MANAGEMENT/UNION NEGOTIATIONS SESSION
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2001
MANAGEMENT TEAM MEMBERS: Bob McNamara; Sally Smith; Carolyn Howell; George John; Joe Childers; Lee Etter; Pablo Rodriguez; Pete Heins; Teresa Briley, Darryl Roberts; Debra Williams;
UNION TEAM MEMBERS: Brenda Adrine; Ernest Smith; Kelley Dull; Faye Williams; Rodney Badley; Marilyn Hicks; Ron Coe; Cassandra Williams; Charles Coates; Charles Warlick; Frank Rock.
NOTETAKERS: Angela Beltowski and Donna Wayne.
- Executive Summary
- Done Jointly
For the Record: (previous language proposed by Bob McNamara is rewritten below)
The DFAS/AFGE National Council renews its long-established commitment to employee involvement in establishing or modifying performance standards. We also recognize the added value the input of AFGE represents to management in developing effective and meaningful performance standards for bargaining unit employees.
To that end, we encourage the input of AFGE officials in the development of performance standards for bargaining unit employees. This voluntary, cooperative approach provides managers with the flexibility to determine the method and scope of union input to achieve the objective of this endorsement.
For the Record: This will be a joint statement issued by the chairs as written.
- Over the summer all IT Policies were combined into one document with a regulation number.
- Local policies cannot be inconsistent with the agency regulation.
- The union has a concern that items that are subject to negotiations are being buried in messages and attachments in e-mails.
- In order to afford the union time to review, recommended by Pete to pull off the table.
- The union doesnít want any implementation of local policies based on 80001.R that is the concern.
- The agency policy has not changed.
- What is out there does not go against the agency policy.
- Only the adverse impacts can be negotiated.
- Management feels itís essential that the regulation be out there due to security reasons. They are willing to negotiate the regulation now or at the next session and are willing to discuss items of adverse impact as they arise.
- The union has recommended the following language: The union recommends a moratorium on any adverse or disciplinary action as a direct consequence of 80001.R implementation. This does not effect policies already negotiated.
- Management cannot have their hands tied on disciplinary actions. Cannot relinquish the right to discipline an employee who breaks security rules and regulations. Can we take a look at what has been provided to identify what could be an adverse impact? Need clarification of frank form.
- Only referring to the policies that were attached. They are not new policies. The union is prepared to negotiate 80001.R at this time. We want to start the beginning of the regulation. No one has a copy of the full regulation.
- Briefing done by Ed Kufeldt, Resource Management (HQ)
- What is the DFAS strategy?
- Tracking the status of the strategy.
- The vision is to give the best value to our customers.
- Goals are steps we are taking to achieve tenets.
- Balance Scorecard is a tool.
- Customers, financial, systems and processes, growth and learning are BSC perspectives.
- It is up to the business line manager how far the BSC cascades down.
- Corporate to business line is there but not all business line take it down to the sites.
- Hard cascading linkage, between cooperate and business line BSC.
- Union attendance at BSC meetings so that they can have first hand information and be able to pass down the information. This would be a good thing to address next week at the Executive offsite that the Council E-board will be attending.
- We must be working on the MEO process now instead of waiting on an A-76 to take place. Communications is working on a package to roll out to give out more information to the employees. Employee focus groups that do the work can give comments and concerns about the process.
- Balance Scorecard is a management tool to measure performance.
- BSC is handled differently from site to site and business line to business line. Management is willing to do part of the briefing at the offsite with the union to address this.
For the record:
It is agreed that will negotiate any changes in working conditions that result from the Balance Scorecard as we always have.
For the Record: After reviewing the packet we have identified 5 concerns that they have at this time. The most recently updated was on November 2, 2001, that was not included. Information Assurance has been on the agenda for A-46 team and Bob Campbell said, "there was no information." Would like to start on this first thing in the morning.
- De-linking will not be mandated by the DFAS Director but will be the decision of the business line Director.
- Who is going to contact the business line managers and find out their view on De-linking? (Marilyn)
- If the entire business line decides on De-linking, it becomes a council issue. (Darryl)
- If it is a business line policy it needs to come the council. (Debra)
- Does the council go to the business Director and ask, what is your preference De-linking or not? (George)
- It is in a MOU with the Council, that a change in a business line would be negotiated by the Council.
- Types /Amounts of Awards
- Quarterly Reports
- Notification of Award $
- Management Notification
- BLE Informs Workforce
- Supervisors: emphasis on fairness, equity, etc
- Schedule date?
- 30-60 days after start of cycle (i.e. NLT June 30th)
- Columbus Model
- Role of LMC? (Local Issue)
- BL Union Representative
- Award Committee Ė Joint
- Tell the Director to consider the impact of unilateral implementation along BLís
- Uniform application
Ernest Smith Robert McNamara
President, AFGE Council 171 Management Co-Chair DFAS/AFGE
National Negotiating Team