| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
WebMaster |
| | |
| |
Information |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
There are 4 Journal Items in 4 pages and your are on page number 1
|
| CRU-X/ART |
CRU-X/ART
As all of you know, NATCA and the FAA are involved in a dispute concerning the implementation of changes to CRU-X and the implementation of ART. The Union filed a national grievance and the Parties mutually agreed to an April 19, 2005 arbitration date. Prior to the hearing, the FAA asked NATCA to postpone all arbitrations, including this one because they wanted to prepare for contract negotiations. Once the arbitration is scheduled, Article 9, Section 12 specifically requires both Parties to mutually agree to any postponements. NATCA declined to postpone the arbitration for obvious reasons, so the FAA went behind your backs to the arbitrator.
During a conference call a few days ago involving NATCA, the FAA, and the arbitrator, the FAA argued that it lacked the resources to proceed with the hearing on April 19, 2005. The FAA cited the current negotiations with PASS, the upcoming negotiations with NATCA, and the present staffing shortage within AHL-1.
First, this proceeding has been scheduled for months. Neither the hearing nor the impending contract negotiations were unexpected by the Agency.
Second, what does an alleged staffing shortage within AHL-1 have to do with anything? If that were true, all FAA would have to do is short-staff HR and never be forced to conduct binding arbitration again.
Thirdly, we advised the arbitrator that FAA unilaterally implemented new technology in a cascading manner nation-wide, despite the Union’s efforts to complete negotiations. CRU-X/ART will be in almost every facility by the time the hearing is held. Consequently, we told the arbitrator the harm of delaying any resolution to this matter is massive.
After an extended debate between the Parties, the Arbitrator agreed to postpone the hearing until September 9, 2005.
The arbitrator claimed he considered the potential remedy when deciding whether or not to grant the postponement. He said he recognized that any possible award would entail retroactive relief for employees and as such, “a brief delay in the date of the hearing would not be an undue hardship.” In granting a postponement until September 9, 2005, the Arbitrator recognized the FAA was unprepared for the arbitration and he said that this would give the parties an opportunity to settle the matter prior to hearing. What a crock.
NATCA is currently working to address the harm of this postponement on several fronts. I cannot tell you all of the proposed actions in this forum, because I do not want to advertise our plan or options. I can publicly suggest firing the arbitrator may feel good, but there are many reasons that course of action is not recommended in this particular situation.
In the meantime, it is imperative you do four things:
1. Document any CRU-X deficiency. Forward details to your FacRep so he or she may forward it to Kieth Johnson for review and analysis. If you don’t write it down, it has the same effect as if the deficiency never happened. If the circumstances warrant it, file a UCR. Remember, UCR stands for “Unsatisfactory Condition Report,” not “Unsafe Condition Report.”
2. Keep track of all your hours, differentials, and premiums. CRU-X has caused numerous mistakes to occur already and there doesn’t appear to be an end in sight.
3. File a grievance on any loss of pay, differential, or premium caused by the implementation of CRU-X/ART. We’ll need the documentation for the arbitration September 9.
4. Log everything you do into CRU-X/ART, e.g., overlapped briefings, Read and Initial Binder, OJT debriefings, etc. Watch your facilities’ productivity soar.
FAA ATMs have been quoted as saying really ridiculous things like “CRU-X isn’t working because controllers don’t like it.” This “insight” is transparent on the surface – I suppose the reverse infers CRU-X/ART would have worked if the controllers’ liked it. Actually, if the FAA were telling the truth about CRU-X/ART, they would find they will not be able to hide from three facts:
1. Your benign employer broke the law when they unilaterally terminated your MOU and forced this dumb idea down your throat without so much as advance notice or an opportunity for your union representatives to negotiate implementation procedures and appropriate arrangements.
2. CRU-X was designed by FAA managers, not programmers. It doesn’t work and it cost the taxpayer millions.
3. Once CRU-X, or its replacement, works, it will clearly demonstrate controllers are a lot more productive than the FAA pour-mouths to external entities.
I will keep you posted as to the Parties “settlement talks,” if that comes to pass. Frankly, I would much rather have our case to present than theirs, but with a political FLRA, one can only guess what will happen as the FAA is sure to “appeal” whatever positive decision or remedy is granted by an arbitrator.
Darrell
|
| Posted by Darrell Meachum on Saturday, April 09, 2005 at 21:37
|
|
|
|
|
NATCA National
