Skip to main content

Lawsuit Filed Against the VA Over “Official Time” Dispute


Recently, the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Federation of Federal Employees, and the National Association of Government Employees filed a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) after the VA made a determination that Title 38 VA employees would no longer be able to perform any union representational activities while on “official time”.  Broadly speaking, official time is time granted by a governmental agency to allow an employee to perform representational functions on behalf of a union without requiring the employee to use personal leave or incurring a loss of pay while that employee would otherwise be in the course of their ordinary work.

In this instance, the unions claim that the VA has usurped its authority by unilaterally withdrawing official time from these Title 38 employees. According to the lawsuit, several collective bargaining agreements were entered into between the unions and VA and remained in effect at all relevant times.  That agreement set forth which employees would be allowed to utilize official time.  However, in November of 2018, it was alleged that the Acting Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration of the VA improperly issued an Official Time Determination which prohibited these Title 38 employees from using official time (as noted, this is what this lawsuit turns on), contrary to what the collective bargaining agreements stated.

The lawsuit asks that the Official Time Determination be set aside, held to be unlawful and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and return these employees back to the status quo.


A copy of the lawsuit can be found here:  https://www.afge.org/globalassets/documents/generalreports/2018/title-38-official-time-11-15-18.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more