DFAS/AFGE Council 171
National Negotiation Session Notes
Jan 29, 2003
Attendees: Bob McNamara, Kelley Dull, Connie Townes, Darryl Roberts, Ed Wiatr, Frank Rock, Debra Williams, Art Gold, Pablo Rodriguez, Maria Durante, Theresa Briley, Bill Roach, Pete Heins, Mark McDonald, Mark Durinski, Robin Smith, Ron Coe, Carolyn Howell
Note-takers: Debbie Maslanka, Angela Beltowski
Union Caucus until 8:05
Workforce Transition Program
Rich proposed the following language in PCS portion.
When paying PCS to other Federal Agencies IAW Government language and regulations would be beneficial to both the affected employees and DFAS. For example, paying PCS cost for an employee, who is scheduled to be separated, and PCS costs would be less than separation costs (severance pay, benefits etc). To be eligible for consideration affected employees must meet the same eligibility requirements as criteria to enroll in DOD’s PPP.
The Union feels that our language and Management’s original language is close to the same and that we could use a, b, and c. The original a, Union’s language on b and the new paragraph on c. The term potentially affected employees being taken out of the paragraph is an issue for the Union. A addresses employees that fall under DFAS or DOD transfer. B addresses transfers outside agencies. The original language should have had some of the proposed language because the original did not include reference to regulation.
Management did some modification of what Rich had written. "When paying PCS within DFAS, to DOD, and other Federal Agencies IAW Government laws and regulations, would be beneficial to DFAS and the affected or potentially affected employees. For example, paying PCS cost for and employee, who is scheduled to be separated, and PCS costs would be less than separation costs (severance pay, benefits etc). To be eligible for consideration affected employees must meet the same eligibility requirements as criteria to enroll in DOD’s PPP."
Union needs time to review the language. Management proposed that we wait until lunch to discuss and move on with language. We would prefer to discuss now.
It is known that we cannot go against any laws or regulation. All government rules and regulations apply to all items negotiated as well as any negotiated agreements.
It is agreed that the following language will be acceptable: "When paying PCS within DFAS and to DOD, and other Federal Agencies IAW Government laws, regulations, and negotiated agreements would be beneficial to DFAS and the affected or potentially affected employees. For example, paying PCS cost for and employee, who is scheduled to be separated, and PCS costs would be less than separation costs (severance pay, benefits etc)."
We are not trying to PCS an employee that has a disciplinary action against them. This is in the DOD regulation.
What is the intent of the Workforce Transition Program? To satisfy as many adverse affects due to Management’s decision to reorganize. It softens the landing for employees adversely affected.
Is this a workforce transition program or for RIF? It is for any reorganization, etc. that is causing employees to lose their job. This is ok as long as this doesn’t change the bargaining requirements in the contract. The right to reorganize is a Management right. When Management does a reorganization that results in a RIF, the Union will receive notice in accordance with regulations/contracts. Reorganization is 30 days, RIF is 60 days. If any element in the Agency makes a decision to reorganize then Management will follow all proper procedures (laws, regulations, negotiated agreement).
The Union wants to make sure that no part of the negotiated agreements conflicts with this agreement. The intent of this plan is to address adverse impact of management exercising one of its rights.
Question was asked of Rich if this is just for RIF? Rich responded yes.
There is a chance of going through reorganization in some instances without a RIF action. The workforce program fills the gap on adverse impact. The Contracts only give details of the actions that must take place. We lost sight of what we are trying to accomplish here. Taking care of people is the main goal. This concern comes out of the discussion yesterday about CR Restructure.
For the Record: The parties mutually agree that nothing in this agreement shall conflict with the applicable provisions of existing negotiated agreements. In the event a conflict exists the negotiated agreements shall be controlling. Proposed language from Ron to add to the applicability statement.
It was Bob’s understanding that it was applicable to all DFAS. This is targeted to employees losing their jobs. This plan is for RIF’s. Kelley - when we went into a discussion, the locals need to negotiate, need access job fairs, program that are out there for the Department of Labor.
Darryl – Impact + Implementation
WTP (Workforce transition Plan)
LS (Local supplement)
Ron – Difference between the locals, so they can apply to a plan.
Mark – Denver – (addressing) jobs fairs,
Debbie – Asking for examples
Darryl – Nobody has answered his question… Does it impede on this plan?
We have already done what we were supposed to do.
Teresa – Those things have been done. We have to adhere to the contract. Will this plan work.
Ron – Will it be positive.
Darryl – I just want an answer to my question.
Mark – Will we negotiate locally. Are we going to slow the trend down?
Ed – No, I wouldn’t want to slow down or impede on the process. The local official to become part of the process.
We talked and we cannot waive any Local rights. We have worked hard to get a fair plan for the employees
Management proposed language: "Nothing in the process of negotiating local supplements to this plan shall impede the timeframe established for implementation of management’s decision."
What is meant by timeframe? We want to negotiate a workforce transition program for actions that may be taken. This is the National level for that process.
Local discussions cannot impede the negotiation process at the National level.
We recognize that it is a good program as well. We cannot stop the Agency from doing what they need to do but we have to protect the employee’s and local unions.
Bob-This is being pulled off the table and the process can be locally negotiated. These processes will be used for non-bargaining unit employees. When these are brought back to the national level, we will not agree to some of the issues that have been agreed to here. When it comes back I will not agree to pay PCS costs for employees going to Agencies outside of DFAS, admin time etc.
I don’t think we’ll ever get to this point where we will get this good of a packet again. You have not heard Pete and Darryl give differences. You have not asked what Adverse Impact means.
For the Record: Adverse impact is losing your job (separation) or downgrade.
Adverse impact can mean different things. Adverse Effect can possibly be understood better. We want the local presidents to be able to work with local management on these procedures.
There is no way the Council can guarantee that local negotiations will not slow the process. We cannot know what will happen between local union and management.
When local negotiations happen, management doesn’t want some things renegotiated.
This is the plan that we will follow. The items that can be negotiated will be items that are site specific i.e. job fairs, state and local organizations, etc.
We want a way for the locals to be proactively involved in the process.
The intent behind the locals is to compliment the Council. Not to infringe upon the agreements made here.
Maybe we can craft some language or add to what Management has proposed for language to get to where we need to go. Ron had some good language that may get us past this along with the above language. We lose a lot of time going around an issue.
We are only saying that nothing in supplementing this plan shall impede the timeframe established by management.
Communication is an issue. If we trust each other then we would stay in the main room to discuss issues. Together we reach better agreements.
Timeframes are addressed in the contract. If the contract says you will be notified within 60 days then that is when you will be notified. Minimum is 60 days. This date can slip but cannot stop the implementation. Talks can continue but on the 61st day, implementation can take place. When talking about timelines. We get a notification and a package telling who is going to be effected. Does implementation mean on the 61st day people would be going out the door? On the 61st day people would be going out the door. Early registration, VERA/VISP must be taken care of prior to the 61st day to keep it voluntary. Most managers have a proactive approach to benefit the employees in these situations. Everything in these packets will happen to employees, prior to RIF notice for the 60-day window. The 60-day window starts when the employee receives the RIF notice. Some of the items in the packet will be done prior to RIF notice and some after. A mock RIF does not start the count for the 60-day window.
Pete and Ron will work on language for this.
Working on Notes for the rest of the time allotted.