ERR MOU Change Campaign

[MJ]

9/6 Update: added letter to congress and contact info into post on page 3.

I'll summarize below what's happened so far to keep continuity.

Here's my personal position on the err mou/sop.

A letter writing campaign to the RVPs was conducted. Numerous people around the country contacted me expressing their support, sending letters, and writing their own. The letter is attached to the bottom of this post. Our facility received a visit from our RVP to address this, unfortunately not much came from it. Here's my notes regarding that:

Spoiler: meeting notes

a change to to the next panel will be the rounding, so if the avg is 85.0 and a selection places the fac at 84.5 or up, the selection will be allowed. Yippee

he has no idea how they're going to get N90 staffed (he actually said that)

admitted the goal of the mou was to keep people in place so trainees get certified

blamed faa hiring and facility training programs for lack of staffing and movement ability

admitted that the natl avg theory 'might' not work but they "needed a starting point". Also confirmed the percentages were arbitrarily selected.

in the event two people at the same fac file for the same fac and only one gets picked, the person who filed first is selected

admitted that direct hire placements into the high level facs haven't "worked as well as hoped" (who would have guessed)

Big facilities are screwed and will have to "suffer" while small facs get staffed up

I've since contacted the MSPB, the reply follows:

Spoiler: MSPB reply

Thank you for your inquiry. The MSPB is like a court. We have limited jurisdiction to hear appeals from certain personnel actions (such as removals, demotions, or suspensions of more than 14 days) taken against certain government employees. The Board does not have jurisdiction over all actions taken against government employees. The Board has no investigative authority, and is prohibited by statute from giving advisory opinions. Thus, we cannot provide you with legal advice regarding your specific situation. You can find a great deal of information about the Board, and its jurisdiction, at our website, www.mspb.gov.

The Board does not have general jurisdiction over prohibited personnel practices. However, allegations of prohibited personnel practices may be raised as a defense in an action otherwise appealable to the Board, i.e., a removal, demotion, etc. Additionally, an employee may file an individual right of action (IRA) appeal where he alleges personnel actions, which are not otherwise appealable to the Board, were threatened, proposed, taken, or not taken because of his whistleblowing activities. For more information on appeals involving whistleblowing, including IRA appeals, please review our regulations at 5 CFR part 1209. Please note that only one of the Board's administrative judges can make a determination whether the Board would have jurisdiction over an appeal from you, and only if you actually file an appeal. If you wish to file an appeal, you can do so electronically through the Board’s e-appeal site.

Additionally, based on your description of events, you may want to contact the Office of Special Counsel, at www.osc.gov, if you believe your employer has engaged in prohibited personnel practices. The Office of Special Counsel has the authority to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices. Also, if you believe illegal discrimination is involved, you could also file an EEO complaint with your employing agency. Finally, if you are covered under a collective bargaining agreement at your agency, you may also have rights to grieve these actions under that agreement.

I contacted the OSC, but because of the title 5 exemptions, they have no authority to investigate the FAA for this type of compliant/violation. The complaint is attached below.

I reached out to a couple law firms dealing in federal labor law. The one who replied didn't deal with this type of thing (MSPB is their specialty?), and recommended contacting senators and reps, and specifically those on the oversight committee. I plan on composing such a letter (or if someone else would like to help) and making it available here.

Additionally, I plan on filing a grievance once this next panel concludes. I'll update here, and make the info available if anyone else wants to do the same.

Lastly, while I've been trying to keep things as factual as possible, I will spill some relevant hearsay. A friend of mine spent some off-duty time where alcohol consumption may have taken place with an RVP. He confessed that there are a lot of people mad, and there are rumblings that things may need to be changed. So keep letting them know what you think.

7/12 update: Heard back from the Office of the Inspector General today. They don't have jurisdiction over this type of thing. Process of elimination... They suggested I contact the office of secretary of the DOT, so I did.

Also, the deadline for the information request I submitted in late june is this week. We'll see if that happens.

7/15 update: Heard back from SecDOT. They told me I should get a lawyer

7/26 update: I received the reply to the info request, it went along these lines: "Was I considered....?", "You were not considered iaw ERR MOU."
Rest of questions answered with "N/A". Exactly what I expected, and I filed the grievance today, citing violations of the PMS under prohibited personnel practices and merit principles.

8/13 update: Not much of an update, but I did get my first level grievance back. To summarize they denied it based on the fact the process was negotiated, and I didn't cite a violation of the contract (don't have to; it can be any law, reg etc.) The regs I cited are incorporated into the contract (word for word), so next level resubmission will include that. Also looking into filing a ULP.
I think it would be incredibly helpful if facilities filed on behalf of all its employees. Something for you all to bring up with your FACREPS...

 

[MJ]

The following list of questions is from Brad Jackman. I thought them worth preserving, as they are representative of most questions I and others have.

• What is the metric by which the new MOU and SOP's success or failure going to be judged?
• If the first panel did not meet expectations (as we've been told), what are the expectations for the next panel, and if those are not met, what will be done?
• At what point will the numbers be reconsidered? Has NATCA determined a cutoff date for success?
• All the staffing numbers and ERRs were available prior to beginning the program, why did it not meet expectations? Were simulations run to see how it would all shake out? If so, what did they show? At what point were we expected to return to some level of career progression? Or, is NATCA just flying by the seat of it's pants and waiting to see what happens?
• How many ERR and bid moves were there in 2015, and how many are projected to be moved under the new system in the same 12 month period? Is this number expected to increase or decrease each year, and is that projection based upon the same numbers that led to faulty high expectations for the first panel?
• Is any consideration being given to the fact that this is hindering upward mobility?
• Why is NATCA rewarding the FAA for poor hiring practices by playing into it's desire to have "good numbers" to show to congress, and penalizing it's bargaining unit members for playing by the rules and trying to move up?
• Why was this new massive upheaval of movement not discussed with the bargaining unit members first?
• Is there any plan to adjust the metric improve upward mobility? If so, what would change to improve mobility? If not, why?
• Why was the formula for determining what facilities can receive controllers set to match the release policy? That's not part of the MOU or the SOP, and seems to have been set arbitrarily. Who set this policy, and will it be lifted or changed or continue to be enforced?
• If every facility is being staffed to the average, then nobody will ever be able to move. Why is an "average" important for NATCA to reach?
• Why is there no maximum level transfer limit? Why are we allowing new CPCs from Level 5s, who may have been in the FAA for a year, to transfer to high level facilities when those staffed "at the average" at mid level facilities who played by the rules and tried to move up incrementally can't leave?
• Why is there no consideration for experience, work ethic, seniority, length of service at a facility, etc? These things could all be considered on a bid.
• Why not move all applications to bids, instead of ERRs?
• Why not add a penalty (1-2 years, no bidding/ERRing) for those who turn down a move they requested?
• Has NATCA seen an increase in the number of hardships filed due to the lack of mobility?
• What is being done about staffing at N90 and other impossible-to-staff facilities? If nobody ERRs there, or not even enough to cover retirements, how are they going to staff the facility?

 

[HenryTheAce]

Do you think it'll be hard for people at higher level facilities to move laterally?? Let's say from a level 11 to a level 11? In training at ZMP but would love to get to D21

 

[MJ]

Yes. There is one factor and one factor only that is considered now: Staffing %.

 

[Spaceforce]

• Why is there no maximum level transfer limit? Why are we allowing new CPCs from Level 5s, who may have been in the FAA for a year, to transfer to high level facilities when those staffed "at the average" at mid level facilities who played by the rules and tried to move up incrementally can't leave?

Thought they set a maximum level transfer limit to 3? Or, is that just for swapping with another CPC?

 

[MJ]

swaps and hardships. there's never been a limit on err or bid

 

[MJ]

The next thing I'm working on is a grievance. First step is to verify non-consideration based on the non-merit factor.
If anyone wants to follow along, here's the article 42 s 12 info request for non-selection.

 

[Stinger]

Just wait until you apply for a position on USAJobs (either FLM, TMU, Staff Support, or other regional jobs), get told you're the person that's been selected after the interview, and then any kind of release date gets denied.
That's always fun.

 

[MJ]

Quick update: I submitted my info request last week. No one knew what to do with it, so it's going slower than its supposed to. FAA labor relations said it was the first one submitted since the new err MOU went into effect.

 

[likeaBOSS]

I didn't know we had the right to any info. What info did you request? I want to know how (according to the minutes) 73 people were from Cat 1&2 facilities, yet 104 were chosen. Or where they get the "projected success rate" information. For example, VNY hasn't washed anyone out in over a decade, yet they project only 83% of trainees will certify. This is one example of many. Where are they getting this garbage?

 

[MJ]

I didn't know we had the right to any info. What info did you request? I want to know how (according to the minutes) 73 people were from Cat 1&2 facilities, yet 104 were chosen. Or where they get the "projected success rate" information. For example, VNY hasn't washed anyone out in over a decade, yet they project only 83% of trainees will certify. This is one example of many. Where are they getting this garbage?

A42 s 12 (or 10 I can't remember). It's for selections, not general info. I posted it a couple posts up.

As for how they came up with those numbers, it's in the placement sop.

 

[breakaway2000]

I didn't know we had the right to any info. What info did you request? I want to know how (according to the minutes) 73 people were from Cat 1&2 facilities, yet 104 were chosen. Or where they get the "projected success rate" information. For example, VNY hasn't washed anyone out in over a decade, yet they project only 83% of trainees will certify. This is one example of many. Where are they getting this garbage?

My facility has washed out 3 people in the last 30 years and we're 83% too. Ridiculous. I wasn't able to leave this round because we have a .5 calculation for outgoing/retirements. We have no one eligible to retire and no outbounds. Anyone know where the heck that comes from? Are they guessing there's a chance one of the 13 of us dies or quits?

 

[MJ]

Are they guessing there's a chance one of the 13 of us dies or quits?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic with that question, but that's exactly what it is. Projected losses come from finance's projections of loss from retirements, resignations, medical DQ, death, etc.

Not that I want to see people wash, but sometimes it is part of the job. But so many places are at the point where they won't wash people out; I know we won't, we can't afford to, and I've heard the same thing from several other facilities.

 

[breakaway2000]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic with that question, but that's exactly what it is. Projected losses come from finance's projections of loss from retirements, resignations, medical DQ, death, etc.

Not that I want to see people wash, but sometimes it is part of the job. But so many places are at the point where they won't wash people out; I know we won't, we can't afford to, and I've heard the same thing from several other facilities.

lol, lucky guess... and that's where we're at too. Our check out rate will be 100% no matter what. The bar has dropped soooooo low. We washed out a kid about a year ago, showed no effort whatsoever, continually tried to put planes together, no remorse whatsoever. You did however feel like a god any time you trained him with all the lives you saved. If he came through now, we'd certify him shortly after minimums, no question.

 

[bluegrass_gal]

Yup we got a guy that is so freaking dangerous and should have washed a year ago, but there is a chance they will just push him through. I'm going to ATSAP everything he does and blame it on management.

 

[MJ]

Heard back from the Office of the Inspector General today. They don't have jurisdiction over this type of thing. Process of elimination... They suggested I contact the office of secretary of the DOT, so I did.

Also, the deadline for the information request I submitted in late june is this week. We'll see if that happens.

 

[corn4ahead]

I think the change should realistically take a look at each facility's number of developmentals and numbers of CPCs individually. Each facility should have a CPC target number and a developmental target number. When the percentage of CPC number and Dev number are fulfilled, then someone can get released.

We have so many people at my facility but yet we are considered around 60% staffed. Our number is 22. We have 13 CPCs and 8 ( soon to be 10) Devs. Most of the decelopmentals are certified through the tower and can be used when needed. The problem is, we apparently can't release anyone because we are considered 60% staffed.

Either using my proposed model or the suggested combination of CPC AOB AND Devs projected to certify, would really be a win-win for all involved.

 

[MJ]

Heard back from SecDOT. They told me I should get a lawyer

 

[corn4ahead]

The one year model proposal in the June NCEPT meeting minutes seems to be intriguing. At least they are considering using 1 year projections to be considered Cat 1 or 2. Hopefully they make the amendment to the MOU.

 

[MJ]

they won't amend anything. they'll keep making changes without telling anyone until after the fact.

and so long as the sole deciding factor is arbitrary and non-merit based, it's a discriminatory policy, and therefore garbage.