San Diego Sector management continues to display contempt for your Union

NBPC Local 1613 has been forced to file another grievance recently regarding violations of two agreements that were made in 1998 and were honored by San Diego Sector for the past ten years. The following is the official grievance which was submitted to the Agency:

[GRIEVANCE - BEGIN]

March 3, 2008

Michael Fisher
Chief Patrol Agent
United States Border Patrol
2411 Boswell Road
Chula Vista, CA 91914

RE: Union Initiated Grievance

Chief Fisher,

The following constitutes a Union-initiated grievance filed in accordance with Article 33 F. of the 1995 Agreement between U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and National Border Patrol Council (hereafter referred to only as CBA). As per Article 33 F (2) of the CBA, I have been designated by T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), to file this grievance.

The Union determined the violations complained of herein occurred as a result of actions initiated by San Diego Sector Labor and Employee Relations (LERS) Specialist Ralph DeSio and Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Richard Barlow. In accordance with Article 33 J of the CBA, if management deems this to be an inappropriate level for this grievance, the grievance will be considered timely and management will forward the grievance to the level it designates as being responsible for the action being grieved.

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2008, the NBPC submitted a request, in accordance with Article 7 F (2) of the CBA, for Union representatives to attend Union representative training on April 1, 2008 through April 3, 2008.

On February 11, 2008, Bobby Artis, Labor Relations Specialist (LRS), responded to the NBPC’s request and approved the training. However, LRS Artis said: “…local managers may authorize the use of official time for training by the designated NBPC representatives to attend the training…”

On the same day, LERS Ralph DeSio sent an email to Chris Bauder, NBPC Local 1613 Union President, regarding the NBPC training request. The email stated, in pertinent part:

Chris, Sector is in receipt of the attached request for official-time for the April 1-3, 2008 NBPC Training. Sector will only approve 30 man-days for this event which would imply 10 employees for the 3-days. The present list indicates 16 employees. Could you please provide me with an adjusted list that will support the 30 man-days so that I may check with the stations to ensure that the release of the employees is feasible?

Bauder called LERS DeSio on the same date to discuss the email. Bauder asked LERS DeSio why San Diego Sector was ignoring the prior local agreement from 1998 and the subsequent long-standing past practice that allowed the Union to go beyond the thirty “man day” maximum set forth in the CBA. LERS DeSio acknowledged there was a local agreement, but challenged the past practice. LERS DeSio said he believed management retained the right to approve or disapprove attendees.

Bauder explained how he was present during the meeting in 1998, and the parties agreed they would no longer be bound by the maximum number of man-days set forth under Article 7 F (1). Bauder said under the agreement, management retained the right to approve or disapprove attendees; however, management agreed they would only exercise their right if the number of attendees negatively impacted the operations at a specific station. Bauder asserted the current requested number of attendees was not unreasonable or excessive and should have minimal impact, if any, on the station’s operations. LERS DeSio agreed fifteen representatives was a reasonable number in a sector with over 1500 agents assigned to eight different stations.

LERS DeSio acknowledged San Diego Sector allowed Local 1613 to exceed the maximum number of man-days in previous years. However, he claimed the variances were only due to management’s decision and not the agreement or past practice. LERS DeSio also said he informed DCPA Barlow of the previous years where Local 1613 exceeded the maximum number of man-days. LERS DeSio said he would forward the information to DCPA Barlow for further review.

On February 21, 2008, LERS DeSio sent another email to Bauder. The email stated:

After our February 11, 2008, discussion related to your request and reasons that the Agency should grant 16 employees three man-days each for the April-1-3 NBPC Training, it went to the Deputy for further review.

The Deputy has directed the releasing of 10 union officials to use the 30-man-days for the three-day event as provided for by Article 7, Section F (1) of the national labor agreement. Anything above 10 will be allowed Annual Leave to attend the training IF the stations are not operationally impacted. That determination will be made at the station level. Therefore, this means the union will have to, at a minimum; reduce its request from 16 union officials to 10. Further, you will have to tell the Agency which 10 union officials will use the man-days so this can be coordinated with the stations for consideration to its work load requirements and proper entry into time and attendance records. Please provide the list at the soonest possible time so it can be effectively processed.

On the same day, Bauder replied to LERS DeSio’s email. The reply stated, in pertinent part:

As you expected, I will be filing a grievance on this matter. In the meantime, you can remove Shawn Moran and me from the list since we are on official time and our names probably should never have been included in that list, due to the prior agreement regarding the full-time positions. In addition, you can remove [name removed] from that list. I believe I told you before that his name would be removed. Finally, all other names shall remain on the list, but instead of three days for training, each will be utilizing only two days for training in combination with a/l since they have to request a/l for the business meeting anyway, which will result in the local only utilizing 26 man-days. I will be speaking with the representatives and if any of them are not interested in using two days of a/l for this event, I will inform you of those individuals so their names can be removed from the list. If you need clarification, please feel free to call me.

On March 3, 2008, LERS DeSio sent the following email to Bauder:

Chris - you said you would be speaking with you representatives and if any of them are not interested in using two days of Annual Leave or this event, you would let me know so their names can be removed from the list. Are there any adjustments to make?

Also – the Agency recognizes you and Shawn Moran on 100% official time for your regular Monday through Friday work week under Article 7 (A) to perform representational duties under Article 7 A 4 (a-h). However, Article 7 (F) 1 is not for representational duties but rather to attend training approved by management. Consequently, the Agency does not agree with your position that you and Mr. Moran should be excluded from the presented list of attendees to attend the training on April-1-3. Therefore, the present list minus [name removed] reflects 15 representatives - and with the use of annual leave for a day would constitute the full use of 30 man-days. Also, as stated earlier, the Deputy had approved 10 representatives to attend. The authority beyond the 10 has not yet been given. Once the final list is presented and the breakdown of man-days and annual leave is determined, it will be re-presented to the Deputy for consideration.

On March 7, 2008, Bauder spoke with DCPA Barlow. During the phone call, Bauder discussed LERS DeSio’s emails, and the agreement and subsequent past practice from 1998. Bauder explained how this was the first time in ten years since the agreement was made that the Union experienced problems with sector management approving attendees for training. DCPA Barlow said he did not believe he should have to abide by an agreement made with a previous Chief. Bauder explained the sole purpose of the agreement was to not be restricted by the thirty man-days set forth in Article 7 (F) 1 so that an adequate number of Union representatives could be properly trained to fulfill their duties under the CSRA.

DCPA Barlow said he spoke with someone in Labor and Employee Relations (LER) who informed him of the thirty man-days maximum under the CBA. He said LER told him every other sector was abiding by the thirty man-days and San Diego Sector should do the same. He also said LER informed him the CBA took precedence over local agreements and past practices. The Union explained there was case law from the FLRA that contradicted the guidance from LER. DCPA Barlow said he would allow fifteen representatives to attend, but they would only be approved for two days of administrative leave instead of three days. He also said station management had the final decision based on the impact to their operations.

Bauder asked DCPA Barlow about LERS DeSio’s email that misrepresented the terms of the local agreement pertaining to the full-time Union positions. DCPA Barlow said LER informed him of those terms. Bauder explained he was present during the meeting in 1998 and none of the terms cited in LERS DeSio’s email were ever discussed during the meeting. Again, DCPA Barlow reiterated his belief that he should not be bound by agreements made with previous Chiefs. Bauder provided the background for both agreements and discussed the underlying reasons for the agreements.

Bauder also discussed the term “administrative excusal”, as written in Article 7 F (1). The Union contends the term “administrative excusal” implies an excusal from the regular duties as a Border Patrol Agent. Since the two Union officials are currently serving in a full-time Union capacity, the parties understood in 1998 there would be no reason for a full-time Union official to request approval in advance for administrative excusal from his/her duties as a Border Patrol Agent to attend training when the full-time Union official is already administratively excused from his/her regular duties. DCPA Barlow disagreed and said his decision, which was based on guidance from LER, was final and the two full-time Union officers would now have to request approval in advance to be administratively excused from their full-time Union duties to attend Union training.

DCPA Barlow expressed his disapproval of content on the Local 1613 official website and blog. Specifically, he was upset about a picture of the Chief of the Border Patrol appearing as a puppet and on a Mexican Peso. He said he was dissatisfied with an article on the Union’s blog about Michael Fisher, Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) for San Diego Sector. DCPA Barlow insisted the article regarding CPA Fisher was inaccurate but he did not provide any specific references to inaccurate content.

DCPA Barlow informed the Union how he would meet with the Union in the future under two conditions. The first condition was the meeting would have to be restricted to one hour. The second condition was Local 1613 would have to remove all negative content from the official Union website and blog before he would meet. He further explained how the Union would be required to meet with him to resolve any issues before the Union could post any negative content on the Union’s official website or blog.

On March 10, 2008, for the first time since the training was approved by LRS Artis, LERS DeSio notified station management of the list of attendees and the dates for the training. LERS DeSio informed station management that the final decision to release a Union representative for the training was subject to workload review and the station’s ability to allow a representative to be absent during that period.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

During a labor-management relations meeting in 1998, San Diego Sector and NBPC – Local 1613 entered into a local agreement regarding training for Union representatives. According to the local agreement, the parties would no longer be bound by the maximum number of man-days for Union representatives to attend training, as outlined in Article 7 F (1). In addition, the parties agreed:

1. The Union would make every effort to provide training to Union representatives prior to certifying a person as a Local 1613 representative, when possible.

2. The Union would advise management in advance of any training that was to be conducted for Union representatives or prospective representatives;

3. The Union would provide management an advance list of attendees for the training. The number of attendees for a particular event would be reasonable and would take into consideration the needs of the Service so as to avoid negatively impacting the operations at a given station;

4. Management retained the right to reduce the number of attendees assigned to a station if management believed the number of attendees was unreasonable and would negatively impact the operations at the station where the attendees were assigned;

5. If the Union identified training offered by a third party (EEO, OWCP, FLRA, etc.) that appeared to be of mutual concern to the Service and the Union, and appropriate for joint training of management officials and Union representatives, then the Union would provide advance notice to management about the training so management could consider sending management officials with those requested to attend on behalf of the Union.

There were many reasons for this agreement, some of which are outlined below:

1. The agreement resulted from a discussion initiated by Chief William T. Veal. Specifically, Chief Veal asked about the increasing number of grievances and Unfair Labor Practices filed improperly by Union representatives.

In response, Union officers explained how Article 7 F. (1) of the CBA restricted the number of representatives who could attend training in a year. The Union discussed how Union representatives, unlike any other collateral duty in San Diego Sector, were expected to attend training on their day off or annual leave. As a result, Local 1613 had been forced to certify representatives without ever providing training due to the maximum number of man-days imposed by the CBA.

2. Both parties recognized the growth in the bargaining unit since 1995 when the CBA was signed and acknowledged the bargaining unit in San Diego Sector was expected to double by the year 2000. This meant the number of Union representatives at each station increased to accommodate the growth in the bargaining unit. Both parties questioned how a sector with 200 employees received the same number of man-days as a sector with 2000 employees.

Since signing this agreement, CPA William T. Veal, CPA Darryl E. Griffen, DCPA Harold Beasley, DCPA Paul Blocker, and all current and past (Acting) CPA’s, (Acting) DCPA’s, ACPA’s and (Acting) ACPA’s abided by the agreement and refrained from declining training for representatives because of the thirty man-day limit set forth in the CBA. The above mentioned officials never denied official time for training for representatives, never requested an adjustment to the list of attendees, nor have they ever refused to allow the Union to participate in training offered by third parties. Furthermore, the Union consistently fulfilled their obligation to take into consideration the impact to operations when identifying attendees for each station, and when possible, avoided certifying representatives before providing representative training.

The only reasons provided by the Agency for violating the local agreement were:

1. DCPA Barlow believes he does not have to abide by agreements made with previous Chiefs;

2. DCPA Barlow stated his decision was based upon the following LER guidance:

a. Article 7 F (1) of the CBA provided a maximum of thirty man-days for Union representative training and since every other sector was abiding by the CBA, San Diego Sector should do the same;

b. The CBA takes precedence over a local agreement or past practice, regardless of how long the agreement or practice has existed;

3. LERS DeSio believed management retained the right, under the local agreement, to limit the number of attendees without any rational justification.

To date, management has not mentioned the impact to operations at the stations where the attendees are assigned. Instead, LERS DeSio waited until March 10, 2008 to send the first correspondence about this training event to station management.

During the meeting in 1998, San Diego Sector and NBPC – Local 1613 also entered into a local agreement regarding two full-time Union positions. None of the terms cited in LERS DeSio’s email were ever discussed or stipulated during the meeting. Regrettably, it appears someone in LER dishonorably falsified the terms of the local agreement to justify the current violation. At the meeting, San Diego Sector management never attempted to limit the full-time positions to a Monday through Friday workweek; they never stipulated the positions only perform representational duties as outlined under Article 7 A 4 (a-h); and they never intended for the full-time officials to request approval in advance to attend training. As previously explained, both parties understood it was unnecessary to require a full-time Union official to request approval in advance to be administratively excused from his/her full-time Union duties to attend Union training.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

The Union contends DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio violated the following sections of the CBA, local agreements reached between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector in 1998, and the subsequent long-standing past practices that were established over the past ten years as a result of the local agreements:

1. The local agreement between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector from 1998 said the parties would not be bound by the maximum number of man-days set forth for in Article 7 F. (1) of the CBA, as previously outlined above.

DCPA Barlow did not challenge the existence of the agreement and subsequent past practice. Instead, DCPA Barlow provided three immaterial excuses to justify the unilateral abrogation of the local agreement.

LERS DeSio only challenged the past practice, but acknowledged Local 1613 had exceeded the maximum number of man-days in previous years. LERS DeSio believed management retained the right to limit the number of attendees under the agreement. He said neither the agreement nor the past practice required management to automatically approve the list of attendees. The Union informed LERS DeSio his belief was in part true, but under the agreement, management’s right to deny attendees was triggered by an impact to station operations, not the restriction regarding thirty man-days.

Neither LERS DeSio nor DCPA Barlow ever asserted a negative impact to operations, nor did they attempt to allege the number was unreasonable. On the contrary, LERS DeSio agreed fifteen representatives was a reasonable number in a sector with over 1500 agents assigned to eight different stations.

2. The local agreement between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector from 1998 regarding two full-time Union positions.

Someone in LER dishonorably falsified the local agreement regarding the two full-time Union officials. None of the criteria cited in LERS DeSio’s email was mentioned during the meeting in 1998. The parties understood the bargaining unit worked twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and for this reason, the full-time Union officials were not restricted to a Monday through Friday workweek. The parties also never specified the full-time positions were only authorized to perform representational duties under Article 7 A 4 (a) – (h) since the parties recognized there were other duties that did not fall within the list which could lawfully be performed by representatives, as is evident by the last paragraph of Article 7 A 4.

The parties also established the full-time positions would be administratively excused from performing their regular duties as Border Patrol Agents to perform full-time duties as Union officials. For this reason, the parties recognized the full-time Union officials would not be required to request approval in advance to attend training since the full-time Union officials would already be administratively excused from their regular duties.

3. Article 3A, A, which states, in pertinent part:

The parties recognize that from time to time during the life of the agreement, the need will arise requiring the change of existing Service regulations covering personnel policies, practices, and/or working conditions not covered by this agreement. The Service shall present the changes it wishes to make to existing rules, regulations and existing practices to the Union.

The Union never received advance notice from DCPA Barlow about the changes he wished to make to the local agreements and subsequent past practices. Instead, he unilaterally abrogated the agreement and long-standing past practice regarding training for Union representatives and he unilaterally changed the agreement and long-standing past practice regarding training for the full-time Union officials.

4. Article 6 A. which states:

The Service shall not impose any restraint (except as may otherwise be provided in the CSRA or this agreement), interference, coercion, or discrimination against employees in the exercise of their rights to organize and designate representatives of their choosing for the purposes of collective bargaining, Labor-Management Relations, or upon duly designated employee representatives acting on behalf of an employee or group of employees within the bargaining unit.

The Union contends DCPA Barlow revealed his objective in violating the local agreements when he announced the conditions to the Union about meeting with him. The Union argues the conditions that require the Union to remove all negative material from the Union’s official website and blog and to avoid posting any negative material in the future without first speaking with DCPA Barlow is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the lawful activities of Union officials and coerce Union officials into compliance with his personal preferences.

The Union did not play a role in destroying the positive labor-management relationship that evolved in the San Diego Sector since 1998. Up until late 2006, San Diego Sector honored existing agreements and past practices and preserved the effective means of communication between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector. Since late 2006, San Diego Sector unilaterally abrogated or modified several local agreements and subsequent past practices, and dismantled the effective means of communication between the parties at the sector level. Consequently, the content which DCPA Barlow deems negative is merely a reaction to San Diego Sector management’s actions in the past two years. Instead of imposing unlawful conditions on the Union, DCPA Barlow should compare the counterproductive actions of San Diego Sector management in the past two years to the positive labor-management relationship which existed prior to 2006 to understand how to achieve his goal of preventing negative content on the Union’s official website and blog.

5. Article 7 F (1), which states:

The Service agrees that official leave may be administratively authorized for Union representatives to attend training approved by Management which is designed to advise representatives on matters within the scope of the CSRA, which are of mutual concern to the Service and the Union. Administrative excusal for this purpose will not exceed ten (10) man days per fiscal year for each Sector with less than 50 employees, 20 man days per year for each sector with 50-199 employees, 30 man days per year for each Sector with more than 200 employees, and 20 man days per year for the Council.

As previously explained, the Union contends the local agreements from 1998 modified Article 7 of the CBA. However, DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio disregarded those local agreements and subsequent past-practices. Therefore, if DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio intend to hold the Union to a strict interpretation of the CBA in violation of the local agreements/past practices, then they should be mindful of their obligations under the Article they claim they are enforcing.

The Union insists the delays in responding to the request were due in part to the improper interpretation of Article 7 F (1). LERS DeSio consistently stated Local 1613 was required to reduce the list to just ten attendees because of the thirty man-day restriction. However, the Union asserted the local agreement and subsequent past practice took precedent. Nevertheless, to avoid further delays and to comply with the Agency’s unlawful request, the Union modified the use of the man-days so each representative could attend by using only two days of official time in conjunction with their annual leave and/or scheduled days off.

LERS DeSio still attempted to restrict the number of representatives to just ten; however, nothing in the CBA gives the Agency the authority to dictate how the Union will use the thirty man-days. For example, the Union believes the Union retains the right, under Article 7 F (1), to determine how to use the thirty man-days. If the Union chooses to send thirty representatives to a three-day training event, with each representative only using one man-day for purposes of official leave, the only authority the Agency has regarding this decision is whether or not the thirty representatives can be administratively excused without negatively impacting the operations at a station.

Even after the Union asserted the right to determine how we intended to use those man-days, LERS DeSio still indicated DCPA Barlow only authorized ten representatives to attend the training. As previously mentioned, DCPA Barlow’s only reason for limiting the number to ten representatives was the maximum of thirty man-days, not the operational needs of a particular station. LERS DeSio’s assertion that DCPA Barlow must still approve the 15 is not based on any authority under Article 7 F (1) of the CBA; especially since the stations still had not been contacted to determine how many representatives could be released from the respective stations. That determination was not delegated to the stations until LERS DeSio sent an email to station management on March 10, 2008.

6. Article 7 F (2), which states, in pertinent part:

Management shall notify the Union of its decision no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the agenda.

Based upon the previously cited chronological list of events, the Union contends the delays in responding to this issue are completely unnecessary and are rather ironic considering the fact LERS DeSio and DCPA Barlow claim they were enforcing the terms of the CBA. LERS DeSio and DCPA Barlow should have been mindful of the fifteen days that are provided for management’s decision. Prior to the email LERS DeSio sent to station management officials on March 10, 2008, DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio never cited a negative impact to a station; yet the impact to operations should have been the only basis for denying representatives under the local agreement and Article 7 F.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

The FLRA has held a condition of employment is established when a past practice is established over a long period of time. In Department of the Navy, Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN and AFGE, Local 1744, 5-CA-80431; 36 FLRA No. 65; 36 FLRA 567 (August 10, 1990), the Authority found the employer committed an Unfair Labor Practice when the employer violated 5 USC 7116(a)(1) and (5) by changing the procedure for scheduling official time for representational meetings. The Authority rejected the employer’s argument that the matter was set forth in the contract since the past practice was established.

In U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and POPA, 39 FLRA No. 130; 39 FLRA 1477 (March 27, 1991), the FLRA concluded the employer could not unilaterally change a past practice in an attempt to conform with the collective bargaining agreement. In 31 FLRA 952, the Authority initially concluded that the unilateral implementation of the changes did not constitute an Unfair Labor Practice. However, the Union appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court, 872, F.2d 451 (89 FLRR 1-8013) and the court disagreed with the FLRA. On remand, the FLRA accepted the Court’s interpretation and determined a past practice did exist, which permitted official time for both grievance and non-grievance issues. The FLRA rejected the employer’s argument that the action was an attempt to enforce the contract and explained that an Agency may not change a past practice even if the established practice differs from the express terms of the parties’ agreement.

REQUESTED REMEDIES

The Union hereby requests the following remedies to resolve this grievance:

1. The Bureau shall cease and desist from:

a. Unilaterally changing conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees by changing existing past practices.

b. Unilaterally abrogating the local agreement regarding training for Union representatives;

c. Unilaterally modifying the local agreement regarding the full-time positions;

d. Violating the CBA, particularly Articles 3A A, 6 A, and 7 F.

2. Immediate and full compliance with Articles 3A A, 6 A, and 7 F of the CBA;

3. Immediate and full adherence to the provisions of law, the CBA, local agreements, and subsequent past practices, including the rescission of all unilateral changes and a return to the status quo ante and the maintenance thereof until such time the parties mutually agree to changes in past practices and/or contractual provisions;

4. For all representatives who were forced to use one day of annual leave to attend the third day of training, the Bureau shall restore the annual leave to the representative’s leave balance;

5. The Bureau shall be responsible for any financial losses caused to the Local for the untimely response to the Union’s request for official time to attend the training.

Due to the twenty-nine plus days it took for the Bureau to determine how to terminate, violate, and misrepresent the local agreements and subsequent past practices, the Union was forced to postpone notifying attendees. This resulted in a significant delay in reserving lodging and airfare. The Union contends the Bureau is responsible if Union representatives are charged a higher rate for lodging or airfare than the rates offered at the time the request was supposed to be adjudicated.

In accordance with Article 33 F. (1), the Union is prepared to meet to discuss this grievance. Please feel free to contact me directly to schedule a meeting regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Bauder

San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher shows contempt for your Union

Since taking over as Chief, San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher has destroyed the positive labor-management relationship that evolved between San Diego Sector management and Local 1613 since 1998. This is the first time since I have been a Union representative that I can honestly say I now understand why Union officials act the way they do in some locations. How is the Union supposed to respond when the management official in charge of San Diego Sector shows complete contempt for your Union and prior agreements without any rational explanation?

For the past nine years, I have participated in meetings between sector management and the Union. I witnessed the labor-management relationship evolve into an effective forum for resolving labor-management disputes. Chief Fisher, without considering the history of labor-management relations in the San Diego Sector, decided that the relationship was non-existent, eliminated the management-labor workgroup, and essentially terminated all effective communications between your Union and sector management. In addition, Chief Fisher has attempted to unilaterally terminate several prior agreements without even providing the Union as much as a courtesy notice.

Chief Fisher decided that he can do a better job than you in selecting your representatives. So, instead of meeting with your elected representatives, Chief Fisher formed a new workgroup called the Radar Screen Workgroup. Each station sends participants, which in some locations, the participants were hand-picked by management and in other locations the participants were selected by the Detail Management Team. In addition, supervisors were sent to represent your interests.

Now, I realize some may argue that we have always had workgroups in the past (i.e. Quality Initiative Workgroup). However, there is a major difference between the past workgroups and Chief Fisher’s workgroup. In the past, anything that was proposed by a workgroup of bargaining unit members and supervisors was presented to the Union prior to implementation. Under Chief Fisher, the Union is bypassed and whatever is proposed is implemented, regardless of what the majority of you may want or desire.

One of your elected Union representatives attended the last Radar Screen Workgroup. During the meeting, your elected representative listened to Chief Fisher as he praised the workgroup for their ideas. Ironically, a majority of the ideas he praised them for were ideas that were presented by the Union in the past and rejected by Chief Fisher. The following is a list of items from the last workgroup meeting:

1. Within Sector transfers-VRP should now allow for in-sector laterals.

In 1999 and then again in 2005, Local 1613 proposed a system for San Diego Sector Agents to transfer to another station within SDC at no cost to the government. The main difference between the Local 1613 proposal and the Office of Border Patrol’s VRP was that the selections were to be made by seniority since the government was not paying the agent to move. Another difference is that every station in sector would have a predetermined number of openings and every agent in sector, regardless of location, would be eligible to participate.

Chief Griffen was in favor of this program, as was every other management official who we spoke with during our negotiations. However, when Chief Fisher took over, the Union learned that Chief Fisher abandoned the idea. Chief Fisher never had the courtesy to notify the Union of his decision.

As for the VRP now handling in-sector transfers, we will have to wait and see what happens. We have already learned that there are several restrictions on which stations are participating, but for unknown reasons, that information is secret. Furthermore, does anyone understand the purpose behind asking an agent to fill out an application, as if they were applying for a new job, when the agent is just requesting a transfer from one location to another? Clearly the purpose of this application is to make it easier for management to deny a transfer for personal reasons. This is why Chief Fisher prefers this system for in-sector transfers.

2. Create or update station standard operating procedures

After witnessing the manner in which some stations responded or didn’t respond after September 11, Local 1613 proposed that management review and update as necessary the SOP’s for the stations. In addition, we proposed that the agents be made aware of the SOP’s, specifically what was expected in an emergency.

3. BIC and station Intel units providing updates briefings at muster

When operations became more Intel driven and Intel units were given more authority, Local 1613 requested that agents in the field be better informed as to the Intel that was being gathered. One aspect of this request was that station Intel units provide updates at muster.

4. Additional manpower

Since 2001, Local 1613 repeatedly questioned the lack of manpower and resources in San Diego Sector that were necessary to operate under the current National Border Patrol Strategy. Local 1613 also requested that Imperial Beach station not flex east until the appropriate resources and manpower were provided to the station. However, under Chief Fisher, that flex occurred without any regard to the safety hazards that exist when there is an insufficient number of agents to occupy a given area, especially an area that is prone to a high number of assaults against agents.

5. Station to Station Standardization

Local 1613 consistently requested the standardization of policies throughout sector. This resulted in Chief Griffen forming the Standardization Workgroup, which consisted of management and Union representatives. In addition to standardizing the disciplinary process throughout the San Diego Sector, we attempted to standardize the DMT policies. Chief Veal and Chief Griffen supported a standardized DMT policy and Local 1613 worked with various management officials throughout SDC to develop a standardized sector DMT policy that would have resolved many issues that are present with the existing outdated policies. However, Chief Fisher rejected this standardized DMT policy and again, never had the courtesy to notify your elected Union representatives.

6. Contracted Hospital Watch

Hospital watch has been an ongoing problem since at least 2000. Previously, Local 1613 requested that Detention and Enforcement handle hospital watch, as this fell within their duties. When DHS was created and we lost all of our Detention and Enforcement Officers, Local 1613 asked management to consider contracting out that position to ICE since the DEO’s were now under ICE. In addition, Local 1613 proposed a hospital watch program that required two agents to oversee a detainee in the hospital. There were several reasons for this program, but the foremost reason was the liability issues involved when just one agent was assigned to a detainee. Under Chief Griffen, an agreement was reached that required two agents for hospital watch. Under Chief Fisher, this agreement is being dismantled without any discussions with your elected Union representatives.

7. Press releases will be sent to stations. Goal of having several releases per week carried by the media.

Although Local 1613 has not previously requested that the press releases be sent to the stations, we have routinely proposed that sector PIO become more aggressive in releasing positive news to the media for consideration. Since we deal with the media on a regular basis, we realize the media will ultimately choose what to publish, but that sector PIO should work toward challenging the media when they misrepresent the facts. The local’s proposal also discussed the perceived lack of support by management for agents who are involved in critical incidents.

8. Non-traditional awards of gift cards, etc. on a timely basis to agents and supervisors.

Local 1613 engaged in discussions with the previous Chief’s about awarding employees with other available means since the existing methods were restrictive. Although we never suggested gift cards since that money would have to be allocated or taken from the sector budget, we did propose that management award people with comp days. Due to our proposals, the previous Chief’s did award agents with comp days in certain situations. Under Chief Fisher, we are already hearing problems with the granting of comp days for certain situations (i.e. to reward agents who participated with the recent fires).

9. Team Leader, OIC development.

With the elimination of the Senior Patrol Agent position, as we knew it before the across the board positions were approved, Local 1613 proposed that management make every effort possible to provide agents with opportunities that once existed, like the Team Leader and Officer in Charge positions.

10. Limit time on sector details based on training and experience requirements.

As previously mentioned, Local 1613 worked with management officials under Chief Veal and Chief Griffen to revise the existing DMT policies and to standardize these policies into one sector policy. The revised sector DMT policy specifically addressed establishing a set time for details. However, Chief Fisher rejected the standardized sector-policy and instead is working to dismantle the DMT policies at your stations so that we can go back to the days of nepotism, cronyism, and control of the rank and file by fear of retaliation.

11. Early retirement training for agents.

Local 1613 has regularly requested additional retirement training for agents. At the last meeting we had with the now-dismantled labor-management workgroup, Local 1613 requested more training and that request was granted. We realized that the retirement training has always been disproportional to the amount of agents who need retirement training. Consequently, in the past, Local 1613 successfully sponsored retirement training for our members; however, that required coordination with sector officials. Under Chief Fisher, the only coordination we have observed is a coordinated effort to remove your Union from the workplace and to dismantle all the labor-management relations that were established over the past ten years.

A sampling of some of the other items raised by your management-appointed representatives:

• Rapid response and dynamic operations based on threat assessments.
• Rename sensors according to zones they are in.
• More station level STRIKE teams.
• Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
• Sector Training to provide briefing of SDC Enforcement Strategy and National Border Patrol Strategy to agents and stations.
• Briefings to stations regarding Special Ops Units and their missions.
• Reorganization of Special Ops Division.
• Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
• Implemented online system to increase direct contact between field and the Chief.
• Install flat-panel TVs in muster rooms.
• Install Chief’s mailbox on Outlook.
• CBPNet- Ask Chief Fisher icon.
• Increased Command Staff visits to musters. (Anyone aware of these?)
• Frontline Newsletter. 1000 copies will be sent to stations and units. Family news to be included.
• Training with DCPA Barlow for new supervisors.
• Sector Training to explain Intern responsibilities. Field Training Unit program and Post Academy to visit musters to explain.
• More leadership training to be held at DTAC and Range.
• Civilian analysts for Intel thus returning agents to the field.
• Command 101 Program.
• Technical Training Course for new supervisors.
• Mentor program through Wilson for new supervisors.

As you can see by the above list, some of your management-appointed representatives were looking out for your best interest and attempting to resolve important issues that affect your conditions in the workplace. I am curious how many agents agree that the Agency should hire civilian analysts to handle Intel or how many agents wanted to learn more about the Special Ops units. More importantly, how many agents want to hear more propaganda about the National Border Patrol Strategy? I think it is safe to assume every agent has heard more than enough about this Strategy since Chief Fisher arrived in San Diego Sector.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Chief Fisher does not respect your right as an agent to be a member of a Union, nor does he respect your right as a Union member to designate a representative of your choosing. Instead, Chief Fisher has decided it is in his best interest to circumvent your elected Union representatives and meet with agents that are selected by management. Basically, Chief Fisher has determined that management can do a better job than you in selecting who speaks on your behalf.

Now you may not participate with the elections of Union officials or you may not be actively involved with the Union, but here is the difference: with the Union, you have the ability to decide who represents you; with Chief Fisher’s program, you never will have a say in who represents you. Furthermore, you have no recourse if that person promotes their personal agenda or even better, management’s agenda.

All that is required of you by your Union is to stay informed, check the Union websites, and communicate with your Union representatives (email, phone, meetings, etc.); attending meetings isn’t even necessary with the current technology that is utilized by your union. If you regularly disagree with a particular Union representative on an issue, you always have the option of changing that person at the next election. If the person is appointed, you should express your concerns with your elected Union officials; otherwise, how are your elected officials ever going to know there is a problem. So, you decide, do you want to retain the right to choose who represents you on issues that affect you in the workplace or do you want management to retain that right and make the choice for you?