EBOARD
Federal News Sites
The labor relations statute creates rights and obligations on the part of unions, management and employees. If either labor or management fails to perform its obligation to the other party, an unfair labor practice (ULP) may be filed. A ULP charge may also be filed if either labor or management interferes with the rights each has been given under the statute. Employees can protect their rights under the statute by filing ULP charges against labor or management. Read more at the Federal Labor Relations Authority website: http://www.flra.gov. Other helpful links: EEOC, MSPB, OPM's FLSA Page OSC
Note: Current historical documents on cases may now be loaded in the private area of our website, supplements will continue to be on our Supplements page
2023June 5, 2023 Agency's attempt to collect (and possible successful collection of) Union protected information from Union officials' hard drives in connection with our anti-harassment/Supplement 18 arbitration. In the matter of the computer data collection, the Agency targeted Union officials who had served on the Union's negotiating team. The Agency sent formal (and threatening) litigation hold memoranda to the Union officials, which falsely stated that the recipients had to allow the Agency access to their computer hard drives. The memos covered not only Agency-issued laptops but also privately owned devices. The memos also falsely advised the Union officials that they were not to discuss the matter with anyone else, and if they didn't comply, their future release from the Agency (such as to another agency or upon retirement) would be jeopardized.
In trying to get information from Union officials' computers, the Agency wanted our internal notes and documentation relating to the negotiation of Supplement 18, information that they are not entitled to have. Their efforts to get that data, however, involved copying the entire hard drives of the Union officials' computers. That would give them protected and confidential information about other cases, such as where we have represented and advised employees, as well as internal Union documents.
Additionally, the Agency had no right to directly contact the Union officials, as the Union--and our officials--is represented by counsel in the anti-harassment/Supplement 18 matter. Agency attorneys are not allowed to ever contact a represented party directly.
This is a serious matter that involved not only violations of the Labor-Management Relations Statute and our CBA, but also possible ethical violations on the part of the HUD attorneys.
ULP/GOP
/G/23cdrivedatacollectulp.pdf
Union and HUD Reach Agreement Over Performance Awards Criteria
AFGE Council 222 reached a settlement agreement with HUD that reverses a performance awards policy denying high-performing employees their performance awards unless they have worked for HUD for the entire rating cycle. HUD also agreed to issue payments to employees who had been denied performance awards because they did not work for HUD from October 1 to September 30 in FY 2021 and 2022.
HUD had denied a bargaining unit employee a performance award because the employee left HUD for another federal agency only 4 business days short of the end of the rating period. The Union filed an Unfair Labor Practice–Grievance of the Parties against HUD over the policy, which is not included in the collective bargaining agreement, and HUD’s failure to notify the Union about implementing it. HUD denied the Union’s ULP-GOP, and the Union invoked arbitration. Before the parties appeared before an arbitrator, HUD agreed to settle the dispute.
Under the settlement agreement, HUD will rescind its policy requiring employees to complete the full rating cycle to be eligible for performance awards, pay the 2021 performance award to the employee who had previously been denied it, and identify and pay any other employees who received final ratings in 2021 and 2022 but were denied performance awards because they did not complete the full rating cycle.
Jerry Gross initiated and represented the Union in this matter.
ULP-GOP Performance Award Criteria (5/13/2022)
FY21 OCHCO Closeout and Performance Guidance Memo (9/2/21)
OCHCO Performance Award Guidance (2021)
Request For Information (RFI)-Performance Award (5/18/2022)
HUD Decision Grievance of the Parties (GOP) (5/24/2022)
ULP-GOP Performance Award RFI (6/14/2022)
HUD Decision on ULP-GOP and RFI (6/28/2022)
ULP-GOP Performance Award RFI Amended (7/7/2022)
RFI-PerfAward (3/28/2023)
Settlement Agreement
Council 222 filed a ULP-GOP over HUD's implementation of a new anti-harassment policy that did not conform to the requirements of Supplement 18. After HUD denied the grievance, the Union invoked arbitration. HUD filed a motion to dismiss, based on the fact that HUD had earlier notified the Union that it was not implementing the policy on which Supplement 18 was based. The Union's position was that the time limits did not begin to run until HUD actually implemented the new policy because that was the first time the Union was aware that HUD failed to comply with Supplement 18.
An AFGE District 5 lawyer represented the Union in selecting the arbitrator and in the arbitration. Although the arbitrator granted the Agency's motion to dismiss, the arbitrator did require HUD to pay for the arbitration fees ($2,400) in accordance with Article 51, Section 51.14.
- - Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)
- - HUD AHP Policy
- - Supplement 18
- - HUD AHP Response
- - Agency Motion to Dismiss
- - Union Response to Agency Motion to Dismiss
- - HUD AFGE Motion 2 Dismiss (pdf)
July 21, 2022 - Today the Union filed an Unfair Labor Practice- Grievance of the Parties over HUD's
repudiation of Supplement 18, Implementation of Anti-Harassment Policy. As described in the document, HUD has failed to accept the signed
supplement as a valid agreement between the Union and HUD and refuses to post it on its HUD@Work AFGE/HUD Agreements page. All
efforts to reason with the Agency have failed.
- - GOP/ULP Repudiation of Supp 18 Anti-Harassment (07.21.22)
Chief Negotiator - Jerry Gross
Update: The union filed two complaints with the FLRA because HUD did not respond properly to the Union´s request for information
related to the proposed handbook. The Union demonstrated to the FLRA why the information and documentation requested was essential. The FLRA required HUD to provide all available
information and to distribute the Notice as HUD´s public commitment to respond to Union requests for information in a timely manner in the future. The FLRA required HUD to send out a Notice to All Employees
by email and to post it on bulletin boards to settle complaints of an unfair labor practice that the Union filed against HUD. The ULP documents are here and on our ULP page.
- - FLRA Required Posting to Employees By Management to Settle Union Complaint (06/2017)
- - FLRA Settlement Agreement (06/05/2017)
- - FLRA Charge Against Agency
- - ULP (03/16/2017)
- - Request for Information and Demand To Bargain (05/26/2016)
- - Final Draft of 755.1 (from mgmt)
Agency has failed to comply with the negotiated provisions of Article 55 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and has reefused to bargain
in good faith over procedures and protocols for employee participation
in the ongoing Quality Improvement Program
- - ULP Filed (10/27/2016)
See the bargaining documents that led to this ULP on bargaining page
- - FLRA Decision Posting mgmt sent to all employees (09/13/2016)
- - Cybersecurity Breach
- - ULP Filed
- - Union Demand To Bargain (08/09/2016)
The ULP concerns HUD's establishment of an employee engagement team in PIH.
Because the team (composed of both bargaining unit and management personnel) works
directly with management to implement changes to employee working conditions, the recognition
of the team is a bypass of the Union. Such management-sponsored teams prevent the Union from ensuring that
all employees are
treated fairly and equitably, and that changes in working conditions are negotiated and implemented in accordance
with our collective bargaining agreement.
- - Request For Information (10/28/2016)
- - ULP (7/19/2016)
It is Council 222 charge that the Department is unilaterally instituting a change in the process for determining Quality Step Increases (QSIs) as part of the Bargaining Unit Performance Awards without negotiating in good faith with the
Union.
- - ULP (3/14/2016)
On November 4, 2015, the Agency notified the Union that it was formally
withdrawing its August 4, 2015 Article 49 Notification to AFGE regarding its intent to implement
the Personnel Clearinghouse Pilot Policy and Handbook. As previously communicated to all AFGE members by Council 222 President
Holly Salamido, "Management has, however, announced that the Personnel Clearinghouse program will be available to NFFE members.
This is becoming a pattern - management refuses to fulfill their obligation to bargain, forcing us to file yet another Unfair Labor
Practice charge with the Federal Labor Relations Board. It does not take
two months to schedule negotiations. This is obviously a choice on the part of HUD's leaders. We will
continue to fight for fairness for all of our AFGE Bargaining Unit members."
- - ULP (11/18/2015) (FLRA efile no: OGC_CASE_DOCUMENT_8341252844_2088.pdf)
(See the bargaining documents that led to this ULP on the Council 222 Bargaining Page.)
In June, 2014 the agency gave notification to Union of intent to implement ENS. We sent a Demand to Bargain and Request for Information to the agency. No agreement with the agency was reached.
The agency responded to the Request for Info but refused to Bargain. 10/29/2015 the agency sent a second notice to the Union advising intention to implement ENS despite the pendency of the Demand to
Bargain. On 10/29/2015 the agency stated Union's Demand to Bargain was "unsolicited" and refusing to bargain on impact and implementation of the ENS. Management unilaterally
implemented the ENS without bargaining.
- - ULP (11/04/2015)
- - New Core (09/04/2015)
2014See the bargaining documents that led to this ULP on the bargaining page of our website.
- - Ebola ULP (10/2014)
See the bargaining documents for this issue on the bargaining page
Unfair Labor Practice is in 2 parts as files are large
- - Part 1, Part 2 (03/01/2013)
- - Unfair Labor Practice/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (August 2006)
- - HIHRTS was bargaining in 2005, see bargaining information by going to 2005 bargaining page
- - Unfair Labor Practice/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (11/18/05)
- - Exhibits: | A | B | C | D | E | F |
G | H | I | J | K | L | M| N | O | (reformatted Lotus email messages)
- - Dep Secretary memo
- - background for ULP (posted to home page 11/21)
Chief Negotiator - Eddie Eitches
- - Settlement
- - Unfair Labor Practice
- - Demand to Bargain
- - Mgmt's Proposed Change in Working Conditions (Article 5)
- - FLRA dismisses ULP (06/30/05)
- - Union comments on Plan (04/01/05)
- - Mgmt Memo re: Union's comments
- - 11 page attachment that accompanied above mgmt memo
Chief Negotiator - Tim Oravec
- - ULP Settlement
- - Unfair Labor Practice
- - Bargaining Team Report from Chief Negotiator
- - Demand To Bargain (04/08/05)
- - Mgmt's Chapter 13 Proposed Changes (via email 03/31/05)
- - Mgmt's Proposed Change in Working Conditions (Article 5) (via email 03/31/05)
- - Charge Against An Agency (FLRA Form 22, dated 07/17/03)
- - Council 222 Letter to FLRA (Federal Labor Relations Authority) (07/17/03)
- - Council 222 Cease and Desist Memorandum to Labor Relations Division