Flight Standards, AFS-700, AVN and MIDO

In October 2008, PASS and the FAA met to discuss the impasses for our Flight Standards, AFS-700, AVN and MIDO negotiations. PASS submitted new proposals to the agency on the open issues and asked that the FAA resume bargaining. The agency claimed that the discussions were "informal" and did not constitute bargaining, even though the union had offered new proposals that were materially different from the union's previous offers. The agency took this position in an attempt to preserve the ability to impose "contracts" on the workforce under its flawed interpretation of FAA Personnel Reform legislation, as it did to NATCA.

Not only did the FAA's representatives insist that the discussions were not negotiations, but they also informed PASS that the agency wanted to re-open 56 different sections of articles on which the Parties had already tentatively agreed. While subsequent discussion lowered this number to 44, it became clear that the agency now wanted to change the terms of many articles on which the Parties had already reached agreement—while also maintaining a status of being at impasse.

Because the agency claimed that the talks were informal and refused to negotiate over the union's new proposals, PASS was forced to file a national grievance on November 7, 2008. An arbitrator recently ruled that the agency did not violate the Statute and the CBA when it refused to bargain because the Parties had not specifically agreed in advance that the October 2008 meeting would be considered a bargaining session. In PASS's view, the arbitrator's ruling is incorrect as a matter of law and PASS has filed an appeal with the FLRA.

In the interim, the PASS National President Tom Brantley and FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt have discussed re-engaging in collective bargaining in all five PASS-FAA bargaining units and the possibility of negotiating a "master" agreement for all units, with addendums covering matters that are unique to one or more of the units. PASS agreed to explore this possibility and the Parties are attempting to reach agreement on a process to be used for the purpose of negotiating a master agreement.



Technical Operations

As previously reported, a new contract in our Tech Ops bargaining unit remains tied up in litigation. As you may recall, PASS and the FAA initially began negotiations for a new Tech Ops agreement in the summer of 2005. However, before the Parties ever met to negotiate over the terms of a new agreement, the agency refused to agree to reasonable ground rules to govern the negotiations. Among the issues on which the agency insisted was that the negotiations be concluded in 90 days. The agency wanted this so that it could quickly submit open issues to Congress for unilateral implementation, as it did to NATCA. The agency also adamantly opposed language confirming that any tentative agreement would be subject to membership ratification. The ground rules dispute was eventually submitted to the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) for resolution. While the FSIP affirmed the right of PASS members to ratify an agreement, it also imposed an arbitrary deadline for the end of bargaining.

Once the ground rules dispute was resolved and the Parties began negotiations over the contract articles, it became clear that the agency had no intention of reaching an agreement that addressed the needs of PASS members. The conduct of the agency's negotiators was beyond offensive. They were arrogant and dismissive in their interactions with PASS's negotiating team. The agency's negotiators made it very clear that they believed they were in the driver's seat and had no obligation to agree to anything proposed by PASS because, in the end, the agency could simply impose whatever terms it wanted. Although virtually all of the agency's proposals involved the elimination of employee-favorable language from the existing agreement, among the agency's more offensive contract demands were the following:

• No guaranteed annual pay increases. In fact, an employee at the top of one of the agency's gerrymandered pay bands, would receive nothing—not even a lump-sum payment! This would mean pay cuts for more than two-thirds of the employees in the bargaining unit.
• No right to Alternate Work Schedule (AWS).
• Watch schedule no longer negotiated. Schedule to be determined by management.
• No "prime vacation time" periods designated for employees to take at least three consecutive weeks off.
• No right to file a grievance over improper Career Level Definition (CLD).
• No national or regional safety representatives.
• No regional assistants.
• No local or regional midterm bargaining.
• Would allow the agency to detail PASS representatives to non-bargaining unit positions at management's discretion. Essentially, this means that the agency would be able to dictate who can be a PASS representative.

Based on the agency's behavior at the bargaining table, PASS concluded that the agency had no intention of reaching an agreement designed to satisfy the needs of both Parties. It became clear that the agency's last offer was probably the best that could be obtained under the circumstances. Therefore, PASS accepted the agency's proposal in March of 2006. PASS also made it clear to the agency that it did so to give the members an opportunity to voice their opinion, which the agency had tried so hard to deny.

While PASS members voted overwhelmingly not to ratify the tentative agreement (more than 98 percent of voting members voted No in the secret ballot referendum), the FAA pursued an unfair labor practice (ULP) case against PASS. The FAA's charges were initially dismissed by the FLRA's regional director but were later reinstated by the FLRA's general counsel. After a trial before an administrative law judge, a decision was rendered dismissing all charges against PASS. Immediately following the judge's decision, PASS again sent the agency a letter asking the FAA to return to the bargaining table. Instead, the FAA chose to appeal the judge's decision, which is where we remain today.

As described above, PASS and the FAA are exploring ways to resolve all of the legal and bargaining disputes in conjunction with negotiating a master PASS-FAA collective bargaining agreement. This is a large, complicated and unprecedented undertaking, which, if successful, has the potential to benefit PASS and all PASS members.