Grieving training delay

[CoffeeIV]

Has any one ever grieved and won a missed pay raise due to training delay? I'm sure plenty of people could complain about COVID delaying but my question is more referencing a trainee recommended for certification but management taking too long to do a check ride so 1 June comes and goes for the NATCA raise.

 

[Spaceforce]

Has any one ever grieved and won a missed pay raise due to training delay? I'm sure plenty of people could complain about COVID delaying but my question is more referencing a trainee recommended for certification but management taking too long to do a check ride so 1 June comes and goes for the NATCA raise.

Don’t have an answer about grieving for training delay, but the June raise is the first full pay period in June. So PP13 this year.

 

[Electricfence]

Has any one ever grieved and won a missed pay raise due to training delay? I'm sure plenty of people could complain about COVID delaying but my question is more referencing a trainee recommended for certification but management taking too long to do a check ride so 1 June comes and goes for the NATCA raise.

The 3120.4 as of October of 2020 requires a majority of the training team must recommend the trainee, one of which must be a manager. The certification skill check will occur after a training team meeting occurs to recommend the trainee.

Did this happen? If not, then the grievance will
Go no where.

There is also no requirement to do it in a timely manner. In fact it says “it may occur at anytime after the trainee meets minimum requirements.”

 

[CoffeeIV]

Don’t have an answer about grieving for training delay, but the June raise is the first full pay period in June. So PP13 this year.

PP12 starts the 5th of June so wouldn't it be that one? Also that just means you have to be certified before that pay period begins correct?

 

[Spaceforce]

PP12 starts the 5th of June so wouldn't it be that one? Also that just means you have to be certified before that pay period begins correct?

PP13 starts on the 5th of June. And you would need to be certified by the 4th of June.

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

The 3120.4 as of October of 2020 requires a majority of the training team must recommend the trainee, one of which must be a manager. The certification skill check will occur after a training team meeting occurs to recommend the trainee.

Did this happen? If not, then the grievance will
Go no where.

There is also no requirement to do it in a timely manner. In fact it says “it may occur at anytime after the trainee meets minimum requirements.”

I don't think this interpretation is 100% correct, however you're not the first I have heard say it (including multiple OS)

The .4 states when a CSC (cert skill check) "may" and "must" be conducted. A CSC must be conducted at the completion of hours or when majority of training team including OS recommend in a training team meeting. However, just becuase a CSC must done when one of those conditions is met the .4 is not stating those things as requirements to do a CSC... just that if one of those things happens it must be done. If you continue reading it says when a CSC "may" be done. The first bullet there states A CSC may be done anytime after min hours has been reached.

So if you're OS is saying they can't do a CSC until a majority of the training team recommends officially in a training team meeting... they are wrong and that's possibly greivable. However, not one you would likely win as the OS could just say they didn't think you were ready and in the end it really still is 100% up to them. There really is no requirement for an OJTI to recommend for cert. Say all OJTIs do give offical recommendations and the trainee agrees they are ready... the OS can say no and wait until you max your hours out... and at that time then they must do a CSC. On the other hand, all OJTIs can say they don't recommend for cert and the trainee needs more time... the OS can still give A CSC and certify them as long as they are past min hours.

All that to say, I highly doubt that a grievance will have any merit in your case per the .4
I agree it sucks, and that some OS have absolutely screwed people over before. I wish the .4 stated that a CSC must be done if all OJTIs recommend in a meeting.

 

[Electricfence]

I don't think this interpretation is 100% correct, however you're not the first I have heard say it (including multiple OS)

The .4 states when a CSC (cert skill check) "may" and "must" be conducted. A CSC must be conducted at the completion of hours or when majority of training team including OS recommend in a training team meeting. However, just becuase a CSC must done when one of those conditions is met the .4 is not stating those things as requirements to do a CSC... just that if one of those things happens it must be done. If you continue reading it says when a CSC "may" be done. The first bullet there states A CSC may be done anytime after min hours has been reached.

So if you're OS is saying they can't do a CSC until a majority of the training team recommends officially in a training team meeting... they are wrong and that's possibly greivable. However, not one you would likely win as the OS could just say they didn't think you were ready and in the end it really still is 100% up to them. There really is no requirement for an OJTI to recommend for cert. Say all OJTIs do give offical recommendations and the trainee agrees they are ready... the OS can say no and wait until you max your hours out... and at that time then they must do a CSC. On the other hand, all OJTIs can say they don't recommend for cert and the trainee needs more time... the OS can still give A CSC and certify them as long as they are past min hours.

All that to say, I highly doubt that a grievance will have any merit in your case per the .4
I agree it sucks, and that some OS have absolutely screwed people over before. I wish the .4 stated that a CSC must be done if all OJTIs recommend in a meeting.

You believe that a supe can certify once they reach minimum hours and requirements without any ojti input? If that’s the case, the must section is intended for that to not happen at all.

Also, as bad as the scenario above is, only ojti recommendations can be just as bad. I’ve seen that happen because it’s their Drinking buddy and he is a shitty controller and people were mad at the supe refusing to certify even though the trainee has had 5 deals in a week.

The must section I don’t believe to be an interpretation. It’s pretty clear that it intends for a team recommendation must occur and is a requirement.

Edit: in my opinion the .4 does already say all ojtis must reccomed. It states a majority. Assume a team of 1 OS, 2 ojti, and 1 trainee, which is the most likely scenario. 2 ojti or 1 os and 1 ojti are not a majority but only half since the trainee is included on the team. So for a csc to occurs you need both ojti and the os to agree.

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

You believe that a supe can certify once they reach minimum hours and requirements without any ojti input? If that’s the case, the must section is intended for that to not happen at all.

Also, as bad as the scenario above is, only ojti recommendations can be just as bad. I’ve seen that happen because it’s their Drinking buddy and he is a shitty controller and people were mad at the supe refusing to certify even though the trainee has had 5 deals in a week.

The must section I don’t believe to be an interpretation. It’s pretty clear that it intends for a team recommendation must occur and is a requirement.

Edit: in my opinion the .4 does already say all ojtis must reccomed. It states a majority. Assume a team of 1 OS, 2 ojti, and 1 trainee, which is the most likely scenario. 2 ojti or 1 os and 1 ojti are not a majority but only half since the trainee is included on the team. So for a csc to occurs you need both ojti and the os to agree.

By your logic if you're reading that section of the .4 that way then the must list becomes requirements that need to be met to be allowed to give a CSC... so you would be arguing that you must have a majorty AND you must wait until max hours.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I've seen a few of the these tried, myself included, one that sounds pretty similar to your situation. None of them went anywhere.

 

[Electricfence]

By your logic if you're reading that section of the .4 that way then the must list becomes requirements that need to be met to be allowed to give a CSC... so you would be arguing that you must have a majorty AND you must wait until max hours.

It’s a solid argument. And I absolutely see how it could be taken your way.

But if you read it that way then it opens the door for a supervisor checking someone out who shouldn’t be checked out . It also allows supes to check supes out the same way.

If you ask for an interpretation from the workgroup or the Natca national training rep, I believe they will tell you a recommendation is a requirement, that’s why it was put in there to prevent the above situations and not ALL portions under the must section need to exist for a certification to occur. None of them say “and” in front of them.

Could it have been written differently? Yes. But I want 5 million dollars.

 

[FightingIrish2012]

I've seen a few of the these tried, myself included, one that sounds pretty similar to your situation. None of them went anywhere.

It is too bad that NATCA won’t support them either, long gone are the days when they did things like negotiate lump sum payments and eventually “D” step raises for trainees at centers who were having their training extendedly delayed due to the ERAM rollout.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

It is too bad that NATCA won’t support them either, long gone are the days when they did things like negotiate lump sum payments and eventually “D” step raises for trainees at centers who were having their training extendedly delayed due to the ERAM rollout.

Ya I asked for a lump sum payment or a move and it got slapped down. Honestly it wasn't unreasonable. The word from above was "try to get him something that can be done in the building"....like what you gonna give me that primo handicapped parking spot up front? My own personal red bull water fountain? There's not much that makes up for years of training delays beside money or getting me where I want to be in my career. Sorry not sorry.

 

[Termine]

Here's a complete and utter surprise: An FAA document was written by idiots who don't know how to use the English language, and as a result it is unclear and may not mean what the authors wanted it to mean. Or else you're interpreting it wrong. Either option is entirely possible.

it opens the door for a supervisor checking someone out who shouldn’t be checked out

This has happened, soo.... what's your point?

If you ask for an interpretation from the workgroup or the Natca national training rep, I believe they will tell you a recommendation is a requirement,

If the workgroup intended for a training team recommendation to be a prerequisite in order to conduct a CSC, they should have said so in so many words. As written, a recommendation is not necessary.

that’s why it was put in there to prevent the above situations and not ALL portions under the must section need to exist for a certification to occur. None of them say “and” in front of them.

This is a bad take, and here's why.

Here's the entire text of the 3120.4 paragraph 8a:

The CSC must:

1. Be conducted following a Training Team meeting where a majority of the team members recommend a CSC. The OS must be among the majority.
2. Be conducted upon reaching 100 percent of Target Time.
3. Be conducted upon completion of Supplemental OJT Time.
4. Be performed by the trainee’s OS/STMC or their designee, as identified in the facility training directive, who maintains familiarity or currency on the operational position.
5. Include a review of applicable OJT documents.
6. Not count toward OJT Target Time.
7. Be conducted via direct monitoring during normal workload conditions.
8. Be documented on FAA Form 3120-25, -26, -27, -32, -36, -45 or an electronic equivalent and include a description of performance.

The document is not, as I said, an example of good and clear English, which is why you're interpreting it in a manner inconsistent with the actual words on the actual page.

The problem with your reading of the paragraph is that you're treating the listed items as, well, a list. A single list must contain either all AND-items or all OR-items; if some are AND and some are OR then you need to break the list into separate sub-lists that each contain only similar items.

So if you're treating this collection of clauses as a single list, you have to see that 4 through 8 are obviously supposed to be AND-items; you can't say "this CSC was conducted via direct monitoring during normal workload conditions, therefore I don't have to review OJT documents nor document it on the appropriate form." That would be a stupid and clearly incorrect interpretation. But if you interpret it that way, then items 1 through 3 must be AND-items as well—which is clearly incorrect. They aren't trying to say that you can only perform a CSC once you have a training team rec and run out the target time and run out the supplemental time.

So now you have a conflict, and because you have a conflict you have to break it up. You have to treat 1 through 3 as being somehow different from 4 through 8. You look down to paragraph 8b, which helpfully tells you that the CSC may be conducted at any time past minimums and may be performed before running out supplemental or additional time.

Now you can try to take a more narrow view, and say that 8a(1) always applies, and that 8b(1) only waives 8a(2) and 8b(2) only waives 8a(3). But there's no specific wording or formatting to indicate that, so you're already reading more into the words than what's actually there, and you have possibly conflicting readings of what the words say (as evidenced by our disagreement here). The only real solution is to have the document re-written to be unambiguous.

Here's how I would re-write it, if my and DADDYSbabyBIRD's interpretation is the intended meaning:

8a. A CSC must be conducted once any of the following occur:

1. A Training Team meeting occurs in which a majority of the team members recommend a CSC. The OS must be among the majority.
2. 100 percent of Target Time is reached.
3. Supplemental OJT Time is completed.

8b. The CSC must:

1. Be performed by the trainee’s OS/STMC or their designee, as identified in the facility training directive, who maintains familiarity or currency on the operational position.
2. Include a review of applicable OJT documents.
3. Not count toward OJT Target Time.
4. Be conducted via direct monitoring during normal workload conditions.
5. Be documented on FAA Form 3120-25, -26, -27, -32, -36, -45 or an electronic equivalent and include a description of performance.

8c. [Insert the list previously known as 8b and continue on with no other changes.]

And here's how I would re-write it if your interpretation is the intended meaning:

8a. A CSC must be conducted once any of the following occur:

1. 100 percent of Target Time is reached.
2. Supplemental OJT Time is completed.

8b. The CSC must:

1. Be conducted following a Training Team meeting where a majority of the team members recommend a CSC. The OS must be among the majority.
2. Be performed by the trainee’s OS/STMC or their designee, as identified in the facility training directive, who maintains familiarity or currency on the operational position.
3. Include a review of applicable OJT documents.
4. Not count toward OJT Target Time.
5. Be conducted via direct monitoring during normal workload conditions.
6. Be documented on FAA Form 3120-25, -26, -27, -32, -36, -45 or an electronic equivalent and include a description of performance.

8c. [Insert the list previously known as 8b and continue on with no other changes.]

See how either of those re-writes would make the meaning clear? I've broken the requirements into two categories: "Must conduct CSC once this happens" and "must not conduct CSC until this happens." The current document jams both categories into the same list without distinguishing them.

 

[Electricfence]

Here's a complete and utter surprise: An FAA document was written by idiots who don't know how to use the English language, and as a result it is unclear and may not mean what the authors wanted it to mean. Or else you're interpreting it wrong. Either option is entirely possible.


This has happened, soo.... what's your point?


If the workgroup intended for a training team recommendation to be a prerequisite in order to conduct a CSC, they should have said so in so many words. As written, a recommendation is not necessary.


This is a bad take, and here's why.

Here's the entire text of the 3120.4 paragraph 8a:


The document is not, as I said, an example of good and clear English, which is why you're interpreting it in a manner inconsistent with the actual words on the actual page.

The problem with your reading of the paragraph is that you're treating the listed items as, well, a list. A single list must contain either all AND-items or all OR-items; if some are AND and some are OR then you need to break the list into separate sub-lists that each contain only similar items.

So if you're treating this collection of clauses as a single list, you have to see that 4 through 8 are obviously supposed to be AND-items; you can't say "this CSC was conducted via direct monitoring during normal workload conditions, therefore I don't have to review OJT documents nor document it on the appropriate form." That would be a stupid and clearly incorrect interpretation. But if you interpret it that way, then items 1 through 3 must be AND-items as well—which is clearly incorrect. They aren't trying to say that you can only perform a CSC once you have a training team rec and run out the target time and run out the supplemental time.

So now you have a conflict, and because you have a conflict you have to break it up. You have to treat 1 through 3 as being somehow different from 4 through 8. You look down to paragraph 8b, which helpfully tells you that the CSC may be conducted at any time past minimums and may be performed before running out supplemental or additional time.

Now you can try to take a more narrow view, and say that 8a(1) always applies, and that 8b(1) only waives 8a(2) and 8b(2) only waives 8a(3). But there's no specific wording or formatting to indicate that, so you're already reading more into the words than what's actually there, and you have possibly conflicting readings of what the words say (as evidenced by our disagreement here). The only real solution is to have the document re-written to be unambiguous.

Here's how I would re-write it, if my and DADDYSbabyBIRD's interpretation is the intended meaning:


And here's how I would re-write it if your interpretation is the intended meaning:


See how either of those re-writes would make the meaning clear? I've broken the requirements into two categories: "Must conduct CSC once this happens" and "must not conduct CSC until this happens." The current document jams both categories into the same list without distinguishing them.

makes total sense.

which do you think it should be? why shouldn't a recommendation by the entire team be mandatory?

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

makes total sense.

which do you think it should be? why shouldn't a recommendation by the entire team be mandatory?

I'm torn on what way I personally think it should be. I have seen check outs/not checking out go bad in many different ways.

-OS checks someone out when everyone else says no
-OS not checking someone out when everyone else says yes for reasons other than the Devs abilities (waiting until the day after NCEPT numbers lock)
-OJTIs holding back recommendations since. "I checked out at X hours so they should have to wait until then at least" or. "They haven't seen the traffic as busy as we used to be back in the day"
-OJTIs being friends with dev and recommending too early.
-OS checking OS out.
- the entire facilty and all OJTIs saying no to a person, who is having multiple deals a week still and the OS checks them out anyways. (Possible reason being equality, but that's just the rumor created with lack of other possible explanations visible)

So yea, I can see the downside/upside to either interpretation. However, in the end either way the power remains mostly in the OSs boat. I hope a good working relationship would be had between the OJTIs and the OS creating an environment where the OS would heavily take their opinions into consideration, and where the OJTIs would remain professional and keep petty things out of their recommendations. In the end the goal should be to train and checkout competent controllers no matter what as safety should be #1. How it actually goes in real life is anyone's guess on a given day.

 

[Electricfence]

I'm torn on what way I personally think it should be. I have seen check outs/not checking out go bad in many different ways.

-OS checks someone out when everyone else says no
-OS not checking someone out when everyone else says yes for reasons other than the Devs abilities (waiting until the day after NCEPT numbers lock)
-OJTIs holding back recommendations since. "I checked out at X hours so they should have to wait until then at least" or. "They haven't seen the traffic as busy as we used to be back in the day"
-OJTIs being friends with dev and recommending too early.
-OS checking OS out.
- the entire facilty and all OJTIs saying no to a person, who is having multiple deals a week still and the OS checks them out anyways. (Possible reason being equality, but that's just the rumor created with lack of other possible explanations visible)

So yea, I can see the downside/upside to either interpretation. However, in the end either way the power remains mostly in the OSs boat. I hope a good working relationship would be had between the OJTIs and the OS creating an environment where the OS would heavily take their opinions into consideration, and where the OJTIs would remain professional and keep petty things out of their recommendations. In the end the goal should be to train and checkout competent controllers no matter what as safety should be #1. How it actually goes in real life is anyone's guess on a given day.

this is very well said. and within those examples youll have people who are unwilling to see the other side or listen to reason.

I am not torn. I think a recommendation should come from everyone on the team. we are professionals, we know what it takes based on our experience, we should be treated that way and we should not give our recommendation lightly or without care. As much as some might not like management, they are on the team and its their business, and unfortunately the FAA should have a representative agree, and if reasonable along with reasonable OJTIs they should come to a consensus. While I think a good culture breeds this more than a mandate in an order, I think mandating it is overall best, rather than leaving it. it makes everyone accountable that they in fact as professionals agree. gives them some responsibility for who they will be working next to and who they will be managing.