ERR MOU Change Campaign

The sad part is they're incredibly common. In the last 5 months, 122 deviations have been approved, 85 have been disapproved. I have the monthly breakdown if anyone is interested. To me, this is absolutely disgusting. Considering CPC's outnumber FLM's by roughly 6 to 1. The ERR MOU has now created an unequal playing field. I do not have the total number of deviations from January-July of 2016 but if it was consistent with Aug-Dec, you're looking at a damn near 1:1 ratio of CPC's getting picked up through an ERR and CPC's leaving for management jobs.
1. CPC's electing to become FLM's are selected continuously throughout the year and are not tied to an every quarter scenario.
2. CPC's electing to become FLM's can be given deviations (and the stats above show the majority are granted the deviation) so they are not tied to the same staffing constraints as the rest of us.
3. The 122 number above only takes into account the deviations. Lets say you're a small level facility and can release one person at the next NCEPT, but ohh wait, before the next panel one of your CPC's get's selected to be an FLM. He immediately takes that available spot and your facility is now ineligible. Or... what if one controller wants to become an FLM so he continually puts in ERR's to top facilities in need to block anyone else from leaving, signs the TOL with no intention of going and continues to bid FLM jobs until he gets selected (that happened.)
4. Each CPC that becomes an FLM and is selected this way takes away a spot from a CPC down the line in the ERR process.

This MOU is out of control and has completely gotten away from them. It's ruining lives. I know married couples where one has to quit because they're stuck. When the hell is this awful nonsense going to change??
 
Last section of the MOU says that they are to review it quarterly and if they come to a disagreement on items that should be changed they will then go to mediation and if that doesn't solve the disagreement then either side can cancel the MOU altogether and it be reverted back to the original method? Anyone think there's a chance for that? Because I'm not even seeing small changes happening. So what's the deal?
 
Last section of the MOU says that they are to review it quarterly and if they come to a disagreement on items that should be changed they will then go to mediation and if that doesn't solve the disagreement then either side can cancel the MOU altogether and it be reverted back to the original method? Anyone think there's a chance for that? Because I'm not even seeing small changes happening. So what's the deal?
They have no intention of changing it significantly and have been quite adamant about it.
 
The sad part is they're incredibly common. In the last 5 months, 122 deviations have been approved, 85 have been disapproved. I have the monthly breakdown if anyone is interested.
How do I get access to the deviation information? I've been told that I've been selected for a few positions, but the waiver requests were denied.
 
Correct, but what was "it"?
Each facility could pick people up independently and when they needed people. Depending on need they could put out a bid and list it on USA Jobs or select from their ERR (Transfer Request) List.
If you had say 10+ ERR's out, any day you show up to work you could get 'the call'.
Fully staffed facilities would often times give short release dates ~3 months. Short staffed facilities would get release dates in the 2 year range.

As a controller you could get picked up on an ERR (90%+ are ineligible now), a bid you applied for (bids are gone now), a mutual swap (mutual swaps are effectively gone now), or get selected on a hardship (was given a stat at recurrent training today that hardships are up 400% from last year given the fact it's the only way out for some, which has cause them to crack down further on it).

Where it went wrong. There was no sharing of information. Person A at a short staffed facility would get picked up and get a release date from a facility, lets say he was given a 2 year release date. He'd then continue to apply for better places and leverage those offers with his/her current release date. The most extreme example is one guy had 17 signed TOL's to 17 different facilities. Facilities were getting upset that the person they'd been waiting for the past 2 years didn't show up. Instead of simply removing the loophole (once you sign a TOL, all other ERR's are removed from the system), they created the process we have now.
 
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 pointsixtyfive landing page.

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:
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:

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 :mad:

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...
 

Attachments

  • ERRPayLoss.xlsx
    69.3 KB · Views: 28
I think this should allow you to see what your loss in pay would be if you could not get selected. Fill in the yellow highlighted boxes and the rest of the numbers should update. If it does not work, let me know. This is a rough draft and Im not sure if it uploaded properly.
 
Last edited:
I was selected by PCT and the deviation request was denied.
How are you selected without being Cat 2? The ATM of the facility I want called and told me I was not on his list, I assumed it was because we are not yet Cat 2. Is it possible to be on a facilities list even if you're not eligible to leave?
 
How are you selected without being Cat 2? The ATM of the facility I want called and told me I was not on his list, I assumed it was because we are not yet Cat 2. Is it possible to be on a facilities list even if you're not eligible to leave?
Not for ERR. He was on an flm bid.
 
I'm interested in knowing how many are contemplating quitting the union over this that haven't already. How many across the country already have? They trapped us and the only way out is a FLM deviation. This has negatively affected the entire work force and nothing is being done. So this is how the Agency intends to get their FLM numbers up.
 
contemplating quitting the union over this
It's a personal choice and leaving is one I completely understand. Especially if it was done in large numbers, where it was made clear to the leadership why. The argument for not leaving, would be so you could help replace that leadership with people who will try fix this mess.

in my opinion NATCA is trying to or has already become an extension of the FAA
I've said the same thing... agree 100%.
 
We need to remind our RVPs that small facilities pay dues as well! They seem to only represent the big facilities. If multiple small facilities drop out maybe they'll get the hint. Oh wait, they should already know this! More and more people are getting devastated by this MOU and where is NATCA? Why aren't they updating us? I'm getting sick and tired of how they're treating the workforce. I'm assuming the ones that signed this god awful thing are too proud to say it isn't working and to 86 it. Instead they're gonna blow smoke to us saying they're in the process of changing it. Spare me. It's discrimination and it goes against fair labor practices. Bottom line, it sucks.
Amen.
 
Back
Top Bottom