|
This is my analysis of the TAU�s. I may have missed some things or you may not always agree. Please read both the TAU�s and this document before voting. If you have any questions at all please don�t hesitate to e-mail or call (preferably e-mail). Bill Dolan, [email protected] TAU ANALYSIS |
| TAU # (current Article) |
Comment (only changes from the existing CBA are addressed) |
| 001 (2) | No Change |
| 002 (1) | e. & f. is new language. Pretty much self-explanatory, No major impact. |
| 003 (3) | No Change |
| 004 (6) | No Change |
| 005 (87) | New Language. Pro: Takes management out of having any say in our method of determining seniority. Con: none |
| 006 (17) | Sec.1 is new. Pro: Provides electronic (computer) copy of the CBA. Con: none |
| 007 (85) | Sec.5 is new. Pro: New benefit for some employees Con: none |
| 008 (8) | Sec. 5 a,b,& c. are current procedures except for change to drop dates. Section 9 (last 2 sentences) and Sections 10 & 11. are new. Pro: clarify personal and organizational responsibilities. Con: none |
| 009 (71) | Sec. 2 is new. (TYPO!! missing �identification of all parties� at the end of the sentence). Pro: adds protection Con: none |
| 010 (12) | No change |
| 011 (88) | New. Pro: requires agency to pay for attendance. Eliminates the need to fight over who pays. Con: none |
| 012 (14) | Pro: adds mail privacy requirement Con: none |
| 013 (31) | Pro: Sec. 1 adds the �immediate� employee notification requirement for management. Sec.2 allows the employee to obtain a copy of the evaluation. Con: The copy is not certified. This does not seem have a major impact. The copy can be used as evidence and management would have some explaining to do if they produced a �certified copy that was different. |
| 014 (87) | Pro: requires local negotiations to accommodate smokers working alone. Defines reasonable with a provision for further negotiations if circumstances warrant. No paging system requirement. Removes employer disclaimer in sec. 7. Con: No requirement for classes to quit smoking. |
| 015 (18 &39-06) | Pro: Adds regional distribution requirement for national pubs. Pubs will be on CD. Hard copy on request. Adds regional requirement to give facility pubs to RD. Adds electronic requirement to regions. Adds facility pubs distribution to FacRep Con: none |
| 016 (58) | Pro: changes early vehicle start to 10 degrees Con: deletes mandate to provide adequate parking however this is governed by law/reg. FacRep parking spot requirement is now after visitor, handicapped and g-car spots. Deletes snow removal requirement (this would still be an employer liability if not done.) |
| 017 (none) | Defines the term �day� Pro: prevents any disputes. Con: none |
| 018 (62) | Pro: Requires local negotiation of �community standard� definition and procedures for this articles implementation. Con: while �neat, clean manner� and �professionalism� references are good for our image some manages may attempt to make it unduly restrictive. |
| 019 (86) | No change. |
| 020 (81) | No change. Updated language |
| 021 (none) | The provisions of this MOU were incorporated in TAU�s 24 & 91 |
| 022 (19) | No change. |
|
023 (4)
(hope I didn�t miss anything in this one) |
Pro: Sec 1 clearly defines roles and responsibilities of reps and scope of bargaining authority. Sec.4 prevents management from arbitrarily designating the FacRep a temp supervisor to negate his role as a rep. Sec.5 stops management from dealing with their �Rep of choice�. Sec. 13 essentially doubles official time for FacRep�s, identifies other official time contained in law or this CBA are in addition to time specified in this article, allows for delegation of time to other reps, and more specific on the use of official time off site. Sec.14 specifies a block of official time equal to 2 full time national officers (saves union $$$ in LWOP expenses). Sec.15 specifies full time (80hrs/pay period) for regional directors which can be delegated to other reps in the region (any level). There is no increase in time (8hrs.) for coordinators but directors can and should delegate time as needed. Sec.16 defines Facility delegates right to leave to attend national meeting. Con: Only 8 hrs specified for RegCo. The RD�s must delegate any additional hours. |
| 024 (76) | Sections 1 thru 8 are new. Pro: Basically, if the Union participates in a workgroup, this article defines the parameters for the utilization of workgroups to address issues normally the subject of I&I bargaining and negates the I&I requirement if the solution is implemented unchanged. Con: none |
| 025 (55) | Pro: none Con: Some changes to wording and could have some minor impact on current phone usage. (sec. 55-06 & 55-07 moved to TAU 26) |
|
026 (13, 55-03,
55-04) |
Pro: Provides for a separate bulletin board (not shared space), location to be negotiated. Mgt must prove compelling need to remove posted material. Allows Union reading binders in with FAA general info reading binders. Adds mgt responsibility to keep restrooms stocked and clean, as well as eating facilities with microwave, refrigerator, and coffeemaker. Union rep on cafeteria committee and committee overseeing any vending/recreational funds and its� proceeds. Con: none |
| 027 (none) | This MOU has been incorporated into TAU #108 |
| 028 (66) | Pro: Requires a Union bulletin board, addresses point of contact for student grievance procedures Con: none |
| 029 (83) | Pro: expands and improves old contract language Con: none |
|
030 (64)
(read and compare this one carefully) |
Pro: adds oral admonishments in coverage. Adds mgt requirement to consider non-disciplinary action and informal disciplinary action prior to formal action. More specific as to duty time allowed for response preparation. Requires �Douglas Factor� consideration. Allows for exhausting all appeal rights prior to removal or suspensions of 14 days or more. Generally strengthens employee rights. Con: removes oral/written admonishments & written reprimands from advance written notice requirement. Weaker language on 2 year �freshness� determination (previous offenses). |
| 031 (82) | Pro: a little bit better language Con: specifies travel and per diem is not authorized (previously silent but not normally authorized) it would be an NTSB or, if authorized, NAATS expense. |
| 032 (91) | No real change, editorial only. Benefits remain the same. |
| 033 (none) | Pro: priority consideration for reassignment within the region Con: none |
| 034 (none) | Pro: defines priority consideration Con: none |
| 035 (none) | Pro: gives Disabled Vet�s a contractual right to the DOT program Con: none |
| 036 (none) | Pro: additional protection for affected employees Con: none |
| 037(22-03 &24-04, 24-05, 24-07) | Pro: defines excused absence. Specifies that house hunting time is not included in the up to 64hr PCS entitlement. Con: weaker voting and �home leave� language (other issues contained in TAU 43 & 118) |
| 038 (15) | No major changes Pro: other accrued leave has no bearing on LWOP request. Con: none |
| 039 (none) | Pro: establishes workgroup to explore the issue. Con: none |
| 040(52&93) | Pro: all new language is more pertinent for our use. Con: none |
| 041 (33) | No change |
| 042 (none) | Pro: requires management to take appropriate action I the event of a threat Con: none |
| 043 (22-01, 22-02 & 25-06,25-08) | Pro: increases bereavement leave to 80 hrs. includes previous FMLA/FEFFLP MOU language. Con: none |
| 044 (20) | Pro: provides for sick leave buy back for FERS employees. Con: none (40% is the same as NATCA CBA). No other changes |
| 045 (16) | No change |
| 046 (11) | No major changes. FacRep�s and RD�s receive notification of changes in employee status affecting staffing. |
| 047 (23) | Pro: Applicable to both male and female employees. provision for part-time duty. Con: none |
|
048 (5, 11-03,75-01,75-02) |
Pro: expands 5-14 in section 14 of the TAU to other electronic devices and allows non-audible pagers in ops. Adds language allowing outside aviation employment if no conflict of interest. Adds Hatch Act protections from MOU. Con: none |
| 049 (54) | Pro: All current language is retained but adds to mgt�s obligations. Eligibility for retirement seminars changed from within 2yrs. To 7 yrs and increases the employees entitlements. Sections 5 thru 12 are all new benefits. Con: none |
| 050 (none) | Pro: allows gov�t rates when performing representational duties. Con: none |
| 051 (none) | Pro: allows formation of wellness centers and physical fitness programs. Con: none |
| 052 (32) | Pro: expands on the old article and provides greater employee and union involvement. Specifies representational rights and brings the CBA in line with existing directives. Any changes to the directives shall be negotiated in an MOU. Con: none other than it has been so long since this was agreed to that the program has changed significantly (but not negatively). AAT-20 has already agreed to negotiate these changes in an MOU. |
| 053 (51) | Pro: generally stronger, more specific language. If leave is required to be taken it gives the employee the option of what type it would be. Con: none apparent to me. |
| 054 (none) | Pro: incorporates our CISM MOU into the CBA. Con: none |
| 055 (none) | Pro: not much. We do get a Workgroup to try to protect our interests. Con: Formalizes some form of Traffic Management. |
| 056 (60) | Pro: Prevents closures prior to completing negotiations Con: none |
| 057 (10) | No major changes. The number of participants is now negotiable. |
| 058 (80) | Editorial changes. No change in substance. |
| 059 (none) | Pro: Allows donation of both annual and sick leave with some limits. Con: none |
| 060 (70) | Pro: We don�t need to anticipate our issues and needs in advance. This issue will be negotiated after notification and prior to a RIF taking place. Con: none |
| 061 (29) | Pro: Specifies breaks after 2hrs on position. Addresses mid shift position assignment at end of shift. Con: none |
| 062 (34) | Pro: Management may not require re-negotiation of watch schedule unless it causes substantial operational problems. Specifies procedure to follow prior to changing a schedule with less than 7 days notice. Addresses changes to attend all-hands meetings or crew briefings Con: none |
| 063 (none) | New language Pro: provides contractual employee rights Con: portions of this article referring to OE/OD have been overtaken by events. An MOU will have to deal with those issues. (see comment in TAU#052) |
| 064 (none) | Pro: new benefit Con: none |
| 065 (41) | More specific language. No major impact. |
| 066 (44) | Pro: the expanded areas (Sec.1,5,6) and the new (Sec.7,9,10,11) afford more protections for employees and are more specific. Con: none |
| 067 (56) | This s identical to the existing MOU�s covering FAM�s and Credit hours. |
| 068 (84) | No major changes. |
| 069 (none) | Self explanatory. This should clear up a few disputes. |
| 070 (47) | Nothing new. |
| 071 (69) | Section 1 is new. I�m not sure it gives us much in the current state of affairs. (A-76) |
| 072 (77) | Expanded, more specific language. |
| 073 (78-05) | Self explanatory 5 yrs. |
| 074 (78-01 thru 78-04) | No changes |
| 075 (new) | Pro: sets contractual obligation for negotiating ground rules. Con: none |
| 076 (new) | Pro: new contractual right Con: none |
| 077 (36) | No change |
| 078 (61) | Pro: Expanded employee rights Con: a written agreement between the employee and the agency must be executed for each tour/extension of tour |
| 079 (38) | No major changes. Further defines �immediate� and deletes 30-06. |
| 080 (39) | Pro: Contractual language for �Train to Succeed� philosophy and interruptions in training, union participation in a training review board. Other new sections covering ATTE, and CMD Con: none |
| 081 (89) | Completely re-written. Pro: Very detailed covering employee rights, entitlements, and how part-time status will affect their career and benefits. Con: none |
| 082 (new) | Doesn�t hurt to have this language. No major impact at this time. |
| 083 (65) | Pro: expanded language informing the employee of rights. Con: Section 4 is a little weaker than the old language (but consistent with law) |
| 084 (new) | Pro: new contractual entitlement. Con: none |
| 085 (new) | Protection for members if they qualify for it. |
| 086 (67) | Pro: expedites the facility level process, adds a specific informal step, provides for meetings to discuss the issue at all steps, duty time, travel and per diem for quarterly grievance meetings at region, specifies advocate prep time for arbitrations. The process is focused on resolving issues at lowest level. Con: reduction to 20 days for time limits at facility level for step 1 & 2 |
| 087 (63) | No major changes. |
| 088 (37) | Pro: adds minimum area of consideration requirements, posting of all qualification requirements, and employee interview requirements. Con: none |
| 089 (none) | Pro: contractual requirement to comply with FECA and OWCP, national OWCP rep w/24 hrs of official time to attend annual training, adds employer responsibilities for submitting forms/claims for the employee, adds employee right to choose physician/treatment center. Con: none |
| 090 (none) | Pro: adds �Human Factors� study and consideration as a contractual right. Con: none |
| 091 (9) | Pro: specifically includes union initiated mid-term bargaining rights, includes NAATS/FAA agreement on �covered by� doctrine. Con: some think that the reference to �compelling need� in the old article being deleted is a major loss however I believe the new language in sec 2.f. is consistent with FLRA decisions on the subject. Slight changes to time limits but these should not be a factor. |
| 092 (30) | Pro: that we were able to retain AWS, unlimited credit hour balance. Con: only 24 hrs paid out upon leaving the agency. |
| 093 (25&35) | Pro: Contractual requirement for minimum 8/2 hrs o/t, contractual specification that employees are FLSA non-exempt. Con: managements ability to solicit credit hour work in lieu of overtime (note: the agreement across the table was that this language in sec 1.a. is predicated on NAATS receiving a satisfactory pay agreement and the associated cost savings being applied. This section will not be effective without it) |
| 094 (21) | No change |
| 095 (none) | This addresses existing agreements reached in the NFP arena. |
| 096 (none) | Pro: Establishes a mechanism to improve training Con: none |
| 097 (46) | Pro: 10% premium pay, developmental right to request a change in assigned OJTI. Con: none |
| 098 (79) | All new language gives contractual right for notification and bargaining. |
| 099 (59) | Replaces PROCOM with new union rights |
| 100 (92) | No change |
| 101 (none) | Provides an agreed upon definition of what is meant by �policies and Directives� in this agreement |
| 102 (68) | Pro: 10% premium pay, specifies CIC�s have authority to approve/disapprove annual and sick leave requests Con: must be qualified and selected for CIC designation. |
| 103 (45) | No major changes |
| 104 (27) | Pro: true time and one-half/double time |
| 105 (43) | No change. This will be replaced with the new compensation system agreement eventually. |
| 106 (none) | Pro: Contractual requirement for severance pay. Con: none |
| 107 (none) | Agency agrees to notify and bargain with the union prior to implementing changes. |
| 108 (48&50) | Restates the current MOU covering the FAA Travel Policy. Con: eliminates all that we had in the old article 50. |
| 109 (49) | New language brings this article in line with the FAA Travel policy. No major impact otherwise. |
| 110 (57) | Pro: Expanded safety and health protections Con: none |
| 111 (73) | Completely re-written. More specific. Con: no mention of right to confidentiality but participation in the program is voluntary and confidentiality is required within the program guidelines. |
| 112 (none) | Defines and clarifies the parties understanding of agency abstinence requirements contained in the drug/alcohol testing program. |
| 113 (none) | All new language covering self-referral |
| 114 (74) | Updates our Drug/Alcohol testing MOU language. |
| 115 (none) | Pro: Includes relevant portions of the CPP MOU and addresses issues surrounding fully staffed management positions at the expense of the bargaining unit. Con: none |
| 116 (none) | Includes relevant portions of the CPP MOU. |
| 117 (24-1,2,3,9,10) | Strengthens previous language covering excused absence due to hazardous weather (old art 24) |
| 118 (28) | This will be replaced with the new pay system eventually |
| 119 (42) | No major impact. Some new language. Basically covers the current system. |
| 120 (none) | New language allows for the development of a self-directed work team pilot program that, if successful, could be implemented nationwide. |
| 121 (7) | Pro: addresses issues surrounding union rights due to conflicting EEO/FLRA agendas. Con: none |
| 122 (53) | No losses. Expands on employee rights. |
| 123 (26) | Pro: requires management to keep and use statistical data in any determination to reduce holiday staffing. Con: reduced holiday schedule posting requirement from 35 to 28 days. |