Source: https://www.flra.gov/node/66416
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 22:50:55
Document Index: 493631746

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 2423', '§ 2423', '§ 18', '§ 7118', '§ 2423']

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AEROSPACE MAINTENANCE AND REGENERATION CENTER DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FOR BASE TUCSON, ARIZONA and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2924 | FLRA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2924
and Case No. DE-CA-02-0172
OALJ 03-48
Major Douglas C. Huff
The charge in this case was filed December 20, 2001, and provided as follows:
"On November 28, 2001, at Davis-Monthan AFB, Charles Fraley, Chief, Woodmill Branch, presented Dennis Robinson, who worked at Davis-Monthan AFB AMARC/LGLW with a letter of termination, effective the same day.
On December 17, 2001, Mr. Robinson had signed a "Designation of Representative" and appointed Mr. Barry Gatcomb, then President of Local 2924 as his legal representative. On December 18, 2001, two days before the charge was filed, Mr. Gatcomb filed a Step 1 Grievance on behalf of Mr. Dennis Robinson (Case No. 1090) for his improper termination (Res. Exhs. 6, Attachment to Motion To Dismiss) and a Step 2 Grievance on January 17, 2002 (Res. Exh. 9, Attachment to Motion To Dismiss).
On April 29, 2002, a First Amended charge was filed which provided as follows:
"AMENDED CHARGE: [First Paragraph identical to first paragraph of G.C. Exh. 1(a)]
"Management repudiated and continues to repudiate Article 27 (Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Programs) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and continues to violate its statutory obligation not to repudiate said Agreement. Management has since terminated Vernon Holloway, John Nimrichter, and Dana Clark, who were employed at Davis-Monthan AFB AMARC." (G.C. Exh. 1(b)).
On March 27, 2002 (Tr. 28), Minnette Burges, Esquire, filed an Appeal Form with the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of John A. Nimrichter (Jt. Exh. 15); Appellant's Amended Corrected Submission (Jt. Exh. 16) and at the time of hearing herein, Mr. Nimrichter's MSPB case was set for hearing in December, 2002. On April 3, 2002, Mr. Vernon Holloway, represented by Don Awerkamp, Esquire, filed an Appeal Form with the Merit Systems Protection Board (Jt. Exh. 8) and a settlement was reached on May 2, 2002, which was entered on the record (MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-02-0232-I-1) for enforcement purposes (Jt. Exh. 9).
Both the original and First Amended charge were filed by Ms. Jean M. Southam, a National Representative of American Federation of Government Employees, District 12 which includes Local 2924 (Tr. 36-37). The Complaint issued July 16, 2002, did not name Mr. Dennis Robinson but did name Messrs. Clark, Nimrichter and Holloway.
On October 18, 2002, Respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss, received October 21, 2002. On October 25, 2002, General Counsel filed an Opposition To Respondent's Motion To Dismiss, received on October 31, 2002. Respondent's Motion To Dismiss asserted that the Complaint was barred by 5 U.S.C. § 7116(d), asserting that both the original and the amended charges, alleged, ". . . management violated Article 27 of the parties collective bargaining agreement by repudiating the agreement and terminating an employee. . . . The Complaint in paragraph 14 alleges that the Respondent in this case violated Article 27 of the parties collective bargaining agreement . . . The Complaint . . . alleges the Respondent repudiated the agreement [collective bargaining agreement] . . . when it terminated employees." (Respondent's Motion To Dismiss, pp. 1-2).
At the pre-hearing conference call on November 5, 2002, I stated that I did not agree with Respondent's position, as stated in its Motion To Dismiss, that the charges and the Complaint alleged a single and unified cause of action; that, rather, it appeared to me that the original charge stated two quite independent causes of action: (a) the termination of Dennis Robinson; and (b) Respondent's repudiation of Article 27 of the collective bargaining agreement; that this dichotomy was continued in the First Amended charge and in the Complaint. Ms. Southam, at the pre-hearing conference, stated that it was her intention in filing the charges to file an institutional, i.e., Union, charge that Respondent repudiated Article 27 of the collective bargaining agreement. I further indicated, at the pre-hearing conference, that it appeared to me that the individual claims, i.e., terminations of Messrs. Holloway, Nimrichter and Clark, were barred by § 7116(d) of the Statute; but because it appeared that the Union asserted a separate cause of action, namely, repudiation of Article 27 of the parties' Agreement, I was not going to grant Respondent's Motion To Dismiss.
At the hearing, I repeated that in the prehearing conference I had told Ms. Southam, who was the national representative who filed the charges in this case, ". . . that I would accept her claim that she intended to file an institutional grievance (sic) [charge], but that I would not consider as part of that institutional grievance (sic) [charge] the individual relief for the persons named in the complaint" (Tr. 10).
Section 7116(d) of the Statute provides as follows:
"(d) Issues which can properly be raised under an appeals procedure may not be raised as unfair labor practices prohibited under this section. Except for matters wherein, under section 7121(e) and (f) of this title, an employee has an option of using the negotiated grievance procedure or an appeals procedure, issues which can be raised under a grievance procedure may, in the discretion of the aggrieved party, be raised under the grievance procedure or as an unfair labor practice under this section, but not under both procedures." (5 U.S.C. § 7116(d)).
Indeed, at the hearing, Ms. Southam testified as follows:
"Q Why did you file this charge, Ms. Southam?
Even though Ms. Southam may not have intended the charge and First Amended charge to allege unfair labor practice charges on behalf of any individual employee, the Regional Director in issuing the Complaint obviously interpreted the charges as alleging two distinct and separate causes of action: one the institutional (Union) unfair labor practice allegation of repudiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreements as set forth in Paragraphs 14, 15 and 23 of the Complaint; the second individual unfair labor practices on behalf of Messrs. Clark, Nimrichter and Holloway as set forth in Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24 of the Complaint. Because the decision of Respondent ". . . to remove unit employees Dana Clark, John Nimrichter, and Vernon Holloway . . . without complying with the contractual obligations. . . ." (Par. 22, was an issue which was properly raised in the grievance of Mr. Clark and in the MSPB appeals by Messrs. Holloway and Nimrichter, claims on their behalf are barred by § 7116(d) of the Statute.
The separate institutional (Union) unfair labor practice of repudiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreements, as set forth in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Complaint is not barred by § 7116(d). United States Small Business Administration, Washington, D.C., supra, at 422.
Testimony of Messrs. Holloway, Nimrichter and Clark, as well as other testimony concerning their removal from federal service was received solely as it bears on the Union's institutional assertion of repudiation of Collective Bargaining Agreements and will not be considered in vindication of individual rights for the reason, as stated above, jurisdiction of removals from federal service is vested exclusively in the MSPB or negotiated grievance procedure and may not be brought as unfair labor practices.
1. The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2924 (hereinafter, "Union") is the exclusive representative of an appropriate bargaining unit of Respondent's employees.
2. The charge in this case was filed on December 20, 2001 (G.C. Exh. 1(a)); a First Amended Charge was filed on April 20, 2002 (G.C. Exh. 1(b)); and the Complaint issued on July 16, 2002 (G.C. Exh. 1(c)).
3. On September 15, 1986, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12564 (Jt. Exh. 3) entitled, "Drug-Free Federal Workplace". In his findings, President Reagan stated, in part, as follows:
"The Federal government, as the largest employer in the Nation, can and should show the way towards achieving drug-free workplaces through a program designed to offer drug users a helping hand and, at the same time, demonstrating to drug users and potential drug users that drugs will not be tolerated in the Federal workplace." (id.).
"Section 1. Drug-Free Workplace
"(a) Federal employees are required to refrain from the use of illegal drugs.
"(5) Provision for identifying illegal drug users, including testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis in accordance with this Order." (id.).
"(a) Agencies shall, in addition to any appropriate personnel actions, refer any employee who is found to use illegal drugs to an Employee Assistance Program for assessment, counseling, and referral for treatment or rehabilitation as appropriate. (Emphasis supplied).
"(b) Agencies shall initiate action to discipline an employee who is found to use illegal drugs, provided that such action is not required for an employee who:
"(1) Voluntarily identifies himself as a user of illegal drugs or who volunteers for drug testing pursuant to section 3(b) of this Order, prior to being identified through other means:
"(c) Agencies shall not allow any employee to remain on duty in a sensitive position who is found to use illegal drugs, prior to successful completion of rehabilitation through an Employee Assistance Program. However, as part of a rehabilitation or counseling program, the head of an Executive agency may, in his or her discretion, allow an employee to return to duty in a sensitive position if it is determined that this action would not pose a danger to public health or safety or the national security.
4. On January 29, 1990, the Department of the Air Force's Civilian Drug Testing Plan was issued (Jt. Exh. 4). Paragraph 1. b. provided, in part, as follows:
"1. b. . . . The Department of the Air Force is concerned with the well-being of its employees, the successful accomplishment of agency missions, and the need to maintain employee productivity. The intent of the policy is to offer a helping hand to those who need it, while sending a clear message that any illegal drug use is, quite simply, incompatible with Federal service." (id.). (Emphasis supplied).
"m. Rehabilitation. Generally, a prolonged process, either on site, or off-site (inpatient or outpatient) whose goal is to restore the employee to a well functioning non-substance abusing employee. This process includes the learning of skills to help the person to remain substance free, and should include a period of aftercare, during which the person may be allowed to return to full duties." (id.).
"q. Social Actions Office. The base-level Social Actions Office provides initial assessment of employee substance abuse problems and provides evaluation and referral service. The Social Actions Office is responsible for referring employees to the appropriate treatment and rehabilitation facility, and to monitor their progress and encourage successful completion of the program. Also known as the Substance Abuse Control Program." (id.).
"The Air Force Substance Abuse Control Program, as carried out by the Social Actions Office, plays an important role in preventing and resolving employee drug use by: demonstrating the Air Force's commitment to eliminating illegal drug use; providing employees an opportunity, with appropriate assistance, to discontinue their drug use; providing educational materials to supervisors and employees who have performance and/or conduct problems and making referrals for appropriate treatment and rehabilitation to track their progress and encourage successful completion of the program. . . . Specifically the Social Actions Office will:
Paragraph 10. a., provided, in relevant part, as follows:
"Referral and Availability.
"Leave Allowance. Employees may be allowed up to one hour (or more as necessitated by travel time) of excused absence for each counseling session, up to a maximum of three hours during the assessment/referral phase of rehabilitation. Absences during duty hours for rehabilitation or treatment must be charged to the appropriate leave category according to law and Air Force leave regulations." (id.).
"a. Provide substance abuse evaluation and referral services to all employees referred by their supervisors or on self referral, and otherwise offer employees the opportunity for substance abuse counseling and rehabilitation through referral agencies.
"(4) Suspending the employee for 15 days or more.
"(5) Suspending the employee until the employee successfully completes rehabilitation or until the agency determines that action other than suspension is more appropriate.
"(3) Having been found to have altered or attempted to alter a urine specimen or substitute a specimen for their own or that of another employee.
"b. All letters of proposal and final decision must be coordinated according to
AFR 40-750."
"a. Under Executive Order 12564, the Air Force is required to initiate action to discipline any employee found to use illegal drugs in every circumstance except one. If an employee (1) voluntarily admits his or her drug use; (2) completes counseling or rehabilitation; and (3) thereafter refrains from drug use, such discipline 'is not required'.
"(1) Because the Order permits an agency to create a 'safe harbor' for an employee who meets all four of the following conditions, the Air Force has decided to create such a 'safe harbor' and will not initiate disciplinary action against employees who self-identify during the 60 and 30 day notice period. However, if the employee occupies a position requiring access to classified information, the provisions of AFR 205-32 still apply.
"(2) A fundamental purpose of the Air Force Civilian Drug Testing Plan is to assist employees who themselves are seeking treatment for drug use. For this reason, the Air Force will not take final disciplinary action against any employee who meets all four of these conditions:
"(3) Since the key to this provision's rehabilitative effectiveness is an employee's willingness to admit his or her problem, this provision will not be available to an employee who is asked to provide a urine sample when required, or who is found to have used illegal drugs pursuant to paragraph 34 and who thereafter requests protection under this provision.
5. On December 16, 1991, the Union and Respondent entered into the "Air Force Civilian Drug Testing Agreement Between Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and AFGE Local 2924" (Jt. Exh. 2) (hereinafter referred to as, "Local Drug Agreement). An Addendum was entered into on May 3, 1996, and a further Addendum was entered into on April 1, 1998 (id.) Section 6 of the Local Drug Agreement provides, in part, as follows:
"Notification to Employees
"Employees whose tests have been verified positive will be notified in writing to report to Social Actions for evaluation and appropriate referral for counseling and/or rehabilitation. Employees will be informed of the consequences should they refuse counseling or rehabilitation.
"a. The Employer will retain employees in a duty or approved leave status while undergoing rehabilitation. If placed in a non-duty status, the employee will normally be returned to duty after successful completion of rehabilitation. At the discretion of the activity commander, an employee may return to duty in a TDP, including the TDP formerly occupied by the employee, if the employee's return would not endanger public health, safety or national security." (id.) (Emphasis supplied).
"If the report is positive and employee does not wish to challenge its findings, the Employer will make reasonable accommodations for the employee's drug problem by providing him/her access to a drug treatment and rehabilitation program. If the employee chooses to participate in the program, the employee will be subject to unannounced testing following completion of such a program for a period of one (1) year.
"b. After initial notification interview of a positive test result, the employee may provide any medical evidence within ten days of the initial notification to justify the positive result. . . . The MRO will consider situations beyond the employee's control. Any medical information provided shall be included as part of the record and/or findings of the Base MRO. Copies of verified legally prescribed prescriptions will also be acceptable.
"The Employer agrees to issue a 30-day notice letter informing bargaining unit members of the availability of drug counseling and referral service to which the employee can voluntarily submit during this notice prior to testing without reprisal." (id.).1185014645
Section 20 of the Local Drug Agreement provides as follows:
6. Article 27 of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, signed November 5, 1998 (G.C. Exh. 1), provides, in part, as follows:
"ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE PROGRAMS"
"Section 2. The Union and the Employer jointly recognize alcoholism and drug abuse as treatable illnesses; therefore, employees having these illnesses will receive the same careful consideration and offer of assistance that is extended to employees having any other illness or health problem. Employees participating in drug or alcohol abuse rehabilitation programs may request sick, annual, or leave without pay the same as they would for medical purposes. If a professional from a rehabilitation program makes a request, in writing, on behalf of the employee for leave, such leave should be granted. Failure to successfully complete a rehabilitation program which results in acceptable work performance, after a reasonable period of time, will result in disciplinary procedures. (Emphasis supplied).
7. Respondent's, "Notice of Employee Requirement Employee Assigned to Testing Designated Position (TDP) (Res. Exh. 2) provides, in part, as follows:
"2. As a mandatory requirement for your continued employment in this TDP, it is required that you (a) refrain from the use of illegal drugs and (b) if requested, submit to urinalysis testing.
"5. If you refuse to furnish a urine specimen as directed, or if illegal drug use is detected through a verified positive test result, you will have failed to meet a mandatory employment requirement for this sensitive positive. If you refuse to furnish a urine specimen, you will be subject to the full range of disciplinary action, including removal. If you are found to use illegal drugs, you will be removed from the TDP and you will be separated from the Federal service unless you agree to participate in a counseling or rehabilitation program. However, if you accept counseling or rehabilitation, you still may be subject to disciplinary or adverse action and will be placed in a non testing designated position. . . . (Emphasis supplied).
"6. If you believe you may have a drug problem, you are encouraged to voluntarily seek counseling or referral services by contacting the base Drug Demand Reduction Program Manager, Bldg 4220, phone 228-5507. If you do self-identify and agree to the 'safe harbor' provisions described in the civilian drug testing program during this 30-day notice period, you will not be subject to disciplinary action for past use.
8. Ms. Southam testified that a meeting was held on November 29, 2001, with Colonel Hendricks, then the 355th Support Group Commander (Tr. 136, 296) and Mr. George Rodriguez, labor-management specialist, was also present for management and with her was the Union's Executive Board: President Barry Gatcomb, Vice-President, Leona Bull, Treasurer, Anita Lopez, Chief Steward David Shanstrom and Trustee, Willie Thomas. Ms. Southam said Mr. Vernon Holloway also attended (Tr. 39).1979384475 Ms. Southam stated,
"A When I talked about the violation of Article 27, he (Col. Hendricks) kind of looked at me and got a little bit of a frown on his face. And he said, 'My policy is zero tolerance.'
"And looked at him and I said, 'Well, regardless of your police or your opinion, we have a collective bargaining agreement.'
"And he -- you know, his face got a little twisted up and he said, 'I don't care about your contract.'
"A I had asked did he (Col. Hendricks) allow for any rehabilitation in this process, and he said, 'Military view is zero tolerance.'" (Tr. 138)
"And Colonel Hendricks went on to say that the Air Force has a zero tolerance for drugs . . .
"A Hew (sic) was saying that he had a zero tolerance for drugs, the Air Force policy. And the policy that Jean, Mrs. Southam, was trying to present, he didn't think it would work because of the zero policy they had." (Tr. 114).
Mr. Thomas said Ms. Southam brought up the contract, but Colonel Hendricks, ". . . didn't respond directly to that proposal that she had brought up." (id.), but he did say something in the effect, ". . . he had airmen working on multi-million dollar aircraft and he didn't want a drug user working on aircraft." (Tr. 114-115).
Colonel Hendricks at the time of the hearing had been transferred to Eglin Air Force Base and did not testify. Mr. Rodriguez had been present in the hearing room (Tr. 40) but was not called as a witness. I found Ms. Southam to be a credible witness and her testimony, in substance, was corroborated by Messes. Shanstrom and Thomas, whom I also found to be credible witnesses. Accordingly, I find that Colonel Hendricks said that he had zero tolerance for drugs and notwithstanding rehabilitation, drug users would be ousted.
9. Mr. Holloway testified that he was ordered to report to a Doctor Flowers (inasmuch as Section 13 of the 1998 Addendum to the Local Drug Agreement states, "The MRO or licensed physician at the Base Medical Facility will contact the employee to notify of a positive test result . . . ." (Jt. Exh. 2), Dr. Flowers acted as the MRO under Section 13, (See the January 18, 2002, Notice of Proposed Removal issues to Mr. Nimrichter which, in paragraph 4 identifies Dr. Flowers as the local MRO for Davis-Monthan AFB (Jt. Exh. 12)), Section 13 further provides that the MRO, ". . . will take into consideration relevant medical information pertaining to legitimate drug use by the employee concerning a positive test result" (Section 13 a.) And the MRO will consider situations beyond the employee's control. Any medical information shall be included as part of the record and/or findings of the Base MRO. Copies of verified legally prescribed prescriptions will also he acceptable." (Section 13 b.)
Nevertheless, when Mr. Holloway took a letter from his primary doctor and a letter from his dermatologist attesting to their prescription of hemp products for a skin problem, Dr. Flowers told Mr. Holloway he didn't want to see them. (Tr. 68).
10. Mr. Nimrichter was informed on October 11, 2001, that he had tested positive for marijuana. Although he entered a drug rehabilitation program, on November 29, 2001, he was given a Notice of Proposed Removal (Jt. Exh. 10), which was withdrawn on January 18, 2002 (Jt. Exh. 11) (id.) and a new Notice of Proposed Removal was issued to him on the same day, January 18, 2002 (Jt. Exh. 12) (id.). While it was stipulated that Mr. Nimrichter had completed, successfully, his rehabilitation before his removal, effective March 1, 2002 (Tr. 102; Jt. Exh. 14), he had not completed the rehabilitation program when either the first notice (November 29, 2001) or the second notice of proposed removal issued (Res. Exh. 1). Indeed, as the letter from Contact Behavioral Health, dated January 24, 2002, stated, he then had five weeks of the rehabilitation to complete.
Both his immediate supervisor, Mr. Hernandez, and the Branch Chief, Mr. Nolan, each assured Mr. Nimrichter he was doing the right thing by entering rehabilitation and neither believed he would be removed (Tr. 84, 87, 88) for, as Mr. Hernandez told him, ". . . management and the Union had an agreement that covered these circumstances" (Tr. 84), and Mr. Hernandez produced the Agreement and opened it to Article 27 (Tr. 84, 85).
Mr. Nimrichter's clearance to work in a TDP was removed and he was detailed to work at Spray Lat, a non-TDP job, where he worked until he was terminated as of March 1, 2002 (Tr. 90; Jt. Exh. 14).
11. Mr. Clark's September 26, 2001, drug test was verified as positive for marijuana on October 24, 2001, and on November 16, 2001, a Notice of Proposed Removal issued to Mr. Clark (Jt. Exh. 17). Upon notification of the positive drug test, Mr. Clark's clearance for a TDP job was withdrawn and he also was detailed to Spray Lat.
Mr. Clark had enrolled in rehabilitation with Contact Behavioral Health Sciences (Tr. 119) and had not completed the program when he was terminated on December 17, 2001 (Jt. Exh. 19; Tr. 218).
12. Mr. Warren Kossman, now Personnel Management Specialist, Headquarters, Air Force, and from 1973 through 1996 was at Davis-Monthan holding various positions in AMARC, went to Personnel as an Employee Relations Specialist in 1987, and later was Chief of the Workforce Effectiveness Section (Tr. 161), stated that,
"Compliance with the local agreement is mandatory." (Tr. 189, 190).
Mr. Kossman was a member of the negotiating team that negotiated the Local Drug Agreement (Tr. 162). He stated that the provision of Section 9 (a) of the Local Drug Agreement, "At the discretion of the activity commander, an employee may return to duty in a TDP, including the TDP formerly occupied by the employee . . . " (Jt. Exh. 2) was, "As part of rehabilitation." (Tr. 192). He also stated that rehabilitation was a key provision of the Executive Order (Jt. Exh. 3) and was a key part of the Air Force Plan (Jt. Exh. 4) (Tr. 192, 194).
Ms. Kossman also testified that if an employee goes through rehabilitation successfully it would be unreasonable to remove that individual absent other circumstances (Tr. 201, 204).
13. Ms. Karen Young retired in January, 2001, (Tr. 266) and prior to her retirement worked for the Air Force for 35 years. She served three years overseas at Ramstein and Simbok, returning to Davis-Monthan in 1993 at which time she held the position of Employee Relations Specialist, then Chief of Employee Management Relations and her last three years as Civilian Personnel Officer (Tr. 250). Ms. Young was a member of the negotiating team that negotiated the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Jt. Exh. 1; Tr. 255). Ms. Young said that an employee found to have tested positive for drugs had to enter a rehabilitation program or they could be subject to immediate removal and that in negotiating Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, they discussed whether the employee, ". . . would be on leave, would take leave, or would, you know, be excused absence . . ." (Tr. 258). Ms. Young said the policy of the Air Force is, ". . . we want to rehabilitate employees . . . and I think our record has shown that we have. But in some cases . . . there are no other positions on the base which we can place them in. . . ." (Tr. 263-264, see, also, 274).
Ms. Young stated that in her years at Davis-Monthan, to her knowledge no activity commander had ever exercised discretion to return an employee found to have used illegal drugs to a TDP position (Tr. 271-272).
14. Ms. Vyna Lindsay, who has been employeed by the Air Force for 29½ years and has been at Davis-Monthan three years and is the current Civilian Personnel Officer, having succeeded Ms. Young in January, 2001 (Tr. 293). She testified that the Collective Bargaining Agreement takes precedence over the Air Force Instruction (Res. Exh. 5) (Discipline and Adverse Actions).
Rehabilitation is a key consideration in the Executive Order, the Air Force's Civilian Drug Testing Plan, the Local Drug Agreement and in Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Thus, Section 2(b)(2) of the Executive Order provides that each agency plan shall include,
"(2) Employee Assistance Programs emphasizing high level direction, counseling, referral to rehabilitation . . . ." (Jt. Exh. 3)
and Section 5(c) of the Executive Order provides, in part,
"(c) Agencies shall not allow any employee to remain on duty in a sensitive position who is found to use illegal drugs, prior to successful completion of rehabilitation through an Employee Assistance Program. . . ." (Emphasis supplied)(id.)
Section 8 m. of the Air Force's Civilian Drug Testing Plan provides,
"m. Rehabilitation, Generally, a prolonged process, either on site, or off-site (inpatient or outpatient) whose goal is to restore the employee to a well functioning non-substance abusing employee. This process includes the learning of skills to help the person to remain substance free, and should include a period of aftercare, during which the person may be allowed to return to full duties." (Emphasis supplied) (Jt. Exh. 4)
If the report is positive . . . the Employer will make reasonable accommodations for the employee's drug problem by providing him/her access to a drug treatment and rehabilitation program. . . ." (Jt. Exh. 2)
"Section 1. For the purpose of this Article, alcoholism and drug abuse are defined as illnesses . . . .
"Section 2. The Union and the Employer jointly recognize alcoholism and drug abuse as treatable illnesses . . . Employees participating in drug or alcohol abuse rehabilitation programs may request sick, annual, or leave without pay . . . . If a professional from a rehabilitation program makes a request, in writing, on behalf of the employee for leave, such leave should be granted. . . .
"Section 3. The ultimate objective of the drug and alcohol abuse program will be to rehabilitate the employee . . . Referral for diagnosis and acceptance of treatment should in no way jeopardize an employee's job security or promotional opportunities. . . ." (Jt. Exh. 1) (Emphasis supplied).
A. Repudiation of Section 9 (a) of the Local Drug Agreement
Section 9 (a) provides:
"a. The Employer will retain employees in a duty or approved leave status while undergoing rehabilitation. If placed in a non-duty status, the employee will normally be returned to duty after successful completion of rehabilitation. At the discretion of the activity commander, an employee may return to duty in a TDP, including the TDP formerly occupied by the employee, if the employee's return would not endanger public health, safety or notional security." Jt. Exh. 2, Section 9(a)) (Emphasis supplied).
But Section 9 (a) does more than Paragraph 11 by specifically directing that
"The Employee will retain employees in a duty or approved leave status while undergoing rehabilitation."
Respondent sought to create a "red herring" by asserting that the Union claimed this Section was a "safe harbor" provision, i.e., that employees undergoing rehabilitation were immune from discipline. This is a figment of Respondent's imagination. Mr. Shanstrom made it clear that the Union did not question management's right to impose discipline under Section 9 (Tr. 148, 149), except that Respondent could not remove an employee undergoing rehabilitation (Tr. 149).
It is mandatory under the Executive Order that employees who test positive for drugs be removed from sensitive positions; but Section 5 (c) of the Executive Order (Jt. Exh. 3, Sec. 5 (c)) contains an implied imperative that an employee be restored to a sensitive job (TDP) upon the successful completion of rehabilitation. Thus, Section 5(c) provides,
"(c) Agencies shall not allow any employee to remain on duty in a sensitive position who is found to use illegal drugs, prior to successful completion of rehabilitation through an Employee Assistant Program. . . ." (id.) (Emphasis supplied.)
The following sentence plainly applies to employees who have not completed rehabilitation, i.e., during rehabilitation. Thus, the following sentence provides,
"At the discretion of the activity commander, an employee may return to duty in a TDP, including the TDP formerly occupied by the employee, if the employee's return would not endanger public health, safety or national security." (Jt. Exh. 2, Section 9. a.)
Nevertheless, while it is discretionary that an employee be returned to duty in a TDP, the intent of the Executive Order, the Air Force Drug Testing Plan, the Local Drug Agreement and the Collective Bargaining Agreement was to restore employees to duty after successful rehabilitation and, certainly, it was not intended that there should be a flat refusal across the board to return any employee to a TDP position after successfully completing rehabilitation as Respondent has done. Ms. Young testified that in her years at Davis-Monthan, to her knowledge, no employee had ever been returned to a TDP position after rehabilitation and Colonel Hendricks had made it clear that, notwithstanding rehabilitation, the "Military view is zero tolerance" and if they were found using drugs they would be ousted. Indeed, Colonel Hendricks stated that he did not care about the Local Drug Agreement.
As stated above, Section 9 (a) of the Local Drug Agreement mandates that the Employee will retain employees in a duty or approval leave status while undergoing rehabilitation. Clearly, if in rehabilitation, the Employer shall not remove, or attempt to remove, the employee. His status, as in duty or approval leave, is fixed for the period of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, Respondent on November 29, 2001, gave Mr. Nimrichter notice of proposed removal, notwithstanding that Mr. Nimrichter was in a Rehabilitation Program and gave him a second notice of proposed removal on January 24, 2002, when, even then, he had five weeks of rehabilitation to complete. Although Mr. Nimricher was not removed until after he completed rehabilitation and remained in a duty status (Spray Lat) until his removal, the issuance of notices to remove him during successful, on-going, rehabilitation violated Section 9 (a) of the Local Drug Agreement.
Mr. Clark had promptly entered rehabilitation but was removed before completing rehabilitation, although he, too, had remained on duty in Spray Lat until his removal. Beyond doubt, his removal before completing rehabilitation violated Section 9 (a) of the Local Drug Agreement.
Retention of employees during rehabilitation and without the threat of removal is critical for another reason. Employees who successfully complete rehabilitation then possess the rights of all employees and in a RIF, which Respondent was exercising, including the right to "bump" into any job for which they are qualified and for which they have longer seniority. It is not, as Respondent asserted, whether there are vacant non-TDP positions (See, for example: Jt. Exhs. 5, 7, 17, 19); but, rather, whether the employee has sufficient seniority to bump into an occupied non-TDP position. Messrs. Nimrichter and Clark were detailed to Spray Lat and an employee with 20 or more years seniority had a very high probability of having seniority to bump into an occupied position, if not in Spray Lat, then elsewhere on the Base. Employees with less seniority may have correspondingly less probability of having seniority to bump into an occupied position, but the opportunity to exercise seniority must be preserved and recognized. Moreover, as stated above, employees who successfully complete rehabilitation must genuinely and realistically be considered for return to their former, or similar, TDP positions.
B. Repudiation of Section, 13(b) and (c) of the 1998 Addendum to its Local Drug Agreement
Section 13 b. of the 1998 Addendum (Jt. Exh. 2), provides in part,
"b. . . . The MRO will consider situations beyond the employee's control. Any medical information provided shall be included as part of the record and/or findings of the Base MRO. . . ." (Emphasis supplied).
C. Repudiation of Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Section 1 of Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Jt. Exh. 1, Article 27), provides that, ". . . alcoholism and drug abuse are defined as illnesses . . ."; Section 2., provides, in part that, "The Union and the Employer jointly recognize alcoholism and drug abuse as treatable illnesses; therefore, employees having these illnesses will receive the same careful consideration and offer of assistance that is extended to employees having any other illness or health problem . . . ." (id); and Section 3. provides, in part, that, "The ultimate objective of the drug and alcohol abuse program will be to rehabilitate the employee . . . . Referral for diagnosis and acceptance of treatment should in no way jeopardize an employee's job security or promotional opportunities. . . ." (id.)
Plainly, for reasons already set forth above, Respondent has wholly rejected the concept of rehabilitation of the employee to return him, or her, to duty; has stigmatized employees found to test positive for drugs; has penalized such employees by an absolute refusal to return any employee, after successful rehabilitation, to a TDP position; has failed and refused to accord such employees seniority rights, after rehabilitation, to bid for non-TDP jobs; has most definitely jeopardized their job security by removing them from Federal service. Moreover, Respondent through Colonel Hendricks has made it clear that he didn't care about Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Tr. 42); that he, "had no truck" with rehabilitation and drug and alcohol abuse and that, "there would be zero tolerance in that area" (Tr. 140), and if employees, ". . . were found using [drugs] that they would be ousted. . . ." (Tr. 144). By its words and by its actions, Respondent has repudiated Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Respondent repudiated Sections 9 a. (Counseling and Rehabilitation), 12. (Reasonable Accommodation) and 13 of the 1998 Addendum. (Verification Interview with MRO) of the Local Drug Agreement, for reasons fully set forth hereinabove. These provisions go to the very heart of the Local Drug Agreement and Respondent's refusal to comply -indeed its explicit rejection of rehabilitation - negates the primary purpose of the Agreement which is to provide for the rehabilitation of employees and their return to prior positions. Respondent's actions have been continuous, and since 1986, when the Executive Order was issued (Jt. Exh. 3), no employee at Davis-Monthan found to have used drugs has ever been returned to his, or her, prior TDP or to any TDP. Three employees found to have tested positive for marijuana in 2001 were removed and in each instance, as set forth above, Respondent violated one, or more, of the Sections of the Local Agreement set forth above. Accordingly, Respondent clearly, and intentionally, repudiated Sections 9 a., 12 and 13. of the Local Drug Agreement. By the same words and actions, Respondent repudiated Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, "Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Programs" (Jt. Exh. 1) which compliments and supplements the Local Drug Agreement. Respondent, as more fully set forth above, has wholly abrogated the provisions of Section 3 which states, in part, that, ". . . acceptance of treatment should in no way jeopardize an employee's job security or promotional opportunities. . . ." (id.). This is a critical adjunct to the Local Drug Agreement and a very important part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Because Respondent's words and actions have been continuous and its violations of the Agreement clear and intentional, Respondent repudiated Article 27 as well as the Local Drug Agreement. Department of Defense, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 40 FLRA 1211, 1218-1219 (1991); Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 52 FLRA 225, 230-232 (1996).
Pursuant to § 2423.41(c) of the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.41(c), and § 18 of the Federal Services Labor-Management Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7118, the Department of the Air Force, Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, shall:
(a) Failing to abide by Article 27 of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, Section 9.a. and 12 of the parties' Local Drug Agreement and Section 13 of the 1998 Addendum to the Local Drug Agreement.
(b) Failing and refusing to honor the provisions of Section 3 of Article 27 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which provides,
". . . Referral for diagnosis and acceptance of treatment should in no way jeopardize an employee's job security or promotional opportunities. . . ."
(c) Failing and refusing to honor all provisions of the parties' Local Drug Agreement and in particular:
(i) Failing and refusing to retain employees in a duty or approved leave status while undergoing rehabilitation, as provided in Section 9.a. of the Local Drug Agreement.
(ii) Failing and refusing to return employees to duty after successful completion of rehabilitation, as provided by Section 9.a. of the Local Drug Agreement.
(iii) Failing and refusing to afford reasonable accommodations to employees who test positive for drugs.
(d) Failing and refusing to genuinely and realistically consider the return of employees to TDP positions after successfully completing rehabilitation.
(e) Failing and refusing to recognize and honor the seniority and grant successfully rehabilitated employees the right to bump into occupied positions.
(f) The failure and refusal of the Base MRO to consider situations beyond the employee's control; to accept any medical information; to make any medical information part of the record and/or findings of the MRO; and the statement of reasons for rejecting any employee's documentation, as provided in Section 13 of the 1998 Addendum to the Local Drug Agreement.
(g) Issuing notices of proposed removal while an employee is actively and successfully enrolled in an approved drug rehabilitation program.
(h) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
(a) Comply with Article 27 of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement and with the parties' Local Drug Agreement.
(b) Post at its facilities at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Commander of the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and they shall be posted at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, and shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Pursuant to Section 2423.41(e) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.41(e), notify the Regional Director of the Denver Region, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80204-3581, in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and so much of Paragraph 24 as refers to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint be, and the same are hereby, dismissed.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority has found that the Department of the Air Force, Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona, violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to abide by Article 27 of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the parties' Local Drug Agreement and in particular with Section 9.a. and 12 thereof and Section 13 of the 1998 Addendum thereto.
DE-CA-02-0172, were sent to the following parties:
Matthew L. Jarvinen, Esquire 7000 1670 0000 1175 2423
Major Douglas C. Huff 7000 1670 0000 1175 2430
Thomas J. Burhenn, Esquire 7000 1670 0000 1175 2447
355 WG/JA
Tucson, AZ 85707-3845
John Pennington, President 7000 1670 0000 1175 2454
AFGE, Local 2924
Sue T. Kilgore, Esquire 7000 1670 0000 1175 2539
1185014645
Section 11 seems a bit at odds with Section 15. Section 11 states: "The employer will not coerce or require employees to participate in voluntary programs established under Section 3(b) of E.O. 12564. Employees who volunteer for the random drug testing program will not receive preferential treatment by the Employer." Section 15, on the other hand, states that ". . . the employee can voluntarily submit during this notice prior to testing without reprisal."
1979384475