ksaldarini@govexec.com
Every Friday on GovExec.com, Legal Briefs reviews cases that involve, or provide valuable lessons to, federal managers. We report on the decisions of a wide range of review panels, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and federal courts.
A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Labor Relations Authority has the power to determine whether agencies must engage in so-called "mid-term bargaining," in which unions can initiate discussions during the life of labor contracts over issues not included in the original contracts (See "Supreme Court: Managers must bargain more with unions," March 4, 1999).
The high court remanded the case (National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1309 v. Department of the Interior et al.) back to the FLRA so the authority could say whether managers have to engage in mid-term bargaining. Since the FLRA has long held that managers must accept unions' mid-term bargaining requests, it's no surprise that it has reaffirmed that position.
"We conclude that an agency is required to bargain over a proposal obligating the agency to engage in mid-term bargaining over matters not contained in or covered by the term agreement," the FLRA ruled on Feb. 28.
Lesson: The FLRA said it before, now they've said it again: You have to engage in mid-term bargaining.
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1309 v. Department of the Interior (56 FLRA No. 6), Federal Labor Relations Authority, Feb. 28, 2000.
Liar, Liar
Mildred Hylick, an Air Force employee, was fired for lying to her supervisor and lying a second time during an investigative interview. But an administrative judge who heard her case said her dismissal was illegal because she was not counseled on her right to have a lawyer present during the interview. According to the judge, had a lawyer been present, Hylick never would have lied to begin with.
The case went to the Merit Systems Protect Board, which overturned the judge's ruling. Hylick was given "proper rights advisement" as specified by Air Force regulations, MSPB said. Since the regulations don't spell out what rights are included in the advisement, the agency isn't legally bound to advise counsel.
Lesson: Common sense, not lawyers, should stop you from lying to your boss.
Mildred Hylick v. Air Force, Merit Systems Protection Board (AT0752990243-I-1), February 14, 2000.
Army Corps Allegations
The Office of Special Counsel has come to the defense of Army Corps of Engineers whistleblower Donald C. Sweeney. Sweeney gained recent fame in the Washington Post for alleging illegal agency actions concerning a plan to improve the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway.
The Corps was required to do a cost-benefit analysis on the feasibility of the improvement project. Sweeney, the original technical manager of the study, charged that Corps officials manipulated the data so the project would get approved.
Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan said Sweeney's testimony reveals substantial likelihood of wrongdoing. The OSC has asked the Secretary of Defense to investigate Sweeney's allegations and report back within sixty days.
Lesson: The Army Corps may be in deep water.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel, February 28, 2000.
NEXT STORY: Pay and Benefits Watch: Legislative update