is the rationale of why waiving chapter 71 would not be illegal?
Mgmt - We are not going to discuss the legality
Union - Can we get a legal opinion?
Mgmt - Again, we are not going to discuss the legality of our proposal. It has been noted that the Unionís position is that waiving this chapter is illegal. As a matter of fact, we believe that everything we have put forth is legal and within the confines of the law.
Union - We would like to discuss #7, the end to collective bargaining. Do you believe that the proposal is in concert with the law?
Mgmt - We believe all proposals are legal.
Union - What problems have occurred within DOD which led to the decision that this law and subsequent proposal have caused a National Security breach?
Mgmt - We are not going there
Union - DOD has proposed to eliminate collective bargaining as we know it, are there National Security implications to address the elimination of impasse proceedings?
Mgmt - We are not going there, we are only here to address the concepts. National Security drives everything we do. These questions are not germane to this issue.
Union - We take that as non-answers, that you are unwilling to discuss the point.
Mgmt - We are here only to address how labor relations will be conducted in the future.
Union - How can we substantially ask questions or give input when we cannot understand the why or how of this concept?
Mgmt - We are not going there
Union - How is it that we have impending national security implications to causeÖÖ
Mgmt - We are not going to discuss how each proposal is related to national security, we will only speak to the substance of each proposal.
We will talk about why we proposed consultation but not how we got there. This concept was proposed because we need to expedite the process and issues. This allows management to move faster, not wait until traditional formal negotiations are completed. It will make it easier to make changes.
We have a special national security concern to be able to make changes, as we need to make them.
Union - You also have to understand our language, consultation has a different meaning to us than bargaining
Mgmt - We are redefining the terms and how the process will work.
Union - How can teachers be a problem for national security?
Mgmt - We are not going there. On the issue of consultation for the local level, if the issue is significant, we will notify the local, the union will decide whether they want to meet and consult, mgmt and union will meet and the union will make proposals which may be incorporated in the overall proposal.
Union - What about disagreements and impasse?
Mgmt - Management must give a good faith effort to resolve the concerns, if still in dispute, the issue will go to the DLRB, which is the 3rd party entity but they will not resolve substantive impasse issues. The entity we have chosen for the 3rd party dispute resolution is the DLRB where the union can have a seat..
Union - Please elaborate on how consultation is being redefined
Mgmt - DOD goes to NCR, the union provides substantive comments, DOD will give due consideration to the unions position, accept or reject as warranted and explain why. We could bring in ADR to assist but if not resolved, will go to the DLRB.
We are redefining the process and moving away from the traditional adversarial process.
Union - How is significant defined?
Mgmt - if something affects or influences the majority or employee working conditions
Union - Where is the definition?
Mgmt - Once this is all together, parameters will be identified. On April 20, the union will get the definitions then the union can provide comment. This is the official beginning of the collaboration process as defined by the new law.
The DLRB cannot order status quo ante but can order the parties to go back to the consult phase.
Union - Have you developed implementation policies?
Mgmt - We have talked internally but have nothing written
Union - Does consultation now mean bargaining?
Mgmt - We have tried to make something with meaningful dialogue with a collaborative issue based process which will result in a policy document through the consult process outlined.
Union - What is the standard/definition of good faith? Did management come to the table in a true effort to really resolve out concerns? Dr. Chu told congress that you would bargain, why are we now in this "consult" process? Did the unions and congress get lied to?
Mgmt - We are in a pre-collaborative process, we are not required by law to even have these meetings. We are giving you an opportunity to comment but there will not be a bargaining process as defined by the statute now.
There will be an opportunity for the local union to make recommendation, to have their views considered and explain why their proposals were rejected, then if in dispute, it will go to the DLRB.
Union - We would ask DOD to come up with some type of proof that collective bargaining has hindered national security in some way or caused any problems with our support to our war fighters.
What will it take from us to get DOD to accept any of our ideas/proposals?
Mgmt - We do not believe any valid proposals have been given. We will take any valid ones back to be considered.
Union - What about adverse actions? What process will be used to address these?
Mgmt - the adverse action process has nothing to do with this concept, we are here to discuss the LR system. We need the ability to get the jobs done within DOD - this is an impact to national security. We do not understand how disciplinary actions relate to this process. We are in the process of developing an appeals process but are only talking about the LR system now.
Union - We would ask you to go back you your boss Mr. Rumsfeld, and tell him that we remember meeting with him right after 911 where he asked for our support in all efforts, which we gave. Some of us have those letters sent to us where he stated that he looked forward to the "advice and counsel of the unions".
Mgmt - All grievance and appeals processes are being consolidated out to the LR system to a consolidated employee disciplinary and appeals process.
Union - How does #1 affect National Security?
Mgmt - We will only address the processes - everything in this proposal affects National Security.
Union - How does having a DLRB vice the FLRA affect National Security?
Mgmt - This will allow management and union to resolve the issue collectively because the FLRA does not meet our needs.
Union - How can the DLRB be an independent authority when the majority are management selected and under the auspices of the Secretary of Defense? What about the union having equal numbers?
Mgmt - Something to be worked out, it may be possible to have an equal number with the odd participant jointly selected or something
FMCS - Explained that the DOD reps had to leave at 3:30 and asked whether we wanted to continue or break till morning - it was decided to break at 3:30.
DOD NSPS Meeting February 27, 2004
Union - Will FLRA case law be used for the DLRB? What about employee appeal rights?
Mgmt - It will be available for review and used as they see fit. The appeals process is not part of the Labor Relations System. We are working with MSPB on what it will look like and will share once it is completed.
Union - We have concerns with the DLRB being an independent body. We need some type of check and balance. Why not let the DLRB create the LR system? There is no equal ground.
Mgmt - We are building the LR system, the DLRB will support but they are independent. We do not believe it would be necessary to have them involved in the creation of the system.
Union - It seems that the DLRB is just for management not for employees.
Mgmt - DHS has a similar plan in their new system so we do not understand your rationale. This board would be similar to the FLRA - rules will be set for them to follow.
Union - this board makes DOD the judge and jury.
Mgmt - It seems that there are two issues here, 1) independence of adjudicators and 2) the adjudicator can be independent even though the rules are set our by DOD.
Union - With FLRA, we have the option of going to court with this we canít
Mgmt - Correct
Union - Where will this board be located?
Mgmt - Donít know
Union - At the hearing 2 days ago, Voinovich expressed contempt at the proposal of having a board hand-picked by DOD. We would like to hear what OPMís opinion is on the elimination of the grievance and arbitration process.
Mgmt (OPM) - OPM just got involved - we can only speak to DHS, they have proposed to retain the grievance and arbitration process.
Union - What about the collective bargaining agreements and the process outlined in those?
Mgmt - Donít know, DOD needs may be different
Union - We thought this proposal was supposed to be jointly created by OPM and DOD, what happened there?
Mgmt - We are not addressing OPMís views of this proposal, this is a DOD meeting. What is proposed in DHS may not be what comes out of DOD.
Much discussion and debate on process, DOD is not allowing OPM to respond
Union - Then it would be fair to say that this proposal is strictly from DOD and was not jointly developed.
Mgmt (OPM) - Correct, we were not involved until this week.
Mgmt (G.G) - I am responsible for creation of the civilian labor relations system and I will respond to any question as I see fit.
Union - Thank you, we have the record
Union - We still have a problem with DOD creating the system and setting all the rules. Who will be appointed to this board and what is the term?
Mgmt - Donít know, havenít gotten there yet.
Union - We do not see FLRA as a major problem, why the need for such a drastic change
Mgmt - We had heard that the unions were not necessarily happy with FLRA.
Union - Maybe we do not always agree but the process is better than what is proposed. The DLRB will have no power, why would we need them?
Mgmt - The DLRB could order the parties back to the consult process.
Union - How will FLRA decisions, court cases, etc be used.
Mgmt - Text of those materials will be available for review and may be used to develop our own policies.
Union - Are the grievance and arbitration processes off the table?
Mgmt - We have made no definitive decision.
Union - Has the decision been made to keep the grievance and arbitration process out of the LR system?
Mgmt - No definitive decision has been made?
Union - The Board has no right to order status quo ante and we have a problem with independence of this board when DOD is setting the rules, we hope and urge OPM to take a very close look at this system. Letís go more into arbitration.
Mgmt - That is not part of the LR system so we are not going there. That portion is not available for discussion.
Union - What about District Court cases?
Mgmt - We are establishing our own system, the DLRB will have to look at some cases if standards have not already been set.
Union - There is not a balance between our rights, there is no charge filing system, investigation process and hearing process - are you eliminating due process? These things are not in here anywhere.
Mgmt - There is a possibility, we will have to look - there is a 30 day timeframe - it does not say that DLRB has a timeframe, the 30 days is for the local grievance process.
Right now there is no process for hearings by this independent body.
Union - We would suggest that any system created have due process included
Mgmt - We are trying to create a streamline process and do not have anything set up.
Union - Would DOD be open to including any of the items we currently have, i.e., grievance process, and arbitration?
Mgmt - Look, we are back to this - We have already heard that you want binding arbitration. We feel that we have proposed what is needed.
Union - It is important that collective bargaining be defined.
Mgmt - We have already defined, it is a form of consultation
Union - We feel that the appeals process is part of the LR system and need to see that.
Mgmt - We already stated that we do not have it.
Union - Will DOD consider discussing the parts all together? The answer is no because you wonít even begin talking to us about it now.
Could the employee raise their issue through another process and/or the Union process?
Mgmt - Possibly
Union - Do you see our problem? We need to see both proposals and processes
Mgmt - no response
Union - This afternoon, maybe we could have 10 minutes of discussion on the appeals process so we can see your intent for discussion
Mgmt - we have no information to discuss - those concepts are not firmed up.
Union - We need to re-frame the discussion because we know you are working hard on this.
Mgmt - We have no answer or information on the appeals process and will not change the Apr. 20 date.
Union - We suggest you reframe the conversation
Mgmt - Sure
Union - FOIA implies no discovery - to meet timeframes for 15-30 days, FOIA takes too long, how is the union supposed to get information in a timely manner?
Mgmt - So you are concerned about getting info and FOIA is not a good process? Do you have another way?
Union - Articulate to us, why chapter 71 is not good.
Mgmt - No response
Union - Time limits - issue is whether FOIA is a standard - is it of public interest? We donít need to go to the current FLRA standard of showing particularized need, the normal court standard of whether it is relevant.
Union - Appeals/due process - both intertwined, what is urgency in implementing? Why create artificial deadline? Is it possible to get final product because we need to discuss as a unit?
Mgmt - We have no final product, the offer was made that after lunch, we would discuss. Apr. 20 is not an arbitrary date. If we implement in Oct., we must present the program process.
Union - #2 The working group is working hard, we are renewing our request, why not allow us to be part of the working group? Why cut us off?
Mgmt - We need to get a handle on how we want to handle what we want.
There are two different products, a labor and appeals system.
Union - In all fairness to management, we understand this is a work in progress, we know you gave the personnel portion to OPM yesterday
Mgmt - This is not germane to this conversation
Union - Will there be another meeting to discuss?
Mgmt - NoÖ.do not know
Union - Since there is no process, you should withdraw #1 & 11 then come talk to us.
Mgmt - We disagree, we are not going to talk about the employees appeal process, it is not part of this.
Union - But itís in here
Mgmt - We had a union proposal to address after lunch
Union - No we wanted discussion.
We have not been engaged in any type of collaborative process.
Mgmt - There are 3 pieces, the main HR, LR and the appeals systems - no other part is developed and we will not discuss.
Union - #11 is not a concept, it is an indication that somewhere down the road, employees rights are going to be affected.
Mgmt - We are developing how it all fits together
Union - If you donít know how to enforce, how can you discuss?
Mgmt - We disagree
Union - Arbitration - how do the institutional rights of the union get protected? You are getting rid of our collective bargaining rights and all.
Mgmt - Our concept is the DLRB
Union - What is the Oct. 1 date?
Mgmt - We are on a fast track, Apr. 20, we provide our document to you, the rules, you have a 30-day response time, then we implement Oct. 1.
Union - What about the grievance/arbitration issue?
Mgmt - We are taking input and will consider, we have not developed the process.
Union - What do we tell employees?
Mgmt - We donít know today, will have by Oct.
Union - The letter states that you will take our input and consider but we are hearing that this is a done deal - You cannot eliminate employee rights while simplifying the system.
Mgmt - We are respecting employee rights but that does not mean we have to do things as we are today.
Union - So what will happen to existing employee complaints on Oct. 1?
Mgmt - We will have to develop a process to move them over to the new system
Union - What about those working in the arbitration process as defined in the CBA?
Mgmt - We will have to look at and decide.
Union - What does fee for service have to do with National Security?
Mgmt - We understood that Unions had a problem with representing non-members - we can take it out.
Union - Where did you hear that?
Mgmt - It is documented in GAO reports and studies
Union - Explain how this concept would work
Mgmt - We assume that you would charge those that arenít members
Union - So then one employee could go to another employee for representation for free but to go to the Union, it would cost them?
Is it DODís intent to have one union to represent all DOD?
Mgmt - No, we are giving employees the tight to choose who represents them.
Union - We have already been chosen. What about what is going on in the Navy with the consolidation petition?
Mgmt - Navyís petition is Navy decision and they are doing it under current Chapter 71 rules
Union - Wipes out many of us in this room - Does DOD plan to extend this to the private sector? This is union busting
Mgmt - No comment
Union - Under the proposal, what about case law?
Mgmt - We gave you fee for service, you have no obligation to represent
Union - Has the agency looked at fair share?
Mgmt - It will be the employeesí choice.
Union - Does DOD really have the authority to do this?
Mgmt - We think so. What about right to work states?
Union - Would not be an exception
Is it DODís intent to combine similar functions and combine bargaining units?
Mgmt - No, itís not.
Union - Is it possible?
Mgmt - We already answered that, possibly.
Union - What is the good of a fee for service when we canít represent?
Mgmt - No response
Union - Would collective bargaining have the same definition as in chapter 71?
Mgmt - No, it is a consultation process. It is clear that you do not support this concept.
Union - Will you publish regs and definitions?
Mgmt - Yes
Union - You looked at the Unionís concern in relation to the fee for service, did you look at other reports addressing union concerns?
Mgmt - No, we mainly looked at disputes which hinder mission and that was the only concern that comes to mind that was looked at.
Union - By excluding some and effectively denying representation, we should combineÖÖ
Mgmt - Wait, letís finish #2
Union - #2 If the union receives a fee for service, some reports state that there will be no official time, is this your intent?
Mgmt - No but in relation to #10, yes, it has specific reason for representation.
Union - #10 does not address representational functions, why? We feel that this is beyond the scope of the law.
Mgmt - This could be for representational functionsÖat the sole discretion of the supervisor
Union - It seems that the only right for the employee is the right to pay dues. Did this model come form anywhere in particular?
Mgmt - No
Union - Is there a source for this concept that addresses the organizing and 50% anywhere in the world.
Mgmt - What is definition of organizing?
Union - yes
Mgmt - Are you saying there is no organizing? We are trying to change the standard where a small portion of the employees will not drive the entire bargaining unit.
Union - Where did you get that standard? Any study?
Mgmt - What standard?
Union - Majority of votes cast
Mgmt - Ok
Union - Name one elected official that is elected this way. Need to re-look at official time - there is no study that official time is abused in DOD.
Mgmt - ok
FMCS - Can we move on?
Union - Explain how bullet #2 works on #3.
Mgmt - We are not trying to select the unions, this would allow flexibility so that the bargaining units could be re-defined.
Union - National Level bargaining - why play around with this? You only have 10-12 unions, just bring them in.
How do you propose to implement #3? We get the impression that you may want to consolidate DOD schools and #3 allows this, is that true?
Mgmt - Yes. We could also say status quo in DOD schools but the law allows us to develop a new labor relations system so chapter 71 goes away.
Union - What will trigger the new definitions?
Mgmt - Same as today - if you file a clarification of unit, it goes to FLRA, tomorrow, it will go to the DLRB. Initially, we will try to get the unions to work out the differences, if they cannot, it will go to the DLRB for determination.
Union - Could units accrete?
Mgmt - We do not provide for accretion - there would probably have to be an election
Union - How would successorship or accretion play into this?
Mgmt - Not addressed here, we will have to decide.
Union - Concern with exclusions, how do these exclusions play into National Security? Does the standard mean to be tougher?
Mgmt - Anyone with a security clearance would be exempt.
Union - No, it should be a much tougher standard to be excluded from the b.u. since all DOD could possibly be put under this.
Mgmt - We hear you
Union - Supervisor provision?
Mgmt - Only supervisor of military?
Union - Civilian employees who supervise part-time military excluded?
Mgmt - Yes - no supervisor are to be represented
Union - And you wonder why we say you are union busting?
Ok - work leaders?
Mgmt - Those classified as work leaders - even collateral duties
Union - terms and temps?
Mgmt - excluded
Union - Work leaders are not truly supervisors. What about certifications. How did DAWIA get named?
Mgmt - the intent was that the work they do as compared to others, i.e. training, program oversight, etc.
Union - So you say they are professionals, do they get an increase in pay? Would we have to have a new election all over again?
Mgmt - No guarantee, could require on or could be in bargaining unit, we will have to see. Pay - No.
Union - 5 U.S.C. 7135 grandfathers many supervisors, is it your intent to exclude?
Mgmt - Yes, if supervisors.
Union - At the depot level, we have many students who are permanent civil servants, will they be excluded?
Mgmt - Yes, students are excluded; they will be eligible once they become full time.
Union - What standard will you use to identify units?
Mgmt - Its here - efficient and effective running of mission is our standard.
Union - How will the 5 to 7 member board be able to handle all the work?
Mgmt - 5 to 7 members make decision - still looking at possible regions and make-up of body.
Union - Show us where you are not just simply taking away all rights
Mgmt - Just making a new system - it will not be status quo because we have issues with current process
Union - What is the definition of Professional? If itís essentially the same, but now includes DAWAI, why?
Mgmt - We have many professionals involved in this policy.
Union - What about engineers?
Mgmt - Thought process is of what management is involved in. But we give them a way to become bargaining unit if election is done. There is no clear-cut answer.
Union - Are you going to look at each?
Mgmt - Concept already allows them to be in unit. Not going to look at each position. Police officers can be in the bargaining unit,
Anyone who works in a confidential manner - formulates agency policy, not just LR policy
Union - Why are you excluding students etc temps and work leaders just carte blanche - why not duty driven?
Mgmt - Temps are a different status - we are being consistent
Union - Teachers are being singled out - they have no access to classified info
Mgmt - Whatever the unit is - for example, FEA Unit
Union - What about temporary appts - we have some temporaries on 1-yr. appointments for 6-7 years?
Mgmt - Yes, any temp appt.
Union - Why?
Mgmt - That is the proposal on the table
Union - What about work leaders?
Mgmt - Only if they are classified as such
Union - We hope you review positions excluded from the bargaining unit - Why do you exclude attorneys?
Mgmt - We see them as advisors to mgmt
Union requested a caucus
Decided unions would meet again March 11 for meeting on strategies - Mtg. will be held at AFGE
Body expressed the need for disclaimers to their proposals in the record - Mark Roth would do that after lunch.
Union For the record - We want to be very clear that our being here is in no way a waiver of our rights to challenge the legality of the concepts proposed including specifically this meeting.
We also remind you of the advance copy of the typed minutes discussed previously, with a 24 hour turnaround.
Nothing discussed today is to be viewed or construed as a counterproposal.
To the extent that there is anything left out or undressed today, we object, in itĎs entirety to the concept paper as anti union, anti employee and anti National Security.
Mgmt - No response
Union - Why are teachers being treated differently - that deserves an answer?
Mgmt - Tried to explain how we came up with teachers. They are very important - We have a process for them to be included in the union - canít explain it anymore.
Union - We believe #4 is Anti-Union - What part of this is National Security
Mgmt - Relates to changing entire system - 1st bullet gives employees a choice
#2 - This is when dues continued when employee drops out and looking for a way to recoup funds
Union - What about when management fails to do their portion for dues deduction. #4 absolves mgmt of all responsibility
Mgmt - This is for money erroneously paid to union - This is for disputes between union and employee. We will not get involved - it will be up to the union to pay. Could add language to clarify - these are valid points - donít have an answer now.
Union - Exacerbating, this is an opportunity for mistakes, then absolving yourself of mistakes. You control 1188s - how can we be held responsible?
When will we get the entire picture? Why canít we collaborate when we get the entire package?
Mgmt - You will get the package April 20th
Union - I take exception because it is as if you are speaking to us like we are children.
Union - I have sat here for the last two days listening to your bullsh**. I represent over 600,000 DOD employees. We are not going to be a part of this dog and pony show anymore. We will leave our labor relations and attorneys here to finish this. The DEFCON Steering Group is leaving.