Settlements and Negotiated Agreements
Chapter 164 has been very successful in our efforts during grievances and negotiations in representing employees and reaching agreement with management on various issues. Below is a list of the grievance settlements (imposed or negotiated) or negotiated agreements that the chapter has obtained on behalf of the bargaining unit. This list is limited to issues applicable to more than a single individual or work unit. For information on those issues, contact your local steward.
Grievance Settlements
| Title | Date | Grievance# | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bid and Rotation | June 2010 | This grievance was filed in the Oroville area in response to management's decision to implement the new B&R MOU by limited officer bids to a spot on a rotating schedule as opposed to an established shift. The arbitrator found that such a limitation was contrary to the purpose of the B&R agreement and that management could "offer" a rotating shift but could not compel employees to work it, but must instead allow them to preference the available established work shifts. | |
| Predictable Schedules-Oroville AP | May 2011 | 201101178 | This grievance was filed in response to management's deviation from the past practice of providing a scheduling model that allowed employees to predict their RDOs for the duration of the B&R year. After NTEU invoked arbitration, the agency agreed to a settlement whereby a predictable scheduling model would be used. |
| Order to Write Memorandum | March 2012 | 201204514 | In this grievance NTEU contented that when an employee is ordered to write a memorandum, the order constitutes an investigatory interview per Article 22 or the CBA and the employee is entitled to Union representation and the applicable notifications. At the Step 3, DFO James concurred with NTEU's position and agreed to a settlement acknowledging the employee's are entitled to Article 22 protections when ordered to write a memorandum when the employee reasonably believes that memorandum could result in disciplinary action. |
| Wear of Suspenders as an EEO Reasonable Accommodation | Sept 2012 | 20 11005·NTEU | The employee in this case filed an EEO grievance over the agency's refusal to provide him with a reasonable accommodation to relieve the pressure on his lower back caused by the weight of his duty belt. This pressure irritated an old job related injury suffered by the employee. After more than 3-years and numerous attempts to deal with this situation on his own, NTEU assisted the employee in filing an EEO grievance which eventually led to the agency agreeing to provide the employee with non-visible (under the shirt) suspenders to support the weight of his duty belt. This was a ground breaking win for NTEU and the employees on a issue which the agency had previously refused to budge on. |