Sou.+ C'\ 'Of'\ ~ice - \q75 ERIES X [fold.e' a oC _ •__. ..,....._", ,rnr- .f\r'\f\AA.U'7A.TtnU RI ~ X\ iL I2uI aCt.- ::t0Jl-R-4.l. Sent-d. =r:-
President John F. Leyden Executive Vice President
PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Pol; SUITE 201-A/1568 WILLINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 Affiliated with M.E.B.A. (AFl.CIOI
November 24, 1975
Mr. Robert E. Poli Executive Vice President PATCO Suite 706 2100 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037
Dear Bob:
Enclosed is the response from AIR BVIconcerning their request to the CABfor tariff reductions for our members.
Sincerely, ~d':A{?e DAVIDE. SIEGEL/ Regional Vice President
/bg cc: Bill Peer w/Enclosure • R E'C E~"lED NOV 1 7 1975 AIRBVILTD.(INCORPORATEDINTHEBRITISHVIRGINISLANDS) -0
13th November, 1975.
Mr. David E. Siegel, Regional Vice President, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, Suite 201-A, 1568 Willingham Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30337.
Dear Mr. Siegel,
We have finally heard from the CAB in connection with our tariff filing to allow a 50% discount to PATCO employees and their immed- iate families.
I'm afraid the news is not too good. The CAB rejected our filing entirely. They went in for a lot of the usual technical reasons but at the heart of the matter the Board feels that there is lack of justification for discount fares for U.S. Government employees. Apparently, they also feel that the filing is discriminatory and if they had not found grounds for rejecting it they would have suspended it.
Under the circumstances, there seems little point in pursuing the matter.
We are very sorry things have turned out as they have but hope that it will not affect the very fine relationship we feel we have with your members.
With kind regardS.~~ ,'I Yours very trul 'jt/ AIRBVILIMIT ~ t I \.)~. , ~ eter M. Armo~ - Executive Vice President.
box 85, road town, tortola b.v.i. • President John F. Lyden becutive Vice Preside"t PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERSORGANIZA nON Robert E. Poli SUITE 201-A/1568 WILLINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 Aflinoted with M.E.B.A. (AFL.CIO)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 26, 1975
TO: All Terminal Voting Representatives Southern Region
FROM: DAVID E. SIEGEL, Regional Vice President
SUBJECT: Funding for Terminal Voting Reps
Now that the elections for termimal voting representatives 'are completed, I would like to advise you that funding is available,if requested, for communication with other facilities in the exercise of your duties as Terminal Voting Representatives.
Funding will be approved in advance through my office and will consist of cost for paper, postage, reproduction, and telephone. Any expenses that are incurred will need to be documented by receipts.
I will be more than happy to make distribution of any correspondence that you might desire to send to the facilities that you represent, and of course the paper, postage, reproduction, etc. will be paid by this office.
If you have any difficulties please feel free to call upon me.
/bg cc: Robert E. Poli PATCO/National •
A Div.sron (', cas lnc 51"; W",' <'7S:(aol No·....Y f~, 'oNYo',10019 (212) 765-4321
Dear Dave: December 4, 1975 '
Enclosed is a copy of the letter Dow sent us.
In responding to the charges, you can ignore paragraphs 4 and 5 concerning the Eastern Air Lines flight, as this material has not been included in the piece.
Please call me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely, '
~~~
Mr. Dave Siegel PATCO Suite 201 A 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, Ga. 30337
cc: Mr. Robert Poli PATCO Suite 706 2100 M street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 y.
Dr:P,' '.'~i::{] 'T OF T~~M':,1 .r lhTWi I FEI", ..;~t.L J .Vl{\ 1 fC1N r». r If' ,S•11(:') ifm -----_ ..-_. - -'--'" -'-" ----_ ..-_._,~_.----- ._- ----.•---._---
RECEIVE NfJV 231975 EC t 7 OITtCC 0;. Mr. Harry Hoses THE Ar)',IINI~; rp"n f! Sixty Minutes - CBS 51 West 52nd Street New York, N.Y. 10019
Dear Hr. }10ses:
This refers to the recent CBS "60 Ninutes" Lnt ervLew conducted by Morley Safer in wh Lch I was asked to comment on allegations that military jets use air carrier fliChts as mock intercept, targets 'in off-shore airspace controlled by the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center. Hr. Safer ci~ed a figure of 13 to 15 such incidents every month. I said at the time that I Has not aware of any such incidents and I did not believe the charges to be true. A subsequent review of the situation has confirmed this vieH.
The Jacksonville center does have jurisdiction over a great many military training flights and, for this reason, He mainta:i.nvery close liaison w i th the military services. Horking together, we have established procedures and 'special-use airspace to accommodate these training operations w Lt.hout; interfering with civil traffic. The military has been extremely coopera- tive in helping us identify and resolve potential problems and, as a result, the Jacksonville center has compiled an outstanding safety record.
Since the first of the year, we have had only two incidents in wh Lch the possibility of mock intercept operations was raised by either pilots or controllers. The fi.rstHas thoroughly investigated at the time and the intercept allegation disproved. In fact, the military aircraft in the case never left the established wa rn Lng area. The second incident occurred aIt cr our Oc tobcr 15 Lnt crv Lcw arid involved a private xather than a commercial aircraft. It is still under investigation.
With regard to the alleged mock intercept involving an Eastern Air Lines flight, wh Lch was cited by Hr. Safer in our interv Lew, this incident \JaS investigated and the possibility of all intercept disproved. Claims hy Mr. Safer that the Eastern flight had to take "severe evasive action" and missed the m lli.tnry plane by "only 100 fcct" also wc rc found LnvnLicl,
Our Lnvest Lgn tLou rc-vcn lr-d that the Air force r-/, \"o.~ operating under visual fJ L0hl rul.os Ln nccord.rn cc w Lt.h air rcgu lat Ions, The controller • ••
2
obs crvcd both the 1'-4 .md Eas t r-r n T'Lfgh t 875 (not 879) on radur and gave the af.r car rLcr a dc t alLc-d radnr traf f Lc advisory on t lic military pI anc in acco rdance wi.t h cs t abl.Lahcd procedure. The Eastern pilot did not say he had to take "severe evasive i1CLion" nor did he subsequently file a near mid-air collision report which he was required to do by regulation if such an incident had occurred.
In addition to our r evf.ew of the Jacksonville situation, we have discussed the matter "lith top ranking Air Force and Navy personnel. They, in turn. have conducted their ovm investigation and found nothing to substantiate the charge that their aircraf t are' using commercial flights 2S targets of opportunity. Indeed, they emphasized that both services prohibit this practice. ' They assured us that suspected violators wou l.d be promptly grounded and subjected to more severe disciplinary action, if found guilty.
Also. pertinent to this discussion is the fact that we have not received any reports of mock intercept operations from the airlines, the Air Trans- portation Association or the Air Line Pilots A~sociation. These organiza- tions are highly safety-oriented and \1Ou1d have no reason to \·Jithholdsuch information.
In v Lew of rhe se facts, I think it is incumbent upon CBS to require its sources to document their allegations that the milirary are regular.ly and routinely conducting mock intercept operations on cowmcrcial and other civil aircraft. To repeat these charges on television before an audience of millions, without anything but hearsay evidence, \'1ouldbe a disservice to the traveling public and inconsistent \Vith CBS' reputation for responsible journalism. !" Sincerely, I'
(SIgned) James E. Dow 1-
James E. DO\~ Acting Administrator 25
• President John F. Leyden Executive Vice President PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Pol; SUITE 201-A/1568 WIUINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 AfIlliated with M.E.B.A. (AFl-C10) BECE August 21, 1975 tie 2 '975 eATCO
Mr. stanley A. Gordon Secretary /Treasurer PATCO Suite 706 2100M street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear stan:
At my recently conducted seminar several facilities in my region indicated they they do not have their PATCO Charter; this is probably due to the many changes on facility reps at some of these Locals. I have promised them that I would get duplicates made up for them, on the condition that they will have them appropriately framed and hungin the facility. The names of the locals needing Charter Certificates are: /V"')2 / V--
Mobile #164- (,,c- f v-/ r' v cJ,~ Gulfport #124- /US Jackson #126- v 1<:'- OpaLocka #134_
Thank you for your assistance. Fraternally,v~ DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President OCT 2 IJS President John F. Leyden Executive Vice President PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION c1'~ Robert E. Pol; SUITE 201-A/1568 WILLINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 AfIlliated with M.E.B.A. (AFl·etO) ~~ September 30, 1975
Ms Diane Smith PATCO Suite 706 2100 M Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037
Dear Diane:
I am enclosing Charter Packages for three facilities in our region, and I hope you will find everything in order. The facilities are:
#123 Hickory Tower #180 Greenville Municipal #194 Craig Tower
Charlie Brown County Airport has finally returned the last portion of their Charter package and we are enclosing it as well.
The final inclosure is a Change of Officers, along with bank signature cards, from Memphis Center. .
If you have any questions on the above please give me a call.
BETT GRIFFIT, ecretary to David E. Siegel, Regional Vice President
Enclosures (5) •
OCtober 31, 1975
Mr. David Sieqel PA'l'Q) SOtJ'l'H 1568 WilliDC]hamDrive, Suite 20lA Atlanta, GA 30337
Dear Dave.
several months &90 we received a call a8Jtinq us to hold a $50 initi tion t.. troa a Susan CI'ocket"t froIIl Fulton Tower. "rhat due. rebate ccount has not be n opened, but "ill be within a IaOnth. I need to know whether .... may now depoait her check, or ia it atill to be held.
Sincerely,
Stanley A. Gordon Treasurer
SAG Ida Presidenf John F. Leyden
Executive Vice Presidenf PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Pol; SUITE 201-A/1568 WIUINGHAM DR" ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 Affiliated with M.E.B.A. (AH.CIO)
October 21, 1975
Mr. Robert E. Poli Executive Vice President PATCO Suite 706 2100 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037
Dear Bob:
At the regional seminar I discussed the matter of Mr. E. J. Faircloth, Fayetteville Tower Facility President, who advised me that he did submit his nomination for Atlanta Terminal Voting Representative, but did not recei ve an acknowledgement or receipt from my office on the matter.
E. J. has been a very loyal PATCO member and a strong supporter of the organization, and I take his word that he did submit his name for nomination, but apparently it became lost in the mail. I would appreciate it if you would have him placed on the ballot for Atlanta Terminal Voting Representative.
Fraternally, O~~;£ DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President !bg cc: E. J. Faircloth OU1HERN FLYER
NATIONAL 'RESIDENT JOHNF.LEYDEN SOUTHERN REGIONALVICEPRESIDENT NATIONALEXECUTIVE DAVIDSIEGEL VICE 'RESIDENT ROIEIT E. POll
ISSUE =#21 OCTOBER3, 1975
8.66% DOWN THE DRAIN
OnOctober 1 air traffic controllers and other federal employees were dealt another blow by Congress. The House ofRepresentatives, by a wide margin, supported the Prestdent'e pay recommendation of 5%, effective the first full pay period in October. The Pay Comparability Act was passed by Congress in 1970to keep federal employee wages in line with private industry, as the cost of living rises. The Act has failed miserably because it has been turned into political football, bandied about by the President and the Congress. Changes need to be made in the system to give the federal employees the full rights and benefits enjoyed by their counterparts in the private sector.
I hope that the latest fiasco with the Pay Act has taught all of us a stern lesson, that the only way to change the system is through a strong united front, support of your organization, and standing up to be counted when necessary"
8.66% Defeated
General Schedule Recommended to Provide Comparability with 1975 Private Enterprise Pay
2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 CS·l $5,153 $5.945 $6,131 $6.329 $6.521 $6.1\3 $6.905 $1,091 $1,289 $1,481 2 6.515 6,132 6.949 1.166 1,383 7,600 1.817 8.034 8,251 8,46B 3 7,350 1,595 1,840 8,085 8,330 8,575 8.820 9,065 9,310 9,555 4 8,254 8,529 8.804 9,079 9,354 9,629 9,904 10,179 10,454 10.729 5 9,236 9,544 9.852 10,160 10,468 10,776 11.084 1\,392 11,100 12,008 6. 10,292 10,635 10,978 11,321 11,664 12,001 12.350 12,693 13,036 13,319 7 11.430 11,811 12.192 12,513 12,954 13,335 13.116 14.097 14,478 14,859 8 12,648 13,070 13,492 13.914 14,336 14,758 15,180 15.802 16,024 16.446 9 13,952 14,417 14,882 15,347 15,812 16.277 16,742 17,207 17,672 18,131 10 15.340 15,851 16.362 16,873 17,384 17.895 18.406 18,917 19,428 19,939 11 16,821 17.382 17.943 18,504 19.0S5 19.626 20,187 20.748 21,309 21.870 12 20.051 20.730 21,399 22.0S8 22.737 23,406 24,075 24,744 25,413 26,082 13 23.705 24,495 :,,285 2S.075 26,8S5 27,655 28,445 29.235 30,025 30,815 14 ·27,797 28,724 a.651 30.578 31,505 32,432 33.359 34.286 35,'113 36,140' 15 32.400 33,480 34.560 35,640 36,720· 37,800" 38.880" 39,960· 41,040" 42,120· 16 37,604" 38,857" 1,0,110" 41,363' 42,616" 43,869" 45,122" 46,315" 41,628" 17 43,532* 44,983" 40,434" 41,885" 49,33S" 18 50,350" "The rate 0' basic ltay !:lr employees at these rates would be limited by sectlon 5308 0' title 5 ot the United Stales Co e to ;he rate for level Vof the Enc:ullve Schedule (currently $36,000).
5%Passed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 G5-1 $5,559 $5,744 $5,929 $6,114 S6,299 56,484 S6,669 S6,l!S4 $7,039 $7,224 2 6,296 6,506 6,7J6 6,926 7,136 7,346 7,556 7,766 7,976 8,186 3 7,102 7,339 7,576 7,813 8,050 8,287 8,524 8,761 8,993 9,235 4 7,976 ·8,2-12 8,508 8,774 ~,O SOUTHERNREGIONSEMINARAGENDA OCTOBER16- 17 October 16 1. Organizational structure a. National Staif (j ob description) b. Regional c. Committee Support, i,e. NTSB 2. Membership Figures (1974 vs 1975) 3. Organization's Financial Position 4. Upcominq Projects a. Involvement with NASAoperated Immunity Program b. Joint ALPA/PATCO FAR/ATP Manual Study c. NACASupplemental Carrier FAMProgram d. CBSSixty Minutes Program in January 1976 e. Gilbert Proposal for Independent ATC System 5. PATCO Relationships with: a. FAA/roT b. Aviation Industry c. NewsMedia d. Public Employee Department e. IFATCA f. CATCA g. ALPA 6. Legislative Update a. Comparability Pay Bill b. HatchAct c. Senate Appropriations Budget d. Second Career e. Collective Bargaining Bill 7. Contract Enforcement and Grievances 8. Reclassification 9. Speach by Lonnie Parrish, Air Traffic Division Chief, from 11:00A.M. to 12:00 Noon 10. Presentation from OSHA October 17 1. Regional Business 2. Presentation from Everett Martin, Chief of Labor Relations, Civil Service Commission, Atlanta Region 3. l-Jresentation from FMCS ')UTHERNFLYER -3- OCTOBER3, 1975 "SUCCESSINABORTINGSLOWDOWNS" CLAIMEDBYATLANTATOWERMANAGEMENT Recently, FAA Washingtonheadquarters sent out to all terminal field facilities proposed changes and recommendations to AgencyOrder 1100.126B, Standard Organization of Air Traffic Control Terminal Facfltties" and requested that they respond to the proposals. Atlanta Tower Facility Chief, Lester Shipp, made the followingre ponse in regards to reduction in first level supervision: "The proposed reduction in first level supervision wouldserve to weaken management at a time when PATCO is making an obvious attempt to usurp prerogatives historically belonging to management. The union wouldbe given a stronger voice by the decimation of management's ranks. Atlanta Tower's success in aborting attempted "sl ow-downs" by PATCOcan be directly attributed to on-the-spot, positive intervention by the first level supervisors. " Mr. Shipp: If attempted slow downs were in fact a reality, why haven't you taken the appropriate action to remedy the attempts ? Another statement made by Mr. Shipp: "The Operations Officer serves as a buffer between the facility chief and PATCO. Frequently, our management decisions prompt verbal complaints from the union. These complaints are generally first handled by the Operations Officer. Thus, virtually all complaints can be reviewed and decisions reconsidered inhouse by the chief prior to the complaint being elevated to the Regional Office. The Programs Officer concept would eliminate this proven flexibility." l'J8TE: If this is happening in your facility JOU are letting management by-pass Article 2, Section 3, of the PATCO/FAA Agreement which states: "Only the principal representative and/or his designee may deal with the Facility Chief. " Mr. Shipp's entire response to the questionaire is enclosed for your reading pleasure. REGIONALDIRECTORPROPOSESDISCIPLINE FORREGIONALVICEPRESIDENT In an unprecedented move, Regional Director Phillip M Swatek by letter notified me that he was proposing to place an official reprimand in my personnel folder for a two-year period for violating the Conflict of Interest Regulations for taking a reduced air fare ride on North CayAirlines in the Virgin Islands. Reproduced below is the official reprimand: Mr. David E. Siegel RECEIVED Regional Vice President Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization SEP 25\975 Suite 201-A, 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30337 PATCOSE Dear l-lr.Siegel: All FAA employees, whether in a duty status or on LWOP, are required to comply with agency policy. This includes employees on leave to pursue union activities, such as you, though I am certainly aware that your .. status is unusual in the context of "on Lt.JOP." In any case, there are avenues available through which policy may be challenged, and until it I is changed, it is binding on all employees. SOUTHERNFLYER -4- OCTOBER 3, 1975 Discipline (Cont'd) In our telephone conversation, July 5, 1975, you asked if it was the intention in the region to deny PATCO members the right to utilize reduced air fares offered by Prinair, or other carriers, to PATCO. I advised you that FAA employees, unfortunately, could not accept reduced air fares be- cause it would place them in violation of Conflict of Interest regulations. On July 1, 1975, in my letter to you involving a specific air carrier, I again stated the policy on reduced air fares: "Therefore, all FAA employees are prohibited from taking advantage of the reduced air fares offered by Prinair." Your letter of July 23, 1975, advised me that, as an FAA employee, you had used reduced-air-fare tickets offered by Puerto Rico-based air carriers. Specifically, it was determined that on July 16, 1975, with full knowledge of the policy, you flew on North Cay Airlines, flight 623, from St. Thomas, Virgin Island to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and did not pay the full fare charged to the general public. I am, therefore, compelled to propose dis- ciplinary action. For this violation of our policy, you are offically reprimanded. The circumstances which makes this reprimand necessary were discussed with you by me on September 22, 1975. It will be necessary to have this reprimand placed in your official personnel folder for a two-year period. Any future occurrences of this type may result in more severe disciplinary measures. I am prepared to meet with you and discuss this matter further with the hope and expectation that there will not be a similar incident in the future. Though you are no doubt familiar with established procedure, may I remind you that you may reply to this reprimand personally, in writing, or both, to me, submitting your reasons why this reprimand should not be effected. Fifteen days will be allowed from the date you receive this letter to respond. I will consider extending this period should you make a'request stating your reasons for desiring more time. Your reply will be given full consideration, of course. If it is determined that the reprimand should be sustained, you will be so informed and your reply will be filed in your official personnel folder, together with the reprimand. In the event it is decided that this reprimand should be rescinded, you will be informed and this letter and the documents related to this particular matter will not be filed in your official personnel folder. If it is decided to sustain this reprimand, and if you contend it violates Article 69, Section 1, of the labor agree- ment with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, in that it was not taken for just cause, you may file a grievance under Article 7 of the agreement. ~~-zz:sSincerely, PHILLIP M. SWATEK Director SOUTHERNFLYER -5- CTOBER3, 1975 Discipline (Cont'd) Response to Reprimand lif1.r. Phillip t\/t Swatek enid' FAA Southet-n Region ASO-1 P.O. Box20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Dear Phil: This is in response to your letter dated September 22, 1975, proposing to place an official reprimand in my personnel folder for a two-year period. I constdor your actions unwarranted, illegal, and without valid justification for the following reasons: 1) I accepted a reduced air fare, not as an FAAemployee accepting a gratuity, but as a member of the P.cofessional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, a union which has obtained a benefit for it's members only, and notfor air traffic controllers whoare employeed by the FAA. 2) The conflict of interest regulations only apply to employees of an agency and not to members of a union. 3) The proposed action is discriminatory because FAAofficials in the past have utilized reduced air fare privileges. 4) In any event, the regulations do not bar the conduct alleged against me. In summary, I took the reduced air fare flight on North Cay Airlines, Flight 623, as a union member and not as an FAAemployee, which in my opinion does not violate any conflict of interest regulations. 'I'her-efore, I request that you withdraw the official reprimand. %4cer~IY, I L:J V(1/~ro . DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President PATCOis prepared to pursue this matter to the highest courts if necessary. AIRBVI Air BVI, located in the British Virgin Islands, has become the very first CAB regulated air carrier to file for reduced air fares with the Civil Aeronautical Board for PATCO members. Air BVIhas filed an application for 50%tariff reduction from their normal fares. As soon as CABhas made a decision in this matter youwill be notified. SOUTHERNFLYER -6- OCTOBER3, 1975 BACKPAYFORDELAYINPROMOTION For the first time ever the FAAin the Southern Region has granted back pay for a promotion for a developmental controller from a G 9 to a GS-11 because his promotion was delayed through administrative errors. This was obtained through the grievance process and nowsets a precedence for all future cases. Enclosed is a copy of the grievance and the resolution to keep on file with your facility records. 1976 NATIONAL CONVENTION The following information is for your use to plan for the 1976convention in San Diego, California: l. Dates: May 12-16, 1976 2. Hotel: Royal Inn At the Wharf 1355Harbor Drive San Diego, CA92101 3. Convention Chairman: Mr. Roger Christensen 15264Andorra Way san Diego, CA 92129 4. Ladies' Co-Chairman: Mrs. MaddyWoodyard 6268 Cowles Mt. Boulevard san Diego, CA 92119 5. May 12, 1976: Registration Day. The only official function will be a cocktail party that evening. 6. Room Rates: Single--$22.00; Double--$26.00; one bedroom suite--$49.00; Two bedroom suite--$72. 00 7. Anymember of PATCOmay check into the hotel prior to the 12th and remain past the 16thand receive the room rates as mentioned herein. 8. The hotel is holding five hundred rooms for PATCO. 9. PATCO will receive one complimentary room for every fifty PATCO registrants (rooms). 10. Hotel will provide twenty-four hour roundtrip transportation between the airport and the hotel. 11. PATCO luncheon planned May 14, 1975. 12. Final banquet and dance planned for the evening of May 16, 1975. · - SOUTHERNFLYER -7- OCTOBER 3, 1975 PERSONNELRECORDS The following FAAOrder is reproduced for your use, please insure that your facility is not violating this notice. If you nave any problems in this area please contact the PATCOregional office. I SUBJ: SUPERVISORS'PERSO ~'EL RECORDS UlmER THE PRIVACY Ac;r OF 1974 .N 3290. 7 ~ 1. PURPOSE. This notice describes the impact of the Privacy Act on supervisors' personnel records. 2. DISTRIBUTION. All FAA, supervisors; all field offices and facilities. 3. ACTION. All supervisors shall comply with the provisions of this notice by September 27, 1975. This may require that personnel records be destroyed or forwarded to personnel offices for filing in Official Personnel Folders (see also paragraph 6). 4. BACKGROUND. The Privacy Act of 1974 becomes fully effective on September 27, 1975. The Act provides specific safeguards for individuals against unwarranted invasions of privacy by requiring all Federal agencies to adhere to certain standards for collecting, maintaining, using or disseminating information of a personal nature about individuals. The Act establishes criminal sanctions for three possible violations: know- ing and willful unauthorized disclosure; willful failure to publish a notice of a system of records subject to the Act; and knowingly and willfully requesting or obtaining access to records under false pretenses. Any individual who violates any of these provisions of the Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined up to $5,000. 5. AUTHORIZED SUPERVISORS PERSONNEL RECORDS. ONLY the following personnel records are authorized for use by FAA supervisors: a. Employee Record Card and associated files. This includes the Employee Record (SF 7-B), Service Record-Continuation (SF 7-A), Position Identification Strip (SF 7-D) and Position Descriptions. b. Supervisors operating "personnel folders" for employees. There are serious disadvantages to keeping these files which are compounded with the advent of the Privacy Act. These records will NOT be main- tained in the FAA except by: (1) Operating officials in field offices geographically remote from the personnel office which keeps the Official Personnel Folder. ("Remote" means not in the same office bud IdIng) (2) Personnel or administrative offices of field installations that do not have full delegated authority in personnel matters, when the Official Personnel Folders are maintained by a higher echelon in another city or geographic location. c. Although the files described in 4b are authorized for supervisors in the above offices (and ONLY those offices), the maintenance of these files is NOT encouraged. All supervisors should keep only those personnel records which are absolutely essential for the conduct of official business and not prohibited by this notice. When these files are authorized and maintained by supervisors they must be kept in accordance with the instructions in the Federal Personnel Manual. d. Other supervisors personnel records. Certain records, although in the possession of FAA supervisors, and used by them in performing official business, are 'not considered to be records within the meaning of the Privacy Act. These include uncirculated personal notes, papers, and records which are retained or discarded at the author's discretion and over which the FAA exercises no control or dominion. (These do not include personal information concern- ing employees retrieved by name.) Some examples are: SOUTHERNFLYER -8- OCTOBER 3, 197 lists of group work assignments, schedules, projects - personal notes on the status of various projects - notes on group performance standards 6. ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO SUPERVISORS. Personnel offices are receiving detailed guidance on this subject and will provide comprehensive information to supervisors shortly. dcu'd /5£~'- r./ F. E. lffiITFIELD Director of Personnel and Training GRIEVANCES Enclosed are grievances that were resolved within and outside the Southern Region, at the local and regional levels of PATCO. SOUTHERNREGIONSENATORS ROLLCALLVOTEON 8.66% RAISE NAYS YEAS Name State Name State Spar kman, J. AL Allen, J. B. AL Talmadge, H. E. GA Nunn, S. GA Cniles, L. FL Stone, R. FL Huddles ton, w. KY Ford, W. H. KY Eastland, J. O. MS Stennis, J. C. MS Morgan, R. NC Thurmond, S. SC Hollings, E. F. SC Baker, H. H. TN Brock, B. TN Answered Present - Jesse Helms, NC WRITEYOURSENATORSANDEXPRESSYOURFEELINGSONTHISMATTER II! r r ******* ee June 5, 1975 Dear John: Since the time I started to draft this letter, new occurences have caused me to change my intent to forward you certain records as indicated. I have received another letter of proposed removal. Mr. Damalas has advised me that he, Mr. Seigel and Mr. peers will provide me their full assistance. I am non the less forwarding you this letter without the enclosures as originally planned . .~c.L'~ HERVEY LaFRANCE • • June 1, 1975 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization Suite 706/2100 M Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Attention: Mr. John Leyden Dear John: I am writing this letter in the hope that the information it will provide you with will be of service to PATCO, and help assure that future similar situations will be handled more effectively. First, since you and I are not personally acquainted, let me provide a brief history as background information. Prior to being employed by the FAA, I was employed by the Raytheon Co. for eight years. During a portion of that time, I served as steward and assistant chi-efsteward (2nd shift) with IBEW Local 1505. In 1970 I secured employment with the FAA at Boston ARTCC. Shortly after arriving at Boston Center, I contacted Mr. E. Van Tassell and joined PATCO. I continued by association with PATCO from that time until my termination by FAA in June 1974, and now that I have been reinstated to duty, I have reinstated my PATCO membership. At Boston Center I underwent training and was assigned to assistant controller duties for approximately fifteen months -- no problems; excellent performance evaluation reports. In early 1972, I was sent to the FAA Academy at Oklahoma City. No problems -- course completed satisfactorily. I then returned to Boston Center for on-the-job-training and area certification. Again, no problems, certified as manual controller in area "E" at Boston Center • Page Two • In late 1972 I arranged for a mutual swap to Miami Center. I arrived at Miami Center in December 1972 and was assigned to the center's training department to complete a new area certification. I was briefed as to what I would need to pass the written test and provided study materials. I was allowed adequate time to study this material and passed the written test for area" 4" at Miami Center. No problems except that this training was very poorly related to the actual area knowledge required for future job performance. I was then assigned to a crew for on-the-job-training. Here problems did develop. However, I did complete on-the-job-training and was certified as manual controller in area" 4" at Miami Center. Approximately three months later, on October 8, 1973, I was involved in an alleged" systems deviation." At this point a series of situations began which led to my termination from duty on June 21, 1974. Through my attorney, I filed an appeal, and was reinstated and re- terminated in July 1974. Again, through my attorney, I appealed. A formal hearing was held in October 1974 and on April 14, 1975 I was reinstated and I am now back on duty at Miami Center. Through most of these proceedings, I feel th t PATCO participation was less than adequate. This is particularly sad, not for personal reasons, for I have won my appeal and thus proven the viability of my case, but because many areas which were involved in my case: 1) Systems Erros and/or Deviations 2) TR.AINING 3) Personnel Management (all areas which PATCO has expressed intent to improve), were present in a case that could be won, that, if won, would be valuable to PATCO, that if lost or left unchallenged would establish very bad precedent. Though some of the opportunities PATCO could have found in my case are irrevocably lost, a major intent of this letter is to provide the organization with the opportunity to avail itself of what can be salvaged and to open new opportunit ies. During the discussions that follow, which are broken down as to areas mentioned above, I will make several suggestions. I will also make a few suggestions concerning PATCO. These are tendered in an entirely constructive sense, since I sincerely believe in strong and effective labor organizations. . . # • Page Three • Finally, along with this letter, I am forwarding a package of all pertinent documents. You may reproduce these, whole or in part, as you see fit. However, since theses are my originals, I request that they be returned to me after your review. Fraternally yours, -~~~ Hervey La France ATCS, Miami ARTCC 6138 Mayo Street Hollywood, Florida 33023 HLF/mt attachments: 1. Discussion: Systems Errors /Deviations 2. Discussion: Training 3. Discussion: Personnel Management 4. Suggestions: PATCO policy. Enclosures: (see enclosures index) cc: Mr. A. Damalas Mr. D. Siegel • ;,/ • REeEI 3 I75 eA 0 October 25, 1974 TO: Mr. Hervey LaFrance FROM: Ma.~ners and Amoon, P.A. RE: F.A.A. Appeal STATEMENT For legal services rendered re: Appeals of Removal from Service, F.A.A.; from June 25, 1974, through October 17, 1974; including, but not limited to, initial interviews and conferences; drafting and submitting two Appeal Letters; study, review and prepare for Hearing; Hearing 44 hours at $35.00/hour $ 1,540.00 Received to Date: 7/2/74 $.58.95 10/7/74 500.00 $ 558.95 558.95 BALANCE DUE: $ 981.05 June, 1975 - Answer in new case 2 hours TOTAL: EI 0 3 1975 DISCUSSION ~I 1 PAT SYSTEMS DEVIATION/ERRORS Background: On October 8, 1973, I was assigned to the D85 position at ZMA. Sector 85 is the High Altitude Oceanic Sector. At l545Z DO 902 departed MDSD enroute to JFK. Shortly after receiving the departure message I coor- dinated the requested altitude (FL 350) with KZNY. I suggested to the R85 controller that DO 902 be cleared to enter the KZMA CTA from the MDSD FIR at FL 350. R85 however decided to hold DO 902 down to FL 310 a~d cleared DO 902 to JFK via FP route, maintain FL 310, expect further clearance to FL 350 after CHAPMAN. At this point, I advised R85 that I felt that DO 902 should not have been held down, and pointed out the traffic that would make it more difficult to climb DO 902 after pro- gressing MKJT. This traffic consisted of an aircraft NE bound on Gl at FL 290' 330, an aircraft SE bound on A24 at FL 330, and another south bound on A18 also at FL 330. I also offered to recoordinate DO 902 with KZNY at FL 310, but R85 advised me not to, that he would get h;m up to FL 350. I therefore took no further action regarding DO 902 except to confirm FL 350 with KZNY at approximately l623Z when I expected they would receive an ARINC report that might lead them to question DO 902's altitude. (As DO 902 progressed CHAPMAN, ARINC provided. the following position report: "DO 902 progressed CHAPMAN 1612.Z, estimating CASH l633Z, FL 310. ") Shortly before this (probably at about 1620Z) I removed the flight progress strip on AA663 from the active bay. (AA663 was SE bound on A24 at FL 330). I took this action after corrolating positions on all known traffic in my sector, and determining that adequate separation existed between AA663 and this traffic. This determination was made with full knowledge of the intention to climb DO 902 through FL 330 (310t350). At l623Z, R85 cleared DO 902 to climb to FL 350. During this same period. I was discussing DO 902 and other traffic with KZNY. R85 overheard part of my conversation and became concerned, retrieved the AA663 flight progress strip from the file, and took action to have the watch desk notified of a possible "systems deviation." This action set into motion the ZMA process which led to the compilation of ZMA systems deviation file 3/6. Problem: Define Systems Deviation The review of the facts su~rounding this incident led to a determination that it should be called a systems deviation since greater than minimum separation was maintained. •I The definition of systems error is quite specific - less than minimum separation actually.existed. The official definition of systems deviation is: "Operational errors of significance but which do not result in less than the appropriate separation minima being provided." This definition is so broad that almost any action or lack of action by a controller could be construed to be a systems deviation. In this instance, for example, 1 made a judement decision that greater than minimum separation existed and would continue to exist between AA663 and all possible traffic in my sector. 1 therefore in accordance with 7ll0.9C paragraph 220 b. removed the flight progress strip from the flight progress board because it was no longer required for control purposes. Even though it has been officially verified that my judgement was correct, the situation has still been officially called a systems deviation which 1 have caused by removing the flight progress strip, because the R8S controller issued clearance to DO 902 without ensuring that adequate separation, which 1 has already determined did exist, would exist. Problem: Generation of Systems Error/Deviation Report The day following the incident, my Team Supervisor and 1 listened to the tapes and reviewed the data concerning the incident. During the course of this review, 1 pointed out several facts to him which 1 felt should be considered if indeed this incident was determined to be a system error or deviation. Among these were the following: 1. The original clearance issued to DO 902 by R8S which included "expect further clearance to FL 350 after CHAPMAN." (time lS4SZ - AA663 posted) 2. ARINC report to R8S at l6l3Z concerning positions of AA663, and subsequent ItrcDp markings on AA663 flight progress strip by R8S trainee. Approximately one month later, 1 was finally allowed access to the file and objected to it's contents and conclusions in particular to the highly expurgated transcript of the voice tapes and the inclusion of photo-copies of only 3 flight progress strips rather than all pertinent information required to reconstruct the complete situation. I was informed that the original flight progress strips had been discarded, and the voice tapes errased and returned to service, and that the file was closed. I, , Facility Management Manual 72l0.3B, para. 360 was ignored, even though the alleged systems deviation involved an aircraft which was at all times in airspace controlled by two other centers. Paragraph 369 was not followed completely since all pertinent records are not part of the file. Paragraph 380 and 383 were totally ignored in the preparation of the official transcription. • •• DISCUSSION, TRAINING (OJT) On August 31, 1970, I entered onr .duty at the Boston ARTCC (ZBW) as a GS 7 developmental ATCS. My background in aviation at this point was: a. I held, and still hold, a valid commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating. b. I served in the US Air Force for five years, during which time my prime duty was as an instrument (Link) trainer instructor. Upon arrival at ZBW I was assigned to phase I training. This training was properly provided, docimented and satisfactorily completed. (See attachment 1, FAA Form 2542) Subsequent to this training, I was assigned to duty as an assistant controller while awaiting FAA Academy schedule a~ailability for phase II training. In January 1972, I was assigned to phase II training at the FAA Academy in Okl~homa City. This training was properly provided, documented and completed. ( See attachment 2, FAA Academy Resident Training Record.) Upon return to ZBW, I was assigned to assistant controller duties while awviting schedule availability for phase III training. I commenced phase III training on June 19, 1972. On October 24, 1972, I satisfactorily compleyed .phase III (non radar) training at ZBW. This training was also properly provided, documented and satisfactorily completed. I was then assigned to manual controller duties at ZBW until in late November 1972, I eequested and received autho- rization for a mutual transfer to the Miami ARTCC (ZMA). My performance at ZBW was considered above average. ( See attachment 3, FAA Form 3430-1 dated 1972.) Upon arrivel at ZMA I was assigned to the training department to complete a new area rating. I was first directed to "study the area". I was issued maps, LOA's and other material relating to the area. I received very little guidance during this period. This training was mot properly conducted and recorded in accordeance with 3120.4C. ( See attachment 4., FAA Form 3120-1) I was non the less administerdd a facility written test (grade 95%) This test was;,However poorly related to the required area knowledge, and was so outdated that the instructor who administered it provided me answers to approximately half • 2 the questions in it becaise of revision, deletions or changes to then current information. I was then assigned to OJT duties. The difficieneies in the previous training provided at ZMA soon became apparent, and, I was assigned a furtger period of self study. It this point, I hed a slightly better insight as to what information I would need, and was able to better direct my studies. I was then reassigned to OJT. I found however that rather than training I was simply being evaluated. Question were answered with generalities or less. If I att~mpted to discuss questions relating to "difficiencies" noted on training reports, I was aCQused of being "argumentative". If I tried to relate .situattons to previous experience at ZBW or the FAA Academy, I was reprimanded. I found that opinion on matters of proper procedure and even seperation standards varied widely. I attempted to find standards, such as I was accustomed to at ZBW and the ¥AA Academy. (See attachment 5, Boston Center SOP Manual). These do not exist at ZMA. Particularly in matters of Oceanic seperation , I could find no authoritative information or even consensus of opinion. Depending on the mood of the instructor, something that was right one day was wrong the next. During this period, I requested that I be removed from OJT and temporarily assigned assistant controller duties in order to have the oppertunity to becom& acclimatized and familiar with ZMA procedures. This request was repeatedly denied. On April 27, 1973, my then team supervisor issued a letter to the EPDO stating that my OJT progresss was unsatisfactory. Throughout this OJT period training was not propoerly pro- vided and documented in accordance with normally accepted OJT procedures and requirements of 3140.4C, 3330,30A, and P 1 Manuals. Particularly, 3140.4C, para 33b; para. la5, l05b and l05c; para. 223a, 223d and Sl supplement thereto; para. 224c and 224f; and 3330.30A para 7. I was however subsequently assigned to "remedial training" with a new instuctor and team supervisor, who after careful 1 consideration of all information, personally evaluated my performance on all secto~ found this performance to be satisfactory, and so documented on August 3, 1973. • • Critique, ZMA OJT procedures. Miami Center utilizes the"buddy" system for OJT ~ This system has' an inherent fault in that the results are excessively weighted by the type of personnal raport established between the traineee and his instructor. I witnessed an extreme example of this one day while assigned to to AS5 position. A trainee and his instructor were assigned to the D position and another FPL controller was assigned to the R position. A situation of conflicting traffic had been posted for some time on the flight progress board and wa. becoming imminent without proper action being taken. The trainee and ,his instructor were busy discussing outside activities, I pointed the situation out to the instructor who then took the necessary action to resolve the confliction. The trainee was in no way faulted, and was in fact checked out at the position the next day. The opposite exteme is evident in my situation.' Another problem results in that a trainee and his instructor are assigned to the various sectors on a hap-hazard basis. For example, I was assigned OJT on sector 85 on Feb 18, 1973 and not again assigned that sector until nearly a month later on March 10, 1973. Another difficulty exists in that a trainee is assigned to a controller for OJT. This controller/instructor generally has little or no OJT instructor training. Contrast this to the situation at ZBW. Ther~, a trainee is assigned to a trained OJT instructor in the training department whose only function is to train and instruct, The trainee is then assigned to a particular sector on a continuing basis to train under the direct supervision of whatever controller is normally,assigned to that position. This controller prepares the daily OJT report which is then submitted to the training department instructor. The instructor then discusses each report with the trainee on a daily basis, in detail to assure that it is correct, and that the traineee receives any guidance he may require. Periodic reports and interviews are made to determine if the trainee is "ready for check-out" or "needs more time". When the consensus of opinion is that tha trainee is ready, the actual evaluation is performed by a facility evaluator and a team supervisor who both personally monitor his performance and administer an oral quiz on area knowledge. • • 2 Thus the trainee is neither helped nor hampered by any personnal relationship he might establish with his peers. He has an arbitror, the training department instructor, who can correct the situation should the trainee be erroneously faulted, ahd assures that the trainee has complete accurate and authoritative information to correct valid faults. The trainee is allowed to concentrate hie attention to a particular sector until he masters it, and is then evaluated by two totally unbiased persona. I sincerely believe that any developmental controller at the level I had acheived prior to transfer to ZMA, entering phase III OJT without the benefit of gaining local experience while working as an assistant controller to learn local procedures, would encounter training difficulties here. eJ& e: DEPARTMf,NT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION SOUTHERNREGION P. O. BOX 20636 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30320 July 29, 1975 I\; ,Ii "I'J ReCOG@cnddtions for changes to Order 1100.l26B; AAT-l letter d~ted July 1.3, 1975 Chief, Operations Branch, ASO-540 10 ',11 Te:rminal Facilities for changes Enclosed ~r your r~Vlew and co~~ents are recommendations to Or-der 1100.126B concerning terminal organization. please rcvie~~these proposals closely, along with the subject order, and subru.t y.)~J1' comments so as to reach this office by COB August 26, 1975. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Howard Burch, ~SO-542.1, telephone 404-526-7611. :-.11.:10Sllre .. DEPARfMENT OF SPORTATION FEDERAL'AVIATI.ONADMI, '15TRATION WASHINGTON.•D.C. 20591 DATE: JUL I :~) T375 -: INREPLY REFERTO: A1\.T-10 SUBJECT: Recoumeud.u, LO'IS for Changes to Order 1100.126B fROM Director, Air Traffic Se~/icc, AAT-l TO: Regional D'Lr zc tors (~xcept AEU) Attention: a:ief, Air Traffic Division Enc Loscd fc i your r-::·,iew and coroment s are recommendations for changes to Orde r 110U, 126B til..!!: werc submitted by the task group that convened in Hashington Headqua r cers on .Iuna 9,1975. At ~he Air Traffic Division Chi~fs' Conference held in Houston, Texas, it war> d.ec Ld ed that a task group comprised of representatives from the Sou clie rn, EaAtern: 30\lth\olest, Great Lakes, and Western regions ....ouLl co",,' ~''''''.in trashJ.llgl:0l1 Headquarters t o review Order 1100.126B aud fm...·,al·J ....e Ir rac onmeudaci.ous, During the weeks of June 16 t!1ro;~gll Ju '.)' 1.1 the group visited five regional offices and 38 I, tel:l'Jicw: rae,: t LtLes gaeherLng data and field input. I The ob juc r Lvc of the task group was to identify the organizational needs us t:.L.y per taLn ::0 the operational requirements and develop a. rea sonz.bLc 5\:,;.111. of supa rvLsLon between first line supervisors and c out roLlers ; L .(~., one wh Lch permits the first line supervisor to r.iake Ln fr)r';'E..d j ud gtnen t s on employee appraisal, promotion recommendations, t.raLnLug needs , p roccdur aL deficiencies, and other matters affecting the re~ponsibilities o f first line supervision. Th(' no cd t,n l",~')ts:;. the te rrntna l o rgan Lza t Lonal structure and strengthen adru! l~.~f. tl a t, Lve aud teclmical superv LsLon of air traffic contro 1 per sonne 1 ·...as caus cd lj~! rh o rapid gr owt.h of facilities. It is further complicated ~y the jl1tl·':-,:I.H':t',~O.1. of tecbnological advancements within the terminals. 'r;'e ':::u~k g roup ~~o':pl.:'rLf.: their six-week study on July 17 and Eon-larded t he f oLlowf.n.; rero~):r;[lII_IlJ;'l.t; ions: I.. '!:n.~t·~.:J::;::,d S~::.: n: L'r- Lal /Ad:.:i,!"I1s t rative Assistant Position Ii \>7;,., :.:~': i'Jd,.-d fr·'~I. dIe ddt;J coller.ted that operational superVtS10n <.nd st.,if ~.:t.1[10l'i·. ,loY, L.ion: are frequently encumbered with clerical ,'J.' ,~Jhii.l.·:;t.(~l' '/I.: :-e~,p(J;:.'1 , :.l.ities \oJhich often limit their functional ..:<1 .; !}.:.' l i (I i.it·.·. t }1' HI,.t ry lob rc.spons ibi Ii ty . There fore, to imprc'le C'n ..0.ni.:~:1.!.ion;:1.:, C' i LC Leney, !oil cretarial and adl:linistrative assistant pl.:;;.!: i ..': l"l':'" :,,'.:Il,l:icd at' ~;pecific levels to assum,~ adl'!llnistrative [ur,cf.::" I :-11.\1: .':"( pr.~<.;~,.,t~y assir,r':-.cl to operatiOl al supervisors 8'1U !:L~;'f $l'I,,[V..-r. l!"dLJ.lll",:.,. Alsl', this will provide Eacilit:y 'r::\h:.,~': .. :·ll:,~~::~, "l."·L • .:'C in l:dC.administrati"e area. • 2 • 2. Change nIl First Level Supervisory Titles to Team Supervisor At the present timeJ an assistant chief can be either a first or second level supervisor. In order to differentiate between first and second level super~isors, it is recowmended that all first line supervisors be retitled "team supervisor." When a second level of supervision is introduced, the second level would be titled "assistant chief." 3. Reduction in Second Level Supervision This proposal has reduced the number of second line supervisors and increased the number of first line supervisors. This recom- mendation is based on reducing the number of levels of supervision between the controller ~nd facility chief in order to improve communications and provide for more direct involvement on the part of the facility chief and his deputy in the overall management of the facility. In addition, this propos aI recognizes the importClnce of the first line sUfervisor and increases both the depth of involvement in the operat;ions of the facility and number needed by certain faci HUes to proper ly manage the facUity. 4. Programs Officer Recommend the Operation' s Officer be removed from "line authority" and placed in a "staff function." The recommended new position ....ouldbe titled "Programs Officer." His primary responsibilities would be in'the area of procedures, planning, and budget. In addition, he will provide supervision for the PPS's, EPDS's, and DSS's at nona~sembly sites not staffing the DSO position. He would report to the deputy chief. The ope rat Lons will be enhanced by a free and open communication channel between the assistant chiefs, chief and deputy chief. 5. Data Systems Officer Under the "Programs Officer" concept there would not be a need for the ''DSO''position at other than assembly sites. The programs of f i.cer needs either an au t.oiua t Lon background or the opportunity to gain that nutom.'1tionknow Ledge through a structured course that wou ld be developed. It is also recogn Lze d that this course is needed for all supervisory and staff personnel who do not have an automation background. 6. Increase DSS Staff The propogeJ incre~se in the DSS's staff to four at nonassembly sites would provide the n~cessary coverage for our 18-22 hour operation Under lllv present cuncc pt, a I'ac il i t y opcra t Lons officcT j,; r espons t ble for prox ..i ri iug supervision for all the tac i Li t v s t a Ef and the opera t Ion al cuntrol ,11cas through the as s i sran t chief3. Tn add Lrt on, he is responsible for the dcvcLcprncnt;of procedure;' aud operational changes to sur porr the total facility opcr ciou-: . In ordcr for hill to provide cr I v t i.ve supervision, il is ncccssa rv ro spend cons Lderab Ic 8. Authorized Slnff ing The (.ont:.:o11er staffing levels (1)( the variO'.Js terrnin.11~ :lrc based on operational needs and are, thcre[or.~·, '1t..'lxir.Ul:1;lUl!lOrl.::': I positions that ca;l be fillcd. Likewise, the supcrvi<;ory :1:1U staff positions recormllended for each terminal con:pli:': 'lit II v' a£ shown in Enclosure 1 are ma:dmur:o authorized posit i ':\5. ';ii' final decision as to how many supervisors and staff IJO~ ition:; a facility actually supports will be between the division cllic[ and the individual facility chief. To assist the t~sk group in their impa~t .:\nalysis report, we "t r,-- reqcesting each region to complete Enclosure 2 and forward i \ollth their cUllunents. 1-.1 • The task r,roup will reconvene in \o1ashin2ton Headquarters 1111 .:.. •. Septc.mtJer 15, for one .week to compile tl~e regional COlluncnts ,111<1 submit .:l draft to Order 1100. 126C• It is our intent to 1'["''; 'nt draft urder at the next Division Chiefs' Conference. • 4 • We request all regional comments to be submitted to AAT-IO by C.O.B. September 10, 1975. If you have any furthe~ questions on this matter, please contact the Executive Officer, AAT-IO, telephone 202-426-3022. ~~~ Enclosures . •I \. \ " . , ,,I r--- :L( I r ' \r'ot: ?r...vxx ::,C I I ~1';. . JSP,;l' y r:,OC To\" G PROCr~ : ASST• ITEAMADM. I E C0.\'J'L!.::;~:';:- CilleF CHIEf OFFICER SP£G, I EPDO E:PDS DSO DSS CHIEF jSUPERV' SEC. I ASST• ...... ------i-·------,- ~---+_------___+---~-_-:-'1 _ ! 1, I-8 I I. :! I; I I I I I ! I I I r 1 I .5 rr--I------~I-----:-j------~II----tl------+--+--_+,--_+ ~-- -t-, _ ! 2 i 9-12 ,I i ; i! I I 3 1 L~}__1_3_-_1_8__ ': 1. iii '., : 4 1 0 '4' 1 ., i, i ! ii; Ii' I 4 1 ~L--"l-----'- ---:----;----I----f------+--+--..;- __4-__ -t-__ ~-_ 7 3 lsi 2 -4 i I I I ! I 11 1 ~1 2 4 ! 7 3/ 2 /. 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 ~I 55-70 f ! 1 1 1 i 1 2 I 4 3 9 I 2 8 71-99 1 1 1 2 ;]I 4 3 I ! 12 2 1 ------~-~-----:'------~-----:----,--_:...-- I. 9..100+ I I' 1 3 '4 ' 4 3. l 12 3 1 NIJl'E: 1/ Authorized at ARTS IIT F~cilitics Only 21 II PPS POq it ion no t authori zed when Pr0grams Officer pos ition is filled On 1y f ive team supervisors authorized at Limited Radar Approach Concrol Facilities when supervision is requ ir s-d 011 c.:~(;: nu dn i611t sh ift I otherwise, only four team supervisors are authorized. '. ~/ At Level TV f~C1 Jitips only, regions may authorize either ten team 8upervi~or8 or three assistant chiefs and seven team superVisors. ,... IMPACT ANALYSis OF PROPOSED ORDER llOO.126C 2 3 4 5 6 7 S -...---.,..---...,...---.r------...... ------.,...--....-:----,..,--.__9 10 11 12 Plans &. Operations Programs Plans & Procedures Proccdur£>(; zvat , &. Prof. E'·...l. Eo. Prof. Data Syst c'ns ATCS Deputy a 0i/icel d Officer a OlJ,ficer c d Specialist Dev, Offic~r Dev , Spec In Lfs t Officer Level Chief Chief abc d abc d abc d abc d a b C" d -.D U Itl .0 U I'l .0 U .". .0 C"l. C"ll< \l) C"llC oD '".... U .... .ox "'..:II< ...... U ..0 >C UK UK \D X .0 X I ...... '" ...... \O,l! ...... "'l< .... '" x \OX I .... N tl! I .0 )( IN, '" .... '"I I I '"I N.,9 I ~:<:: '" ~::! I ~~ N ... "'oS N..!:l.....,.. >- ~::! >- N.,g )of -" >t ~~ ~::! >- ::::~ >- ::::)! ~ ...... >- ~ ...... 1&0 >- 1&0 1&0 • lao of...... ~ .... .;...... ;. .... 1&0 .. lao lao ...... 1&0 1&0 If - , -~.~------ IMPACTA~YSIS OF PRO?OSEDORD~ 1100.126C 2 Pag~ 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Assistant Chiefl/ Team Admini!;tratiVl! Supt'rvisor~ ATCS Ass1s Cant Sl!cretary 8 b cd: abc d If Level a b c d a b c d II b c d a b c d I!I b e d "1 <0 -D b c: d U"\ .., • ~ ... \D.o ,....."1 ~ • u -D U U"\ I II I ~"""'...c. II U"\ " I ... .., ~ U U"\ I ')-12 I I, I .. I II i, I .:I' I 13-18 '- II I , 19-26 ! I,'I I 27-43 I -- ·L.-54 I - I I; I IT ! I I .. L I -~. ~ ~ - '1-99 4 'I I I I '100+ Ii I I I Ii - - 'I I I I I . l ' I~ , - -, ::.c-:-- -; I I I III ~ I I i -H- : ourHER~/r FLYER I¥~ NATIONAL '.ES/DENT JOHN f. lfYDEN SOUTHERN REGIONAL VICE PRESIOENT NATIONAL EXECUTIVE VICE '.ES/DENT DAVIDIEGEL ROtERT f. '01.1 ISSUE#20 SEPTEMBER , 197::> -YOUR CHOICE- -•I- All of us are aware that the Civil Service Commission has recommended that federal employees are entitled to at least an 8.66% cost of living raise in October, however, as in the past, the President has recommended a sharply lower raise of 5%. You, the individual member, could determine whether it is going to be 5%or 8.66% ! As in the past,it has taken a Senate veto to override the President's recommendation onpayraises, either on . I the recommended amount or the effective date; this year will be no different. PATCO, along with the other federal unions, will be lobbying very strongly during the upcoming days with Congress to overturn the Pre ident's recommendation. Wecan not do it alone--we need your help and the help of your friends. I request that each individual member of PATCOimmediately telephone your U.S. Senators and request that they overturn the President's recommendation, and support at least an 8.66% raise. In addition, please follow up with a Western UnionMailgram addressed to U.S.Senator ,U.S.Senate,Washington,D.C. The Mailgram cost $2.50 for 1 to"l00words, and arrives the next day. There has been a lot of news put outby the media about public sentiment being against a raise for federal employees, and that unions are the cause of economic problems in the country today. All I have to do is cite you one statistic which was published in the September 8 issue of U.S. NEWSANDWORLDREroRTS concerning the housing industry. Since 1971 Percent of increase since 1971-- Land 62% Financing 148% Overhead 54% Marketing 73% Materials 36% Labor - Only 39% As federal employees, since 1971our salaries have increased by less than 2;5%, so the facts speak for themselves, that our salaries have not kept up with inflation. Please remember that a telephone call and a Mailgram for $2.50 could be a small price to pay for a well justified raise. SOUTHERNFLYER -2- Septernbe , 1975 ELECTISCOPLETED FORREGIONALCOMMITTEECHAIRMEN Ballots were counted on September 2 for the election of Regional Chairmen/ National Committeemen for the Southern Region. Out of more than 2600 eligible votes, 2054 cotes were cast. It las the most successful ballot return that the region has had. The following are the results ofthe elections: CONSTITUTION Regional Chairman/National Committeeman KenCampbell 1979Votes Regional Vice Chairman/Alternate National Committeeman DaveRoderick 175Votes SAFETY Regional Chairman/National Committeeman TyCobb 1042Votes Regional Vice Chairman/Alternate National Committeeman Jerry Hansen 352Votes Runners up Don Rein 316 Votes Richard Preston 292 Votes Jim Holland 122 Votes Henry Odenwald 30 Votes FlliANCE Regional Chairman/National Committeeman Tim Benincosa 1502Votes Regional Vice Chairman/Alternate NatlonalCommitteeman Jim Chesson 419Votes Runners up E. J. Faircloth 134 Votes Larry Bennett 99 Votes PERSONNELAND TRAINING Regional Chairman/National Committeeman Keith Armagost 1017Votes Regional Vice Chairman/Alternate National Committeeman HankHolden 713Votes Runners up Larry Meeks 219 Votes Jonathan White 205 Votes NON-MEMBERFILESULPAGAINSTPATCO ATFAYETTEVILLE In a precedent setting case a controller at Fayetteville Tower, Raymond Byrne, Jr. filed an Unfair Labor Practice against PATCO for not allowing him to vote along with the members of the Local on a proposed watch schedule at the facility. The complaint was filed with the Labor Department who subsequently rejected the complaint, and at the present time Mr. Byrne is appealing the Labor Depart- ment's decision. The complaint is reproduced on the following page: SOUTHERNFLYER epte er 5, 197 ., EC i:1 ltD ,... AUG 20 1975 -i', -'0 ~r- U '!TED STATES DEPARTr:IE 'T OF LABOR FDr:1l Ap ...... ",s O\(~ 1:0. ~~" 14()) ASSISTA!'\lT ScCilE7ARV fOR LA OR A~ACEMi: T AELATfO. S CO:APLAtHT A':iAll'lST LABOR ORGAHllA TlON O~ ITS ACEN r:; -'!'tSTilUCTION5.: Fil"~,, oti.jn..J ~"J~ cO;i:1 "f this Compbillc wi:J. the, ',a Diree. tor. L!>or.M.n·o .....,..cn' SttYice:. AJrnin:,." ..:i::>n.and 2 copirs o( any .U?70ftin!: docu. 00 NOT ",~IT;: Ir, THIS S?;\CE r::tnci as s?eci(;.:.i in S«tiol"l 20J.J,1>, oi ,!-Ie R.~,,,r.rjons of Ih. A";IIH,r Stc,erary. CASE NO. U;>:>n fJin!> ,he Co:npl.int ...... C 2 copy c.:' Inc C>n'pbinr on c>eh F.rr~· ,!:,insr "'hieh ,hc Compl.inr is ", .. dc. If mo.c sfhcC U r<,:;u~cJ (0: .ny it ern, aCI;\ch .ddui:>".r .hecrs. I-O-"-T-E-'-'-L-c:-O------_ nu:n!>=1'c:d .>ccnrdi..,: ro ,hc ic~ '0 ..,!?ich chey perr~in. A lisc (includillJ; n.ocnu .. nd ~c!reu""i of c....:>u Cpon whorr. se....~c h..heen ~. .:::J, .... " accumr-r-y the Co-:ni'~~(. •.r)-.- 1. lABOR OROANIZATION Oil ITS AGE"'-rs AGAINST WHICH CO"'n4INT IS '''AOe A. H~~ 01' LA.OR OJlr~""zAno" (Inct,.dt 07::"i:,..-io,,·s local ham, ,,'tJIIl""'~. Iff ... riO'lcl u 1"ler."3.oj~, •• ltd Q/fili4riOlt. 1/ C>I,I Fayetteville Cha ter Professional Air Traffic Controllers Or anization AFL-CIO) a...... !)O,,~5.S /Srrur_d .'I.'UM~W, Ci..,.. S::tu.lIJ Zi~ C~I (MEBA 5602. Denham Ct., Fayetteville, N •.c.. 28.304 , .._ C.;-;;;~~:;:;:;~~:.....:-:..::..::...:..=.::.::..=2~."-1Rs.o .. TO CONTACT, TIT1...I: ...:..::::....-==:=_=_-...:-.....:._=-.:...=:~--=--:.....~...:..:...:..:::...:__..:=____=-- _ ·Mr. E. J. Faircloth, Pr~sident 2. 'nil! AaovE,NA~D lASOR ORGANIZATION o~ ITSACENTSHAS ENCACED IN VIOLATIO' ...SOF: (CHECK AS A?t'itOl'itiA TEl • m SECTIO' ... 19Ibl 0'" EX2ct.1TIVE ORDER 1101. AS AMc~D!D. SlP-S~CTIONI~ 19. B. 1 a SECTIO:ll)!)fd 0," EXeCUTIve OitDER 114il, A.SAM!l\IOEO ... AS'. 01' TH. COM~A1NT (Gr.r. ewa 11fId.-ofle!u Il":t,,",,,t o/t", /aco co",tirutftlr t".II!~"fI "Iff::;' l.Jbor .pr=crlc•• tA, 1t4"'-n r:NI ~dtTnG olu, b!d.'widu.2l1 :-aI"ft!. Qtt/ ,,., rt...,., Utd pUc, 0/ OCctJnrlt:y of 11:, pt:rriC\ll:sr Ktr,}. . On, or about, May 20, 1975 Fayetteville Tower PATCO, Frofes3ior~1 Air' Traffic .Controllers Organization, ~\ AFL:CIO, by its agent and represenfative, E. J. Faircloth, President, did solicit a vote fron Air Traffic Control Specialists at Fayetteville Tower proposing a ch.."ngein the-wofkTng-fu>Urs of'afl'-Air'Tra.ffic- Specialists at Fayetteville Tower, and did arbitrarily exclude all menbers of the bar~ining unit who were no~-PATCO members fro~ participation in this vote • ..IApplleaN 'NI'OP."AT'ON .... Qn:l p~ CONCE~NINGrolu," J "P.~ A. WHItN "'''S THI!: WJlrITTIE ... CH....,.C!: 'ILEa WITH TOll[ LA.OR OP.C"NIZ"TION OR ITS ACJ:NTsr ~8-75 {D,,;rJ L WHltN WAS THI!: ....'UTTEN ,.INAL o~eISION ON THE CHARGe SItRVZO ON THIt 'ARTY ,.,LIHa TH'~ C:O"'~l.AIHTr 6 -24-75 IP' NO """'TTE'" "'INAL DI!:CISIO,...... "S S£RVED. CHI!CK 0111011: __ {!> c. WERE INFO~""A1. ATTEMPTS MIIOf; BY THE PARTIES TO RESOLVE THEALLEGED VIOLATIONSIN TH" CHARGE ON WHID1 THIS COMPLAINT IS eASED? ~ YES__ NO •• IHI'ORMATsON CONCEOIN'NG ALTERNATIVI[ ..OIOCEOUP.IES USED 1'001 RESOLUTION 01' MATTERS COVER lED 8Y THIS COMP1...AIHT. HAS TH!!: SA""IE FACTUAL S'TUATION C:OVIEOIEO B....T~S COMI"LJlINT !IEEN ""'SED- A. U/'IO!!:" A CRIIEVANCI! "ROCItDU'U!~ __ Y£S -.A- HO .. ~~~ A.... L.'CAnON Fa" DECISION IS....THIE ASSISTANT SIECRETARY 0,.. CRI~A8'LITY 0" A"3IT"~a'LIT.,r __ VU .!..NO C. WITH TH!!: F!!:OE"JlL LADOR P.ELAT'O ..S COUNCIL. THE I'EOItRJlL S£RV'CE 'M"AXI!S ...... N.L. OR THE 'EOERAL MEOIATIO/'l AND CONCIL'AnON SERVICE I'OR CONSIDERATION OR ....CTlONr __YES_NO .. A. NAME OF ACTI\IfTY ANDIOR AGENCY F.A.A. Fayetteville, N. C. Air Traffic Control Towe~ ••• AOORI!:SS (Strut ~"J ,\'IIm!>w. wr)'. S,at, "red Lip Cod'l P. O. Box 64277, Fayetteville. North Carolina 28306 C. "o£Ro5ON TO CONTACT. T'TLI: Gilbert L. Hoffheins D'eJrg~1:NO •. 11:. NO. 0" E"'~L.OVIE£S £",n,OYED ------.----,--:--!-=~:::-=-..:..:-_L--:---=-_-323-0849 :----:---:---;~_:__-=-29 7. A. P'ULL N...... E 0' ~AOITY "L.IND CO"~LAI"'T I.' feb:>' o'l""i:g.'io". ri.e l.xlll "".", .nd '"""bu. ru:rio"ar w jilf •- Aooi't!ssis ..;:;;;.::olf! .",m,b". C/~·. Sr~t..:.;,j /:1' Codr} c. "HON! "0. 1914 Wyatt Street, Fayetteville, N. C. 28304 919-425-1726 •• IOECLAR~ T...", r, HAVE READ THE ~90VE CO:\'PLAINT AND THAT THE STATEMENTS THEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE e::ST OF MY K~jQ""LEO':~ Ar~ BELIEF. WILLFULL Y FALSE STAT~MENTS ON THIS CO:\lPLAINT CIIN BE PU~IS"'~O 3V FINE AND I~PAIS~ "'ENT IUSCODE.TITLE 18. SECTlO,"" 1001. • ~O •••• JJ' I LMS-'\ 62 . IfiN. 4.151; ._, SOUTHERNFLYER -4- Sept mbe 5, 1975 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (Cont'd) Labor Department's Decision .1 :,,;j,~' ~ 7, 1)1:: ~'::!.'y RaJ=loz:.d :S~Ot Jr. ~9'14 "Ayat-t ~i;rQ0'~ :;'n.y~t-tovi.ll~ f 2ioZ'fu Cc::r:oliriL'. Ir:. ~~~:>ly:re ...iJZO tOl FE.\7ottGville Ch:q>ter~ Proff;::.,>.;ion.cl. Air Tra?i'i,~ Co:~rt:=olle::-oOr.eanization (p.:."?b bYI,-CIO) Fay<3t-cJrillot No:;:-·2;."'l Ca...""'Oline.. C~~9 ze, 1.;O-6504( CO) ~~~ ahove-op.ptioned caa~ all~~~s n violation of Soction 19{o)(1)of ?..:,:ocutive OrdGr 11h91 t ae azcen-~, baa been invj)ot~-atad and con.slcW=~d c~..!Xo.i"ully• Invastil:;ation revo :Ct is your cODt~n-:ion that the votes t~Gn by :PATCOshould have been open to ::J.1 ~loyee9 afi'ecWd by the wa.tch oehedula and '!;hat the non- PA'.l:COm~oers fJMuld hav& been permitted to vote. Section 10(e) o~ the fu'da: p~rlde9 .in :part that: l,.·rn,9n ~ labo:r or~;ci?;),·c:tcn h3.S beon acco:c<1ed. e:,(clua1va .:r::C1c~"~lii;:i.cn, it ia t~1a e::z~lu!3iva, X'(-r0re3~mta:~i....y<') of .cr.rol<>:'7e,,~t'lin t.h~ 11m t :?,;::1,il i9 anti to) ed to 20-:; i.,?,: and '00 na$Otio.te a.greemsn:ta covering .oJ.l c'!lP)191Seg 5.n t.h9 ',-"'lit. It i3 :re~ibl~ fo'1:rap~~nting t~o i.ntara3~ .... crt-all ~?loyee3 in th9 unit without disc;dJ;z1i I],l'l,tio.n ro:l.d witJ.'"loutregard to labo): org:miza.tion membe:cshi~••• (cIi:phasis ~~:91ied) Snis soctio:il ~ta to th~ e~luGive :ropxesenta-tive ~ :t'lZ;'ltto r~f3amt thE;) unit re:p16y&a:3 and to net in tbau- bvnuf. n'oth1".g in ·the Ordsr :r:equiJ:~B t.'1ae~lU3ive ~~3enta.tiva to azee=ta.in :i;~ vimi9 ~Ji: th~ 1:.1'..1 t e.m.plc.yo3 btdore :1. ~ ;.f!X1·~:';.~t~!?1.'OPQ::JcW.sto 11l?.rW€tr~nt. 1,:c::c\..~ ,', './'fJ: 1 t,L{jri;: il:J no c:wid0:t:.co :thh l~n-union I:1e".rL·;;:Jr~jin tho u."li t ...... ,.:t~ not ;':d :d.y (J"I:..cl~J(JU;lt,.... 1:7 L.'\'1:rf):';)~').Cm:,:.-td (Y;,!or,) wmtl.s'l,'~;;1;)::Jt in til-a I.Q.e.t-ter of tlli) '.1fl"':,l:';,'·'.) or \I(~",...,l..: tlhlJ:tt-J (,;'t: th:J.t t:,oJ hOGY'Jri-lillrdi I a !;)~Jl(;ction of th~ p3X"tl- , ~d :J' ~itl1""'l: hr;;J,;L"il prO'jiO.!:JlX'l in 'tt-..a l1l,)·t1ce 01: '~ r:lani'..g~.';t:Jn.".;; 'W~ ~"le on c.J.3- c~imd-~tox7con31d~~tlon~. Iia3~d on the .fora6"Qi.n,g, I am, the-.s:'efcu"'3,di.,d s:3iU$ the cCIir?la.int in this ~..a.t~~ • .- .f ,J. ~•• , '>~3' r·t' "';" -1" 1 .t.'-T)" ol~ -I-,,~ a~~i'3";'a:n"- .,r:.D:;"I1u..~u ..0 ;:j<')C"':iJ.on ,_0'. 1\,C) v::r. 't,••.;1 \o~;u. a;,~0~;., .,....J J• .,,;> .- u II 3co::::ot.:u-y you 0..'0\;'1<".:!>yeal t.11is o.C·~iOil by :fili:c0 a r~rru.o·.at for ra'Vie\·l . ..\ • .....-.. tt OJitl'l "'cllo Ar;.::i.at~lllt S~cret~-y ar:.d lOarli~",z a cOdY uJ!on 't...ll.S O:L.l~ca a::tu. .~,::.,jI~"::,.;pu::.JC'n·~..;.aJc:-l1:o::1;;;.a·i; of se:::vlco p,hucld a~c"w2~ ~:~ X() Suc~ rG~~e~t must contain n COD?lot0 state$ant 5ett~~ f)~~l the facts ;"nd roaso:"lf) upon which it is b2.3ed ::~.d l1~st 0'3 4ecl)iyea. 'uy th0 As~i3t~t ~acrdta....'""'Y for I.abo~'1a.""l2,g"''';I!lent I':ela'tion13, A'ttention: O:t'i"ir}£) of Pade:ra.l 1u.boN>1a.·'1!~~!l~ntRllla.tion'3, U. S. Del'a.rtment o! Labor, \iaa~"'1gton, D.C. 20216 not lator than Jw~a of bus~~a~ 22, J cl~sg aU5ust 197~. Sincerely;, IE-I R. :BR~ AOBiat~~t Ragional Lireator :frY{! Labo~-!2.na..~nt Sarvice3 SOUTHERNFLYER -5- SEPTE BER5, 1975 TELLITLIKEITIS In an openand candid letter Charles Scordo, President of Jacksonville Center PATCO, laid it on the line to facility management at Jacksonville Center. Charlie's letter is well put and needs no clarification: August 8. 1975 Roy Browning Deputy Chief Jacksonville ARTCC Rilliard. Fla Dear Mr. Browning: The traditional role of noat unions throughout their hi9tory has been one of reaction - reaction to callous oanagement and asinin. policies. Your actions and attitudes of tha last two weeks have gone a long 'Way in convincing me that both the diseasas mentioned above flourish at Jacksonville Center. This letter is to advise you that the blatant 'jisregard of both EO 11491 as an1911dad. and the PATCO-~ contract will no Longer be tolerated. PATCO is pre~ared to take whatever action 1s n~cessary to sea that both of these docu:nants are enforeed. PATCO de~uds that you, 8S actin~ ehief, recognize your responsibility to enforce our contract and not traae it as an PAA ordar or notice nhich you can change at: your discration. I havs tried to maintain an opan minded attitude hoping you would at lea9t deal fairly uith the union, but it has become evident to ~ that this spirit of cooperation ha3 bean mistaken for a sign of ~eakne39 or unw111ingnea~ to act. You have T!fY pledge that I vill cor race this nrl.stab~ll impression. In cl~ain3, I ~ left vith the im?rassion that the Coraan Co~tt99 ~aport On La~or - Management ~elations U39 correct in its a9geS90~Qt that: "1?A:.\ labor managament r91atious can be termed as the Yorst of CL"1Y government agency in T)ashington. No eI!1!>loysi! can vork in an environment such as ATe wit~'1out roaultant adverse effects related to mistru3t of his diract or indiract sU1>grv1sors." Diligently. Charles Seordo Prcsidtant Jacksonville Center PATCO ARTICLE 71, SECTION 1 Recently one of the problems at Jacksonville Center resulted in a grievance where facility management failed to properly and promptly notify the PATCO Local that a bargaining unit employee had elected to appear before a System Error Review Board. Charlie Scordo filed a UnionGrievance, which was denied by the facility and which was later resolved at the regional level. The following notice went out to all facility chiefs from the FAARegional Office concerning this matter: Clarification - PATCOAgreement. Article 71, Section 1 of the second PATCO/FAA Agreement states that, "If a facility System Error Review Board is convened and any bargaining unit employee elects to appear before the Board, a Unionrepresentative shall be entitled to be present while the employee is before the Board. 1I In order to comply with this provision Continued•.•. SOUTHERNFLYER -6- SEPTEBER 5, 1975 Article 71, Section 1 (Cont'd) . J of the new contract facility management shall inform the Principal Facility Representative or his designee, either orally or in writing, that a member of the bargaining unit has elected to appear before an upcoming SERB. The notification should be made as soon as possible after management learns that a member of the bargaining unit will be appearing before the Board. MONTGOMERYPATCORESOLUTION Officers of Montgomery Tower PATCO have signed a resolution that being an air traffic controller is the most prestigious profession in the FAAand that they will not, as officers of the Local, seek any managerial or staff positions within the FAA. The resolution is as follows: TOWHOMITMAYCONCERN: We, the undersigned, as duly elected officers of the Montgomery, Alabama RAPCON/TOWER Chapter of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, believing that as Air Traffic Controllers we have reached the pinnacle of professionalism and that a step into management would in no way enhance this professionalism, do hereby resolve and agree that as long as we hold an elected office in the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, we will not bid on or seek a management or staff position with the Federal Aviation Administration. Cecil Park Rodney Hoyt President Secretary John H. Brown Robert Supplee Vice President Treasurer PATCOPOLITICALACTIONCOMMITTEE Jacksonville Tower PATCO recently concluded a campaign to solicit funds for the Political Action Committee. Through the special efforts of Facility President, Bill Brown, and his members, more than $350 was contributed to the political fund. NOTE: All contributions should show the name, home address, and social security number of the contributor. Any check which was submitted on behalf of any individuals should be accompanied by a list of the names of the contributors, their individual contributions, and the home addresses and social security numbers of each individual. OSHAREPORT The following is an excerpt from a periodical published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It appears that someone is finally seeing the light: Q. We understand all about employees' rights under the safety law-- but does this include the right to refuse to work because of claimed hazardous conditions? A. No. OSHAregulations specifically state that "there is no right afforded by the ACT which would entitle employees to walk off the job because of potential unsafe conditions at the workplace". If employees feel conditions are hazardous, they should request an inspection by OSHA--or file a grievance. There is one exception: If conditions are so hazardous "that there is real danger of death or serious injury; " and there isn't sufficient time to go through regular channels, and the employer refuses to ('nT'T'p('t thp ~itl1~ti()n __ pmnl'1\TPP~ h::lVP thp. T'irrl,t t o rpfllSp. to' TnT'k. .' SOUTHERNFLYER -7- SEPTEMBER 5, 1975 NACAFAMTRIPSTEPORARILYSUSPENDED International fam trips with members of the National Air Carrier Association have been temporarily suspended due to some problems in admini tering the many travel requests. PATCO and NACAare going to hold a meeting very soon in an attempt to iron out these difficulties. Please do not submit any more requests until you are notified that the problems have been resolved. UNIQUEIDEA Jacksonville Tower PATCO has come up with a unique idea for business cards for their members. It shows the facility name and pertinent information for aviators whofly in and out of the Jacksonville area. These cards are distributed by the members to pilots to help improve pilot/controller comrnunicatic.. and increase recognition for PATCO ViSiT YOUR TOWER ANO YOUR CONTROLLERS FOR A MOREKNOWLEDGEABLEINSIGHTINTO AIRTRAFFICCONTROL JACKSONVILLEAREAINFORMATION COURTESYLOCAL No. 127 AT'S 125.85 MH CLEAR"'NCE DELIVERY 119.5 MH VOR "4.5 r~H 0ROUND CONTROL 12:.9 MH ElEACON 344 TOWER 118.3 MH ARBITRATIONCASESSCHEDULED October 7 Article 7, Section 11 Memphis Center This concerns a one day suspension for system error (This occurred under the provisions of the old contract) October 21 Article 23, Sections 1and 2 Standiford Tower Failure of management to temporarily promote controllers on detail assignments to fill team supervisor vacancy that existed for more than 120 days (occurred under old contract) November 6 Article 7, Section 11 Montgomery Twr One day suspension for allegedly falsification of Government records November 25 Article 16, Sections 1and 3 San Juan Tower Article 42, Sections 1and 3 This matter concerns revocation of SF-160 privileges for two years for allegedly violating the national standardized SF-160 program '. SOUTHERNFLYER SEPTEMBER 5, 1975 FAA STUDY A BUST II ATLANTACONSTITUTION By ROBERT GRVE BERG Proxmire summed up. WASHINGTON(CDN) Uncle The stewardesses in this particul r Sam has been measuring airline stew- group weighed between 94 and 145 ardess trainees' bosoms, buttocks and Editor' ole pounds, were from 5 feet one inch to 6 who knows what all else-at a cost of !=~::~~:::::~!:t:~=::::~ ~~ 29 to 37.5 $57.8~:~::::E::::::: ~:E=:::: E~::~~ 21 to 28 :~~:~::~:~::-..",.u ~H~:::E~~ It's ::::~:: :;::::: ::: ~:~=::: ~~:;~~: 6",_" ...... _ ..u ...., lIay. U'U.3\.o> i••v..,. w ..""..- A ,","'-.:11'" VI. ."" ""1'_ &.10-1" ...... gil, '.Qu. lIuo:J\..;:t est OJ::::::;=: :::::::: ::: ~:~=::: ~:::~~~~ .."" "co.._ ....."".. ..u...., nay. lIUoOI ...... ~ _I. ~-u" A """,;;II,, VI. :~: ~..:: ::::~::::::; :::: ~tg! couldn't cause.::~:: :: ...U ."",..-_" fii& ,",v.;r", VI. n "'-_" ",V.;J'" Ufo...... '" _- ",""'.:11" VI. E:; :::~:::E ~~ waste to Wis.) :::~~~ .....w _- " A "'.., " V" ;:::~:=...... -_••,,-I&,...e"... ~\4:) ...... _ n..- Q ,",..,-.;11" VI. 1'C&14 ~"'t- •__._.. .. V~...... By ARTHARRIS Donna Alexander stuck out her ankle (lovely), offered her wrist (petite), and raised both arms overhead. I slipped the I tape measure gingerly around the vital areas. Donna, a 25-year-old flight attendant I for Delta, had green eyes, blond hair, six inch wrists, eight inch ankles and notched the tape at 35-26·34.The distance from her lIpper derriere to the back of the knee measure :l in,. ..c .. n PY' urn .. .? Ill::::~ l: ~ l:J= m~ l: walted t ~ Ill::::~ l: ~ l:J= mR l: ing. ~ :R~ g~ g R gl= mR g I to ~ ia~!1 g n §~ IR g tendant' ~ ,n,. ..c .. n PY' urn p ~ H!~ ii g R g~ IIR i we're after th ~ ',n,. ..c .. n PY' mn p estingst ~ :Ill:: ::~ l: ~ l:J= urR l: • 11h ~: :R~ g~ g R gl= ItR : 10 a. 5 ~ :~ll:: ::~: l: ~ l:J= mR l: elusion ~: Ill~ ::~: l: ~ l:J= mR l: AmericaJ ~ ;m~ l:~; l: ~ l:J= mll = Ft. Wor ~ ;i~ g~; !i~ g~ wll: i 7. t,"" PC;:' ,~' P PT" wnm_ ~",ntO pc" ," .. n PY' Inm" ths B-Se ~ I',"J'I PC~'l' P pr nm,. independ _~:~i~ ~~~~1i:R g~ ~~ai l ever, wa ~ 'it~ ~~f,. g =R gt=..,~~~~ • b 7. 'IntO .... v£ t .. -n p,·"mnm .. lngs e < '~ ttm:: ::i~~ ~ l:~:l~ll~: lire from :~ !~ ~~~ g g~~";H"i "YOI,-). """v£ P PY'"Wn .. stewarde ~~ i Ei~~i a;~ tewardess . "Wer:~ i~~~f '§,y :~~I:p~~ :fla·~ 1 declined this tape :J, t~:t~~ I~ -no :l:i~:~ • } .I..u",~,~vl IP 'T'rc:J • 0 .''''-'. survey. 3 measurel .-) ~..."....."'"v., I» ; " ",..... ed with "\Vh~ :~?~m~:it~±Ui~!~ ~ ~B::: afternoon Playbo ?::. :t~~~:ft~± ga: +§=I S::::: y. - ....~...... 'U.... v..u"• ..,..:~ " ...... an team UNo = ::tf:t::1:tt~tt~::: =§i Su :::::: , - 4.I.4U"'-'.lJ .. VJ.,ClIU 1""':' ou .. d. lained j - 4.I,.\.&.· ... vu&. v ....tI'.. --;, tJu .. P • : ~tt:t::1tit~ft~::: =!=J ~~ ::::: gitimate. :: E~t;i~i1t~itgH:::i~§~::::: $57,000 : : E~t:~~f~i~it~:::::~~ ~§:::~: measurer := ::::tt:t~ft~ ~ft~::: ::~=I :H~:::::: airlines :: E~t;!~t1i~it~H:::i~§~:::~: just thou : ~tt:~~t~~~ft~a: ::!~ 3t: ::::: investiga :: E~Ei~tii~tt~:::::~~ ~~::::: the findin : E~~t~i1i~ittH:::~~ §~::::: .= ~tt:~~t~t~~tta: ==FI 3t: ::::: "This is ntu1tUtuU~:!! saia . ~~-year- old Marva Lindsey of Columbus , sticking President John F. Leyden Executive Vice President PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Poli SUITE 201-A/1568 WIUINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 AflIlioled with M.E.B.A. (AFL·eIOl August 20, 1975 CERTIFIED MAIL w/Return Receipt Mr. Robert E. Poli Executi ve Vice President PATCO Suite 706 2100 M street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Dear Bob: Enclosed are checks totaling $316.00 for PAC co ibuted by Jacksonville TRACON, Jacksonville, Florida, which were p esented to me at my recently held seminar. I would appreciate it if you wo d write the President, Bill Brown, a short note thanking him for hi efforts. Bill has also advised that he has some re checks totaling approximately $100 that he will forward very shortly. Fraternally, DAVID E. SIEGEL Regional Vice President /bg Enclosures a . W ~ )19v tJj 6'IjO.3 l~ 3d 1/ ~I Presiden' John F. Leyden E..ecutive Vice President PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Pol; SUITE 201-A/1S68 WILLINGHAM DR., ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 A/liliateel with M.E.I.A. IAfl·CIO) July 10, 1975 Mr. Robert E. Pali Executive Vice President PATeO Suite 706 2100 MStreet, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Dear Bob: The enclosed document was prepared by the Regional Audit Manager of the Southern Region on an audit of the Second Career Program, dated September 30, 1974. I am sure that it will make very interesting reading for you and John. It should give you essential information that will help us prepare for testimony on this matter before Congress. Fraternally, DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President /bg Enclosure cc: John Leyd ,...... UiHIU) SII\Tr:, GOV[nNt,~[NT "Pj;i1~ DEI. '" ~\I· • ~;jloralll.ilIJJl • ' 01 "r.t OF JtfE !I, ,,"FrA'Y .. Office of Audits DA~L S~ptember 30~ 1974 Draft Report on Audit of ,.. reI'" SVI,reT, ATCSecond Career Program ''''"t .-.. ;:,0-76.4 ff~ Southern Region nOM I Regil')nal Audit Hanager - Atlanta Region • TO Director. FAASouthern Region \-Ie have completed our audit of the: ATCSecond Carer r ?r'. r .' ..J._j of our draft report is attached for your review nnd co, ~! Our observations are summarized in section II and Gis:~£~e~ . :.~~l. in section III. For inclusion in our final report. we woul d appreciat;· h:vi .. .:0\..:' comments on these observations by October 11, 1974. If yu~ ; :~: \'1ith our observations, please include in your comments .lny ::::... :~ planned or target dates for completion. If you do not: '';1 s, , ~l2c.·,-: furn ish us \'Ii th the reasons for your nonconcurrence. /J ~,') c. // ~' C/\ '/l.vv:.~~~Z L. R. Hubbard f\ t. 1.,1 c:hment "~-' _. -...------_. • p .. • REPORT ON AUDIT OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER SECOND CAREER PROGRAM FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SOUTHERN REGION ------Report No. AT-FA-75-2.2 By: u.S. Department of Transportation Office of Audits Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia • • ,,- TI\BLE OF------CONTENTS Page Number INTRODUCTION • • • . • • • • • • • . . .. 1 SU:1i-tARYOFRESULTS OF I\UDIT . . 1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF I\UDIT . • • • 4 3 Developmental Controllers . . . . . 3 fair labor Standards Act •...... 4 Options on Completion of ATC Second Career Program. 5 Reimbursement of Training Costs ...... 6 GENERAL ...... 7 Optional Retirement 7 OHCP Benefits . . . . 9 BI\CKGROUND ...... 10 SCOPE • • ...... 10 PERSONNEL CONTACTED ...... 10 AUDIT COUNSEL ...... 11 • • HU'(JRf m~ r,IIn IT 0 F !'d i'-:r iu\-:'T(( r.o,\/r!~nl.l.rf( -._----_._._--- ~~:CUjlt) CA',:;::.."!! Toi:, )GPJI:'~'-- - I... IN_.- fROnUCTION---_._- He have complet.ed an aud i Lof the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) Second Career Proqrem in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Southern Region. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the ATCSecond Career Program is administered in accordance with legislation and regulations and in an economical and efficient manner. The audi t \"JS performed in the FAASouthern Region headquarters Atlanta, Gcm"gia, and at the Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center, t1ilmpton, Georgiil. I L SU1·1~II\RYOF RESULTSOF AUDIT Improvements are needed in the basic legislation, implementing regulations, and Southern Region procedures and practices in order to ensure that the ATCSecond Career Program is more economt cal and effec tive. Certain desirable actions have been taken by the Region in an effort to improve the program. These include: A. Developing and submitting to FAAhcadquart~rs a concept for revampinq air trdfr-ic controller screening, selection. end ~:>~;i gnment . B. Requiring all disqualified, controllers to have vocational counseling and testing before they enter the program. C. Implementing a procedure for recordtnq, ."eviell/ing, and co~trolling processing time. •,".' Sumrn~riled bel 0'1' are areas nccdi ng irnprovcliient. Items A and B do not contai n re commendat t ons as they have been referred to our OST lIeadquarters Offi ce of J\udits for further cons iderati on. These items are discussed in section IV of the report. Observations C through F are discussed in detail in section III of the report . .. . . • • 1\. r.olllroll(~rs p.li~.rihle for opl.i on.i l retirp.III(~nt ure pennitted t.n :' q'~,l':il' 11,:' i'I t(1;' ,'HI: \'~"'l;! r:.1,···~t· l','(I'lr 11,1 1I11'! .~' "~:i~.ti!", ::..··:i·,L-,tifJ,1. 1..·qi~.I,d ill:1 1.1' j'1'."U','· Ll~ ..,.! ('1101 LpJi i ,,'~ •,',):;,:'::\ prorj ram could reduce cos ts clpplict1hle to Fiscal Years 19/6 and 1977 v. by about $2.3 million. (Partly'-""" IV.I\) B. Legislation is needed that would pormi t disqualified con t rollcrs a choi ce of either ('ntC!ring the I\TC Second Career Proqrom or rccct vi ng Offi cc ~lor:':ers Compensati on Proqrams (OWCP) belle fi ts . Tilis cou1d save the FfV\ abou t $290 sOOO annually. (Paragraph IV.B) C. Disqualified controllers with less than five years experience in the separation and centro) of cdr t ra ff ic are enter- ing the ATC Second Career Program. About $147,000 may be expended on these employees who were if! the. proqr.nn at June 30. 1974, and about $8110,000 may be expended on those entering the pro!Jram in Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976. He recommend that the Southern Region initiate a request that developm2nta1 controller time not be counted in calculating creditable service for the program and that guidance be provided on creditable service ending date. (Paragraph III.A) , ' D. On-the-job training (OJT) employcrs are being obtained to train disqualified controller's at no cost to the OJT em~loyer. This arranccmcnt may be causing some empIoye rs to he in violation of the Fai r Labor Standards I\ct. He rcconrnend that the Southern Regi on es tob l ish procedures to assure that the provisions of the Fair labor Stendards Act are cons idered when arrangi n9 OJT trai ni ng and that ex is t inq arrang2ments be reviewed for pos sib ls corrective action. (Paragraph III.B) , E. The Southern Region's ATCSecond Career Program is not d~si~ned to retain disqualified controllers in the Federal service. He recoumcnd that the draf't order recently initiated concerning training and retention of disqualified controllers in the FAA be finalized and implemented. (Paragraph IILC) F. The FAAshould be reimbursed for training costs expended .• for counseling, tui ti on, books, and supplies t'/hen (1) the employee voluntdrily withdraws from the ATCSecond Career Program. or (2) the employee completes the proqram but docs not enter his second career , Thi s ac ti on would reduce program cos ts and ai din discouragi ng employees from entering the program as an interim measure. (Paragraph 111.0) DRAYT • • 3 Ill. I>ISr.lISSJON. . OF nr<;lJI.-rs.. or J\I/DIT ..- 1. Oh<,r!I"VtIt ions D isqua li f icd controllers w i th less than five years experience in the separation and control of air traffic are entering the '/\TC Second Career Program. In adrH t ion , arbi Lrary ending dates are being used in calculating creditable service. FAA's definition of creditable service as shown in Order 3410.11 includes developmental controller time. The definition of a controller in P. l. 92-297 does not appear to include developmental controller time. As a result, the Southern Region may unnecessarily expend $447,000 on the Second Career Program for employees in the program at June 30, 1974, and about $840,000 for those-projected to enter the program in Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976. P. l. 92-297 defines an air traffic controller as an employee of the Department of Transportati on who is acti ve1y engaged 'in the separation and control of air traffic, or \'Iho is the tmned iate supervisor of an employee actively en9aged in the separation and c:ontrol of air traffic, in an air traffic control facility. FAA Order 3410.11 defines developmental training as the training phase directly related to the process of acquiring the skill sand knowl edge necessary to apply appropr iate separation standards. This normally occurs at the GS-5 and 7 levels or c:bove. The time spent in dcvclopment~l training is to lJe used in determining creditable service according to Order 3410.11 which appears to be in conflict with P. L. 92-297. The length of time that a controller spends as a d~ve1opmenta1 controller depends on the type of faci1itv, minimum t ime in grade requirements, and the proqress of the individual controller. We have been inform2d by Ai~ Traffic Division personnel that developmental controller time in the Southern Region would averd9~ about two years. ,.' "r P. L. 92-297 requires five years service as an air traffic controller. Nin~ of the 135 employees in the program at June 30, 1974 (7 percent) did not meet the requirements of the Public Law, The cost of providing two years training for these nine l employees "ril1 be about $t147tOOO based on the Southern P.egio:1 s average cost of $49,GGO per employee. Based on the current profile. 17 controllers will enter the program in Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976 that will not be eligible under P. L. 92-297. Second Career Program cos ts appl icab 1e .to these employees \.,111be about $840.000. . .. DRAf! • DP:'FT • Our revi ew inelicated tha t erbi trary end; ng dates are being used to calculate creditilble service for the ATC Second Career Proqrum. The date of the cal cul a ti on was used as the ending date rather than a significant date such as the medical disqualification or final determination date. Specific guidance has not been provided by FAA headquarters concerning the ending date that should be used. Ineligible personnel could enter -the proqram or el igib 1e personnel coul d be deni ed entry \'Jhen improper cnding dates are used. A substantial reduction in ATC Second Career Program costs can be achieved by omitting developmental controller time in determining creditable service. Only time spent in the separatt on and .control of air traffic should be counted according to P. l. 92-297. 2. Recomm~ndation • Based on our observations, we recomw.end that tlle FAA Southern Regi on ini tiate a reques t to FAA headquar ters that developmental controller time not be counted in calculating crcdi tab le servi ce for the ATC Second Career Program and that guidance be provided on the creditable service ending date. B. Fair labor Standards Act 1. Observations The FAA Southern Region is soliciting on-the-jo~ training (OJT) employers to train disqualified controllers at no cost to the OJT employer. This practice could cause OJT employers to vlolate the Fai r labor Standards Ac t. The Fair labor Standards Act, as amendcd , requires employers en~Jaged in comucrcc or in the production of goods for ·co~nerce with gross sales of $250,000 to pay a minimum wage. A Depar-tment of labor document entitled "Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act," dated February 1973 defines employment relationship under the Act. This document establishes six criteria where, should all six be met. trainees DRJ\FI .. • DRAPX • 5 woutd no t he employees \"lithin the mcaninq of the Act. One (Ti L ~d(lll i:; 1;';11: tk· (',I~:)ln~'n~'~lt'il'lidillil l.,·,li'liliq r1eri'/'! no il..;.:Hdio.lU~ ,::l:,!IIL,'',;;,' irc.lIli tl'dil:'.~,~It~,:Livii.i;',:;. Co ... An OlJT cmp 1oyer in the Sou the rn Heg j on \'Iil'i 0 f the opinion that t re ini nq he was prov id iuq a disqualified controller was under the Act. In it letter" to the Southern Rcqion dated Juno 7, 1973, he stated: "L,lehave discuss cd \'Iith him the fact that under the fair labor s tandarrls act 'rIC arc obligated to pay him at least the minimum \'/(lg~ as set from time to time by lil'tI." He verified that this employee is being paid a minimum "/dge \'/hich is being remi tted to FAAunder the employees training agreement. ~:e also determined that this is the only OJT employer out of forty- three at June 30. 1974. who was paying a salary to second career participants. Each OJT employer is sent a questionnaire concerning the tr-a ininq. Item four of this questionnaire states "Salary and/or compensation "/!lich you propose to pay ..• if any .•.. " Also. the OJT employer knows that the fAAdoes not require him to pay a sa 1ary through hi s conversati ons and correspondence 'rri th Trai ning Branch personnel and the disC')ualified controller. Although the responsibility for complIunce wi th the Act ful Is on the employer. the FAAcould mislead OJT employers to violate the Act. 2. Recommendations Based on our observations. we recommend that: a. A procedure be estab 1ished .to assure that the prOV1S10ns of the Fair Labor Standards Act are considered when 3rranging for training with OJT employers. b. Existing arrangements be reviewed for possible corrective action. C. Options on Completion of ATCSecond Career Program 1. Observations The ATCSecond Career Program "IS conducted by the South~rn negion is not designed to retain disC')ualified controllers in the Federal service. Ins tcad , both the training and job opportunities are outside the Federal service. Thus. only one of the three options shown in P. L. 92-297 is being emphasized. P. L. 92-297 provides that upon completion of second career training a controller may be (l) assigned to other duties in the Department of Transpcr ta t ion, (2) released to transfer to another executi ve agency. or (3) invol untari ly separa ted from the service. DRAFT • 6 Our rev iow of the truill'illg files indicatcd that a nroqrem h a: ·-'I~. h'~~li (\t'.I,tlhli~;l:n" \,j;.;\ u.'\ in t.cn t. 0f k·...~:JiI;:1(~i!"i!!difi"d n;,I~...::.IL\r:\ ill l!".-! If~d~'r';d ';;t:I'Vl{..::. ·11;c .. ·~lu,.e, (1;!Iy :".1': (If th'~ thrc~ options shown in P. L. 92-297 available at the com~letion of " t ra ininqisbeingemphasized. . w~ redliz~ that mony disqualified controllers do not have a dcs ire to rcma in in the Federal service. Howcvcr-, there are others who \-/ish to rcma in in the Feder-al service but arc not receiving adequate consideration. This problem has been recognized by the Southern Region. During our audit a draft order was issued on internal agency training for ATCSecond Career Program parti c ipants. The draft order estab- lishes a procedure for training a limited nuw.ber of employees within the agency. Upon successful compIe tion of the training program. they shall be considered for permanent positions. 2. Recommendation Based 011 our observati ons t we recommend that the draft order be finalized and implemented. D. Rcimbur5cr;en t 0 f Trai ni ng. Costs 1. Observations Training agreem~nts need to b~ amended to require that the FAAbe reir~)ursed for certain training costs exp~nd2d. This provision should be appl tceb te when employees voluntarily \'Ii thdraw from the ATCSecond Career Program' or compIete the proqrem and do not enter the second career. The addition of this provision t/ou1d reduce program costs and aid in discouraging entry into the program as an interim measure. Order 3410.11 contains guidance on the contents of trai ning agreements and the types of trai ning costs that \·Ii 11 be paid. UO'lievert the Ordar docs not contain any provision for recover- ing costs expended when the employee voluntarily withdraws from the - program. .v Our review indicated that four~een (14) disqualified cantroll ers have vol untarily \'1 ithdrawn from the program. - The cost of counseling. tuition, books, and supplies for these employees \-lilS about $4t500 in Fiscal Year 1974. Six of the fourteen controllers \-11 thdrew from the program \'/hen thei r OUCPbenefi ts were approved. This indicates that some employees are entering the program as an interim measure with no intention of completing their. training. Dill-if'! • • 7 Some progrulR costs could b~ rccov~red by am~nding trr~'i'1 1l!1 :"'~l·'''::',;'::'Il::c;. rn'pl'l~""':''; s!lfJ'll d h:~ r~'qIJired tq t·:'i;:.~II.lI·';~~ l~1:,:;':\ ~~,,- cc:..;:-; (,;'::)·;1I(:.~1I rt., crluli •c lin q, tu i t icn , iW'JI-:>, Cln'; supul ies when they vol untari ly ,-Ii thdraw from the program or do not ,,- enter second careers. This provision would also aid in discouraging entt~ into the program as an interim measure and would further ~duce program costs. 2. Recommendation Based on our observati ons , we recommend that the Southern Region initiate action to have guidance relative to train'ing agreements amended. The agreements should provide that employees reimburse the FAAfor training costs when they voluntarily tli thdraw from the program or do not enter the second career. IV. GENERJ\L Hatters noted duri ng the audi t that have been referred to our I!eadquarters Office of Audits arc discussed beloa, A. Optional r.etircml~nt Controllers eligible for optional retirement are permitted lo participate in the J\TCSecond Career Proqram under existing legislation. Legislation to remove these controllers from the program would reduce program costs applicable to Fiscal Years 1976 and 1977 by about $2.3 million. P. L. 92-297, dated r'1ay 16,1972, provides that an cnpl oyee \1:'0 is voluntarily or involuntarily separnted from service as a controller is entitled to an annuity under certain conditions. These conditions are that the employee be at least 50 years of age with at least 20 years service or that 25 years as an air traffic controller be completed. The retirement annuity may not be less than 50 percent of the averaqe pay of the employee. Controllers eligible for the re t irement annuity are also entitled to not more than the full-time equivalent of two years of training under P. L. 92-297. As of June 3D. 197'l, 135 controllers were ill the ATC 5€:cond Career Program ill the Southern Region .. Iwenty-n ine of these (21 percen t) were eligi1Jle for optional retirement under P. L. 92-297. Four of these 29 controllers were over 55 years of age and had over 30 years service which \'Iould make them eligible for regular Civil Service Commission retirement. These 29 controllers entered the program in Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974. Based'on the Southern Region's estimate of $49,660 for providing u~o years of . second career .tra ininq , the cost of training the 29 contr.ollers will be about $1.4 million. .. DRAPT . . If II, IAA•~,flU I.hI'I'll I~I'!Ii1111 11f'1I.i"r:I." cHid i 1.'/ (1/1'; to I.Iw AIC f"'''''I'' r.,n ('''t' 1"'lIlp",," 1111'1111'/" I i ',I 'I y""l' 1'111 iI', rllII (":1',: IY Ih ---.FY II lotal 126 111 120 357 Based on the current profi'le 21 percent or 71 of the above can be expected to be eligible for optional rct ircment , The cost of provi dinq two years tt'llining to these controllers \'1i11 be about $3.7 million with about $2.3 million being applicilble to entr-Ies during Fiscal Years 1976 and 1977. House of Representiltives Repor-t No. 93-111, dated June 14. 197~, states that the FAAbudget request for Fiscal Year 1975 includes $15.3 million for the second career training program for air traffic controllers. The report furthcr states that the Committee on Appropriations has allowed $l~ million, a reduction of $1.3 million, which is an increilse of $4.3 million over Fiscal Year 1974. The report also states "The Committee is concerned about the increas- ing number of controllers participating in this program and about the high cost of trai ning these personnel •... The Committee expects the FAAto develop standards which wi ll minimize the cost increases under thi s program. If such standards requi re a change in the basic legislation, it is expected that the FAA\'Ii11 seek it." The Senate subsequently restored $1.2 million of the $1.3 million cut by the House. About $5.5 million has been budgeted in the Southern Region for the ATCSecond Career Program for Fiscal Year 1975 and about $6.4 mi11ion for Fi seal Year 1976. The budqe t analyst anticipates the Fiscal Year 1977 budget request to be about $6.5 million. By seeking and obtaining legislation to el tmine to controllers eligible for optional retirement, the Fiscal Years 1976 and 1977 programs could be reduced by a total of'about $2.3 mi11ion. The controllers in qucs t ion have the option of retiring at a minimum of 50 percent of their high three average annual salary or on disab il ity retirement. It docs not appear that legislation removing them from eligibility for participation in ,,r.. the ATCSecond Career Program would impose an undue hardship. .' Based on current budget restrictions and the probability of further increases in the program, we believe the time has corne for the FAAto seek legislation to reduce the cost of the program. A significant reduction can be made by eliminating controllers who are eligible for optional ret f remcnt from the program. DRA~ .. • 9 . - _. ..- -._. I ::qi .. I,IU()/I L T1~,~dl~J th .. i: \'/()uld p.'(lI/l L t11."IlI.JI i I ied con t.rul l erv the opt ton of cllt.~rin9 the Arc Second Career Program or rccc t vinq O\~CPbenefits, but not both. The!Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) is admi~istered by the Office Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)>> U. S. Depar tmont of Labor. Under the Act,.Federa1 empIoyees may receive benefits for job related accidents or illnesses. Employees with dependents receive 75 percent of their salary whzn approved by m~cp. The FAArei mburses the Departaen t of Labor for the cost of benefits received by FAAemployees on an annual basis. FECABulletin No. 30-74, dated July 24, 1974» indicates that disqualified controllers will be paid OWCPbenefits while enroll ed in the ATCSecond Career Program. The Bulleti n states "'~hen an ATC/ATCSis terminated by the FAAfor disability "/hich is compensable under the FECA, and enrolls in the Second Career Program, compensation \'/il1 be paid by the m4CPfor demonstrated loss of (1) night differential, (2) premium pay, (3) base pay during school recesses, and (4) any other wage loss due to participation in the Second Career Program." In the past second career employees in the Southern Region have not been receiving OWCPbenefits simultaneously with receiving a salary from the FAA\'/hi1e participating in the ATC Second Career Program. The wordi ng of the FECABull etin indi cates that this may be done in the future which will have an impact on the annual billing that the FAAreceives from the Department of Lebor-, The FAASouthern Region Budget Division estimates th~ loss of night differential and premium pay for the 135 employees in the program at June 30, 1974, to be about $385,000 annually. A-;sunting that OHCPpays 75 percent of thi s ,-/age loss in benef i ts , the cost of the additional coverage could be about $290»000 annually I in the Southern Region alone. I Since disqualified controllers can receive the equivalent of two years trai ning toward second careers under P. l. 92-297, it does not seem proper that they should also receive OHCPbenefits due to participiltion in the ATCSecond Career Prnqram. Therefore. disqualified controllers should have the option of entering the ATCSecond Career Program or app1yi ng for OHCPbenefi ts. However , if he chooses second career training, he should waive his rights to future OWCPbenefits. Accordingly, FAAshould sponsor~ legislation to eliminate the receipt of both training and Ol-lCP benefits. .. . " .. • • 10 v. r.!\r.I~GROlli'lD ;'.I, 'j'~ ·;:'Ji. d'll":} H l~! I~l. !j/?) i-. i.il': IJ~,> it. J':~ji~l.::.;(m I or th~'f\H'; Second Career' I'ro~rarn. I\'nong other things, the legisli1tion provl dcs that ATC's under ccrt.atn cond itions are enti t Icd to the full-time cquiv~lcnt of two years of training. The training is int~nded to provide a basis for a second career for an ATC who is medically or operationally disquali fied or who is removed for the preservation of his physical or mental health. To be eligible for the training the ATC must have five or more years service as a controller. FAA Order 3410.11, dated September 7, 1972, implemented P. L. 92-297. The Southern Region began the ATC'Second Career Program in 1972. The program is admfnistered by the Training Branch, f1anpo'tler. Division. Currently, four personnel are assigned full-time to the program. The authority for making mzdica1 determinations has been delegated to the Regional and Assistant Regional Flight Surgeons. Authority to make operational determinations has been delegated to the Chief, and Assistant Chief of the Air Traffic Division. For Fiscal Year 1974, the program cost about $2.5 million in the Southern Region. About $5.5 million is budgeted for Fiscal Year 1975. . VI. SCOPE Our audit was performed in accordance with standards established by the Comptroller General. This included a review of legislation, policies, procedures, practices and other controls for the managzment of the ATC Second Career Program. Selective testing techniques were used as considered necessary. The audit primarily covered operations during Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974. The revie\'1\'IUS conducted as it appl ied to the FAA Southern Region only and not from the standpoint of agencywide application. 05T Office of Audits, lIeadquarters Audit Operations is responsible .. for evaluating the program agen~Y'olide. .,'t' VII. PERSONnEL CONTACTED Officials and respresentatives of the following Southern Region offices were contacted during the audit. Office of the Regional Director .. .' DRAFT Viti-\...... 1. . . . • 11 r1dn!J0\':~rDivision Air Traffic Division Budget Division Planning and Appraisal Staff VIII. AUDIT COUNSEL We will be happy to provide audit counsel on any matter discussed in this report. • ~' ' DRAPT .. ) of APR 1 ~ 197 INCORPORATED AUGUST 31. 196. orum The Society of Air Safety Investigators Spring Edition - 1975 OTTAWA, CANADA - SITEOF 75 INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR This item was not scanned in its entirety because Georgia State University does not hold copyright. You may be able to obtain a copy 0/ this document at your local library. PATCORecords Digitization Project, Georgia State University Library. PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS in Ottawa, adjacent to the SASI Convention Hotel and National Conference Centre (Seestoryonpage13) (CGTBPhoto) In This Issue: NTSB's, FDR Data Analysis in the Fact Reduction Center pg 4 FindingProcess pg16 Emerging Patterns of 1974Election Results pg 20 Accident Prevention ... pg 6 & 24 Human Factors in 5th International Seminar .. pg 10 Aircraft Accidents pg22 975 2 Tb o 1 p co o ~ rr1 to '1 co • A lu.t 4. 1975 Mr. David I. Sie.el PATCO SOUTH lla8 Willinlham Driv • '201A Atl nt • GA 30337 Dear Dav 1 am in r e ipt of your note enclo.ing th que tionn ire which a. distribut d to f ciltti in your r gion by the rAA. 1 would ugl 8t th t you re pond at the region 1 1 vel with a strons 1 tter obj ctinl to the questionnaire for two r a on : (1) no con.ult tion; nd (2) infrinling on union tter and could be Irounds for an Unfair Labor Practic • 1 woull al 0 10 so far as to recommend that you advi.e your m mb r8hip in your next newsletter not to respond to this questionnaire. I would be intereat d in knowing the re ponse you receive from th resional office. rraternally, Mich 1 J. Rock Dir ttor of Labor Relations MJR:ctp • ~. DAVID E. SIEGEL ~~~-~~~4~~~~~~~~~ ~, '. DEPART,i'ENT OF TRANSPORTATION fEDERAL AV!ATIONADMINISTRATION SOUTHER=" REGION .. ,. P. o. BOX 20535 ". DATE. .. ATlJ\r>:TA, GEOilGIA 303:!') I~ 1:l:PlY REfk:;{ TO: ASO-14 SURJECT: l!:mpot"ei' Eva Lua t l on Quc s t Lo nua Lr e rnOM: Chief, Manpower Division, ASO-IO TO: o A Manpower Management Evaluation will be scheduled in the Southern Region on September 8 through September 19, 1975. As a preparatory step in the process, a random selection of a representative nu:nber of supervisors and employees is asked to comple~e the attached evaluation questionnaires and return directly to Hashington Head- quarters. These are anonymous questionnaires so no identification should be made on them. We would appreciate your distributing the questionnaires in ac- cordance with the enclosed list and ask that employees and supervisors return them to APT-230 by August 1, 1975. Please note that the supervisor's and the employee's questionnaire differ. ,.• DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION RI : PN 3400-1 EMPLOYEEQUESTIONNAIRE MANPOWERMANAGEMENTEVALUATION Ttl i·; uestionnaire plays an important role in evaluating FAA's Personnel» Training nd Labor Relations programs. The primary objective of the evaluation is to dct~rmine how well these programs are serving you and your organization and to U~iC what is learned for making the programs even better. Your answers are very critical if we are to provide worthwhile information and assistance in bringing b ut needed improvements. If this evaluation is to be productive, it is important that you answer each qcest Lon as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. Since the questionnaires are ~chine processed» it is necessary to limit the number of answers to each question. ~lcase select only one answer per question. Actual on-site employee interviews will furnish us with additional detailed information on these items. Y0ur name was selected at random from the Central Personnel Statistical Data file. All individual responses are CONFIDENTIAL and will not be seen by anyone in your organization. To assure confidentiality please DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME - simply return the questionnaire immediately to APN 46 in the attached" envelope. ~7'.;;?.gd We hope you will take a personal interest, perhaps self-interest» in giving information to assist in improving the Manpower programs for all FAA employees. PLEASE TURN PAGE AND COMPLETE QUESTIONNAIRE :AA Form 3400~8 (to-74) •• • • 1. What is your occupation: 1: 1. /-; Air Traffic Control Specialist 5. /~ Administrative/Management 2. /=/ Flight Standards Inspector/Pilot 6. I-I Secretary/Clerical 3. / / Engineer 7. /=/ Wage Grade 4. /=/ Electronic Technician 1: 2. What is your grade? 1. n GS-1/6 4. /-; Wage Grade 1/8 2. F/ GS-7/13 5. Wage Grade 9/15 3. I-I GS-14 & above ,=/ 3. Sex: 1. 0 Male 2. {J Female 4. How long have you been with the agency? 1. I_I Le ss than one year 2. I:; More than one year 5. How long have you been with your present organization? 1~ 1. I_I Less than one year 2. I_I More than one year o. How long has it been since you were promoted to a higher grade'l 1. 1:7 Less than a year 2. CI 1-2 years 3. I_I 3-5 years 4. I_I More than 5 years 5. '_I new to organization 6. I_I never promoted 7. Do you have a copy of your position description? 1. n Yes 2.0 No 8. Does your position description accurately reflect the major duties you perform 1. / , Yes 2. / / No 3. I_I Don't know 9. Do you know how your title, grade and series are determined? 1 1. I_I Yes 2. I_I No 10. How often does your supervisor review the accuracy of your position description? 2 1. I_I At least annually 2. '-I Never 3. I_I Don't know - E2 - • 11. Has your position been reviewed with you by someone from outside your organization? 2. I_I The year before 12. Have you been told how to get your position classification reviewed? 1. i_I Yes 2. I_I No 13. Where do you usually get assistance regarding classification and pay matters? (select only one answer) 1. 1:1 Supervisor 2. CI Fellow employee 3. I_I Union representative 4.- I_I Personnel Speclst 5. I_I Other 14. Are Agency handbooks relating to classification, pay and leave matters readily available at your office/faci1ity? 1. CI Yes 2. I_I No 3. CI Don't know 15. Have all the procedures of the Merit Promotion Program been explained to you? 1. I_I Very well 2. I_I Reasonably well 3. I_I Not sure 4. I_I Not at all [6. Have all the procedures of the Internal Placement Program been explained to you? 1. I_I Very well 2. I_I Reasonably well 4. I_I Not at all l7. Do you understand why either the Merit Promotion Program or the Internal Placement Program can be used to fill vacancies? l. I_I Very well 2. I_I Reasonably well 3. CI Not sure 4. CI- Not at all 18. Who has given you the best explanation of the MPP? (select only one answer) Supervisor 2. CI Personnel Specialist 3. II Union representative l. l7 explained 4. {j Co-worker 5. CI Other 6. {j Never 19. Have the Merit Promotion Plan appeal procedures been explained to you? 2. No 1. CJ Yes II 20. Do you believe that personnel actions taken under MPP are fair and equitable? 1. I_I In all cases 2. I_I In most cases 3. I_I In a few cases 4. CI Never - E3- 21. Do you receive, or have access to MPP announcements in time to bid on vacancies? 1. I_I In all cases 2. I_I In most cases 3. I_I In a few cases 4. I_I Never 22. Have you been told where and how to obtain guidance regarding the experience or training required to qualify for a MPP vacancy? 1. I_I Yes 2. I_I No 23. To your knowledge, are selections for promotion made without regard to race, age or sex? 1. I_I Yes 2. I_I No 24. If you have served as a rater on an MPP panel, did you receive adequate training? 1. II Yes 2. if-- No 3. I_I Never served 25. Do you actively participate with your supervisor in determining the major job assignments for you Performance Eva Lua tion Record _(PER)? 1. II Full participation 2. I/ Limited participation 3. I/ no par- 4. 1__ 1 Office or facility uses national performance standards ticipation 26. Do the major job assignments on you PER accurately reflect your understanding of your primary duties and responsibilities? 1. II Completely 2. II Substantially 3. /__ 1 Slightly 4. II Not at all 5. /__ / Not sure 27. How accurately does Part II (Performance) f 3 performance? 0 the PER appraise your work 1. / / Very accurately 2. / I Accurat~ly 3. 1__1 Inaccurately 4. 1__1 Very inaccurately -5. /__/ Not sure 3 - E4 - •• 110·... accurately does Part IV (skills, knowledges and abilities) of the PER nppraise your work performance? 1. ' I Very accurately 2. II Accurately 3. II Inaccurately 1__ 1 Very inaccurately 5. 1__ 1 Not sure ?! l'~ often do you and your supervisor discuss your performance? 1. II Daily 2. II Occasionally 3. II Annually 4. I_I Never )J you find these discussions helpful? I. 1__ 1 In all cases 2. II In most cases 3. 1__ 1 In a few cases 1__ 1 Never 5. 1--/ No discussion .'J you believe that incentive awards are granted on the basis of merit? 1__ 1 Always 2. II Most of the time 3. 1__ 1 Seldom ".I_I Never 5. II Don't know D you believe that suggestion awards are granted on the basis of merit? 1. II Always 2. II Most of the time 3. 1__ 1 Seldom '.I_I Never 5. II Don't know "';ere all the provisions of the region's EEO Affirmative Action Plan .o t isfactorility explained to you? I. I_I Yes 2. No '-I 3. '-I Never explained .bw did you get to know about this plan? - 1. I__i Supervisor 2. II EEO, Civil Rights or Manp.ower Division Staff ).I_I Agency publicity 4. l l All of these 5. r I Never heard of plan .vre you familiar loJiththe EEO complaint procedures? I. II Very familiar 2. II Generally familiar 3. II Not familiar ire you aware of the provisions of the Upward Mobility Program? I. I_I FUlly aware 2. ~I Generally aware 3. I_I Not aware - E5 - 37. Do you be1ieve that minority groups have •• • equal emploYment your facility or organization? opportunity in 1. II Always 2. I-I Most of the time 3. II Some of the time 4. 7~1 Seldom 5. () Never • 6. i:'1 Not sure 38. If there is minority discrimination, is it most likely to occur in: l. I_I Initial hiring 2. I_I Job assignment 4. 3. I I Promotions I_I Awards 5. I_I Training 6. t..1 All of these 39. Do you be1eive that women have equal employment opportunity? 1. CI Always 2. II Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the 4. CI Seldom 5. time () Never 6. I_I Not sure 40. If there is discrimination against women, is it most likely to occur in: 1. I_I Initial hiring 2. I_I Job assignments 3. I~ Promotions 4. I_I Awards 5. CI Training 6. t..1 All of these Do you know who is your: 41. Civil Rights Officer? c 1. I- I Yes 2. I- I No - c 42. Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist? - 1. I- I Yes 2. II No ~c ~C 43. Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor? c 1. I- I Yes 2. I- I No ~ 5 44. Federal Women r s Program Coordinator? 1. I- t Yes 2. I- I No 45. Spanish Surname Program Coordinator? 1. I_I Yes 2. 1-/ No 5 46. If you have had any contacts with any of the above, were you satisfied? 1. CI Yes t 2. CI No 3. I_I No contact ( 6 47. Were the role and responsibilities of the EEO Counselor explained to you? 1. CI Yes 2. I_I No 6 48. Do you believe that the EEO Counseling program effective? 1. II Always 2. I_I Most of the time 4. () Seldom 3. I_I Some of the time 5. CI Never 6. I_I No basis for judgement. - E6 - • 9. Do you feel free to approach your supervisor to discuss• matters which are of concern to you? 1. I_I Always 2. I~ Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the time 4. CI Seldom 5. {..I Never 50. How do you rate upward and downward communications in your organization? 1. C' Excellent 2. 1_' Adequate 3. '_I Fair 4. ,_, Poor 51. What is your main source of (select only one answer) information regarding personnel matters? 1. Personnel Specialist II 2. ,--,Supervisor ~. ,--,Fellow employee 4. '-I Union representative 5. C...I Other 6. '=1 Receive no information 52. Do you believe that your supervisor is keeping you as well informed as he can on items that affect you and your work? 1. Always '_I 2. ,--,Most of the time 3. '_I Some of the time 4. '_I Seldom 5. C' Never Would you rate the following coqdition3 3atisfactory at your job location? 53. Physical safety 1. l_/Always 2. ISometimes 54. Work materials & 1- ~. I/Seldom 4. INever equipment 1. '_'Always 2. , ISometimes 55. Lighting 3. FISeldom 4. 'Never 1. 1_'Always 2. ,-'- 56. Cleanliness ,-ISometimes 3. 1=/Seldom 4. INever 1. I 'Always 2. times 57. Eating facilities C ISome 3. I ISeldom 4. '-, INever 1. '_'Always 2. 'Sometimes 3. 58. Health services & C C ISeldom 4. 'Never First aid 1. 1_'Always 2. ISometime s C '- 3. 1-'Seldom 4. ,-'Never 59. Are you familiar with the agency's training policies and procedures that affect your work? 1. Very familiar I~' 2. ,_, Generally familiar 3. ,~ Reasonably familiar 4. 1_' Vaguely familiar 5. ,_, Not sure 6. C-' No 1 60. Are training directives readily available for your review? 1. 1_' Yes 2. C' No 3. ,_, Don't know 61. Have the training programs you have attended had a direct relationship to your job? 1. I_I Always 2. I~I Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the time 4. I_I Seldom 5. I_I Never attended - E7 - 62. Was the material presented• up to date and consistent with• the procedures that are used in your work? 1. I-I Always 2. I_I Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the time 4. C..I Se Ldom 5. I_I Never attended 63. Do you participate with your supervisor in determining the training you need? 1. II Always 2. II Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the time 4. CI Seldom 5. C I Never 64. Are your training needs discussed as a part of your annua r performance appra isal? 1. 1/ Always 2. I~ Most of the time 3. CI Some of the time 4. C..I Seldom 5. CI Never 65. Do you receive all of the training that is requested for you? 1. I-I Always 2. I~ Most of the time 3. (J Some of the time 4. C..I Seldom 5. C..I Never 66. If not, is an explanation given to you as to the reason? 1. (J Yes 67. Is training provided equally to all employees in your facility/office? 1. I_I Always 2. I-I Most of the time 3 . I~ Sorneof the time 4. CI Seldom 5. {j Never 6. 1=1 Don't know 68. Does your facilityloffice make the annual training schedule available for your review? 1. {] Always 2. I~I Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the time 4. I_I Seldom 5. CI Never 69. Are you given adequate lead time when you are assigned to training? 1. (t Always 2. II Most of the time 3. II Some of the time 4. C..I Se ldom 5. C..I Never 6. CI No assignment yet 70. Have you had difficulty in meeting prerequisites for any training course you have attended? 1. C] Sometimes 2. 0 Never 3. 0 Never attended training - E8 - ·~ ~\' -71. If you have attended• a formal training course, did• your supervisor discuss r the objectives of the training with you before and after the course? .- 1. 1_' Yes 2. I_I No 3. 1_' Not attended 72. If you have attended regionlcenter or facility-conducted courses, did you consider the instructors well-qualified? 1. I_I Always 2. II Most of the time 3. I_I Some of the time 4. I_I Seldom 5. I_I Never attended 73. Do you consider the classrooms used for training to be satisfactory? (Sufficient space and equipment, no extraneous noise, etc.) 1. I_I Yes 2. I 'No 3. I I Not attended 74. Do you have an individual copy of FAA Order 3750.3A, Employee Responsibilities and Conduct? 1. I_I Yes 2. {J No 75. Has the order on employee responsibilities and conduct been discussed with you by your supervisor during the past year? 1. Yes II 2. I 'No 76. Do you believe that the conduct and discipline program is administered fairly and promptly within your activity? 1. 0 Always 2. ,-, Generally 3. 1:7 Sometimes 4. 1_' Never 5. 1:1 No basis for judgement 77. What is your general opinion of FAA's .Labor Relations Program? 1. II Excellent 2. , 'Adequate 3. II Poor 4. II Don't know 78. Have you been informed that you are free to join or refrain from joining a union? 1. 1 I Yes 2. I_I No 79. If necessary, do you know how to file a grievance? 1./ / Yes 2-. / 7 No PLEASE USE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS - E9 - • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: .. • - E10 - ,. .. '. . I • • August , 1975 Mr. David E. Siege', V. P. PATCO SOUTH 1568 Willingham Dtive, '20lA .tlanta, GA 30337 D ar Dave: In r ponse to your 1 tter of Augu t 1, 1975, regarding the ZAA'. do~ument whi~h I forwarded to your offi~e ~on~erning instru~tions to Chief. about lo~al agreements in writing, this do~ument was sent to you in ord.r that you may b awar of the FAA'. policy in this area. Undoubtedly, they will try to avoid any agreements in writing. Our facility • pr s ntatives should approach th chief in this vein--when the ~hief agrees to a parti~ul.r position, the r p should ask him to put out a letter under his signature on this matter. thereby having the chief comply with th instruc- tion. of Labor Relations and ~overing his own ar at the •••• ti••• I don't think it requires a genius to clarify what tb y intend to do. Hopefully, this 1 tter is clear nou h for you not to request further clarific.tion on this •• tter. Fraternally, Mi~hael J. Rock Dir ctor of Labor Relation. MJR:~tp • President John F. Leyden Executive Vice President PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Poli SUITE 201-A/1568 WIUINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 Aflliiated with M.E.B.A. (AFt·etO) August 1, 1975 Mr. Michael J. Rock Director of Labor Relations PATCO Suite 706 2100 MStreet, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Dear Mike: The enclosed document, that I received from your office, concerning Article 12 appears to be vague and contradictory in meaning. The second paragraph advises the chiefs that they can put local resolutions in writing, yet whenyou read on to the third paragraph it advises them not to put things in writing. I would appreciate a clarification on this matter from you as soon as possible. Fraternally, c.: DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President /bg Enclosure SUBJECT: National• negotiated agreement • FROM Director of Labor Relacions~ ALR-l TO Regional Directors -,:."~. ATTN: Chiefs~ Manpower Divisiods - Now that a new collective bargaining agreement has been negotiated with PATCO~ it is appropriate to restate our policy on written communications with the Union at the regional and facility levels. ~-::?4 '1 .) ."';': ..... Article 12~ Local Relationships, spells out the relationships that shall -- exist. In following this Article, it is entirely probable that an exchange of correspondence. or the issuance of a written directive may result. This is proper and our managers should not be hesitant about written replies or issaing directives that may result from discussions with the Union on a . ~~ particular subject or problem. Naturally, we still encourage informality in dealing with the Union because it encourages'" free and open discussion and contributes to the development of'effective personal relationships. . ~.. This guidance does not alter our position that there shall not be local .,.",~ collective bargaining agreements, jointly signed memorandums of unde!stan~ing or jointly signed minutes of meetings. We are all bpund by the national I collective bargaining agreement and that document constitutes the only '~ written agreement between the Parties. E. V. CURRAN • EI !7'"4Nn-. DAVID E. SIEGEL July 28, 1975 TO: Distribution FROM: Dave Siegel I THEATTACHEDISFORYOURINFORMATION. I Distribution: BobPoli~ Mike Rock Bill Peer All Regional Vice Presidents , • President • John F. Leyden E.eculi"" V,ce President PROFESSIONALAIRTRAFFICCONTROLLERSORGANIZATION Robert E. Poli SUITE 201-A/1S68 WILLINGHAM DR., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30337 (404) 767-0680 Allliiated with M.E.B.A. (AfL-CIO) July 25, 1975 Mr. John G. Larsen Chief, Manpower Division ASO-10 FAA Southern Region P. O. Box20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Dear John: This is to advise youthat I consider the matter of the unfair labor practice filed on July 14, 1975, concerning the reclassification of st. Croix ATCT, st. Thomas ATCT, and Meridian RATCF as resolved. I appreciate both Dale Huddleston and you taking the time to visit my office to meet and confer with me on the impact that the reclassification of these facilities had on the employees affected. As per our conversation, you agreed to notify me in sufficient time when future downgradings occur so that we can meet and confer on the subject, DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President /bg cc: Lonnie Parris h Chief, Air Traffic Division FAA Southern Region st. Croix ATCT PATCO St. Thomas ATCT PATCO Meridian RATCF Presiden' John F. l yd'Jn Exe July 14, 1975 CERTIFIED MAILw/Return Receipt Mr. Lonnie D. Parrish Chief, Air Traffic Division FAA Southern Region se»: 500 P. O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Dear Mr. Parrish: This letter is to hereby charge you with committing an unfair labor practice, speciiically violating an Executive Order 11491, as amended, Sections 19(a)(1) and 19(a)(6). CHARGE: You have failed to meet and confer with PATCOas to the procedures management intends to observe in effectuating it's decision to reclassiiy to a lower grade those GS-2152 controllers who are assigned to Meridian RATCF, St. Croix Tower, and St. Thomas Tower. I have been informed that effective July 20, 1975, those facilities mentioned above will be downgraded to a lower classification. Under Executive Order 11491, as amended, you have an obligation to afford the exclusive representative of employees involved in a reclassification issue the opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent consonant with laws and regulations, as to such intended procedures and as to the impact of the reclassification decision on those employees adversly affected. Until such time that you afford me an opportunity to meet and confer on this subject, I hereby request that the pending reclassification of the employees affected be stopped. HOpefullY,we can resolve this matter at the informal level within thirty (30)days. I Sincerely, O~cf~ DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President /bg copies to B. Peer Bob Poli N. Keane All Facilities..J.AY~olved NATIONAL ,..ES/DENT JOHN f. lEYDEN SOUTHERN REGIONALVICEPRESIOENT NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DAVID SIEGEl VICE,..ES/DENT ROIERT E. POll ISSUE #19 July 31, 1975 EDITORIAL (Reprint from PATCO SOUTHWEST NEWS) Our 1975 Convention is now history 0 For those of you who were fortunate enough to attend the proceedings, you saw PATCO at its finest. Members openly debating the issues that face our Union, and deciding its course for the coming year, have always been the backbone of PATCO. As in all debates, there were times when opposing viewpoints were voiced strongly; but, they always have, when the final vote is taken PATCO members join together to support the will of the majority. Of the many resolutions that were passed, I would like to single out the one I feel was the most far-reaching as the topic of my first editorial as your Regional Vice President: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, PATCO is an organization of, by and for Air Traffic Controllers; and WHEREAS, PATCO recognizes that Air Traffic Control is a permanent life-long profession not an interim job in the process of moving into management; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that PATCO devote all its efforts towards furthering only those goals which enhance the profession of the controller. Take the time to reread the second clause of that resolution. We have all heard the phrase, "chasing the carrot". If you look closely you will see it is not really a carrot, but rather a toadstool. It has always amazed me that people would even consider a move into manage- ment a "promotion". To be a true promotion, job motivation must be based on more than meager financial gain; it must also involve a greater level of self-respect, pride and responsibility. Most people in the Air Traffic Division refer to themselves as Air Traffic Controllers. The world is full of supervisors, computer programmers, teachers, coordinators and other managers, but there are only a compara- tive handful who can honestly say, "I am an Air Traffic Controller" 0 Yours is a job that demands more than the ability to count heads and approve annual leave. You have more pressing challenges than pondering how to improve your image by exceeding the facilities assigned goal in savings bond or combined federal campaign drives. While most controllers tend to shrug off the importance of their job, just ask yourself what would have happened if you hadn't seen that last Continued 0 ••• SOUTHERNFLYER -2- July 31, 1975 PATCO SOUTHWESTNEWSLETTER (Cont'd) confliction far enough in advance to take action. Youfill one of the most challenging roles in the entire aviation industry. How lell you perform your duties has a direct bearing on individual lives as well as the financial well-being of the industries' giants. As I travel around the Region, I have only one reque t, don't ever tell me you are "just an Air Traffic Controller". Youare a profes ional Air Traffic Controller - BE PROUDOF IT! (Editor's Note: The above editorial was written by newly elected Vice President to the Southwest Region, Dave Trick. I felt that Dave's words were very appropriate and should be read by all air traffic controllers. ) COMPTROLLERGENERALISSUESLANDMARKDECISION On June 20, 1975 the Comptroller General issued a landmark decision concerning the BackPay Act, which prior to his decision prevented government agencies from paying employees for time not worked. In his latest decision concerning a violation of a labor agreement he concluded that: IIInthe instant case the employee was deprived of overtime work in violation of a labor-management agreement--an act of omission. If the agency had not improperly assigned the work, the employee would have worked and received overtime compensation. In view of this and our decisions holding that an act of omission may form the basis ofan award for backpay, we now hold that the employee may be awarded backpay for the overtime lost under the provisions of the Back Pay Act. " This decision means that nowwhen an agency violates a contractual obligation they must pay the employee backpay whether or not he worked, e. g. overtime, holiday, etc. Example: A controller whois certified on one or more positions in the facility is scheduled off on the day in lieu of the holiday, against his wishes. A grievance is filed and once resolved at any level in favor of the grievant the controller would receive holiday pay, even though he did not work it. Enclosed is the full text of the Canptroller's decision. Please read the text carefully and retain it for your permanent records. BULKMAILING According to Article 9, Section 6, of the newly negotiated contract PATCO is now authorized to bulk mail to each facility. The next national newsletter will be by bulk mail to each facility. Please set up distribution procedures so that each member is sure of receiving his national newsletter .: By bulk mailing to the facilities we will realize financial benefit to the organization because of the ever increasing postal rates. ABROTHERINNEED On Tuesday, July 12, PATCO Brother Frank Hatcher from Miami Tower was admitted to a hospital for surgery. After surgery it was determined that it could not be successfully completed and Frank is havinq a very difficult time fighting for his life. Because many of the hospital bills will exceed Frank's government insurance coverage, Miami Tower has set up a benefits fund for Frank's wife and family. Miami Tower PATCO would appreciate any kind of contribution on Frank's behalf. Continued.... SOUTHERNFLYER -3- Jul 31, 1975 ABROTHERIN NEED (Cont'd) Contributions may be sent to: Deidre Hatcher Miami Tower PATCO P.O. Box 593143AMF Miami, Florida 33159 THIRDANNUAL MIAMITOWERPATCOGOLFTOURNAMENT The Third Annual PATCO/FAA Nation-wide Golf Championship will be held October 28, 29, and 30, 1975, at the Key Biscayne Golf Course, Key Biscayne, Florida. The course, located on beautiful Key Biscayne and bordered by Biscayne Bay, provides a very challeng-ing18 holes of golf. Excellent accommodations at a reduced rate have been coordinated at the Royal Biscayne Hotel and Racquet Club, located within minutes of the course. The event is sponsored exclusively by Miami Tower PATCO personnel, and hopefully, will become the recognized annual nation-wide PATCO/FAA combined championship. The tournament committee extends this opportunity to bring together all champions and players from the various regional and area tournaments held throughout the country. The timing of this tournament makes it a natural to be the final national golf outing for FAApersonnel each year. The 54hole stroke play event is open to all FAAemployee's, and competition will be held for individual, handicap, and team honors; no handicap in gross competition, and full handicap in net competition. Each contestant will be automatically enter-ed in both g-ross and net divisions, however, only one prize per contestant may be wonin these two divisions. The team event requires a minimum of three players from a facility/section/area, to be eligible for team competition, and teams will be autornatically entered if they have the required minimum number ofplayers. There is no maximum number of players per team, however, only the three best net scores each day will be used as that team's score. A team throphy will be awarded and become the property of the winning team for one year and will be returned the following year as a rotational yearly award. Uptofive plaques will be awarded the winning team and the team captain will be responsible for distribution of the plaques. An awards banquet will be held on the evening of October 30, at the conclusion of competition at the Royal Biscayne Hotel. Guests are invited to attend at a fee of twenty dollars each. The tournament committee encourages all who plan to compete to submit their application forms as soon as possible, as we are restricted to 160 golfers. Inquiries may be directed to Miami Tower PATCO, P. O. Box 593143AMF, Miami, Florida 33159 An application form is attached to the back of this newsletter. SOUTHERNFLYER -4- July 31, 1975 RECLASSIFICATIOREPORT On uly 18 a meeting took place between FAAActing Administrator Dow, ohn Leyden, Jo eph Kilgallon, and Bob Poli, At this meeting the classification report was di. cus ed, and the FAAwas asked to ubmit their recommended grades. Theyadvi ed that they were involved in perfor minq calculations on the data and at the pre ent time were not prepared to state a position on grades. At that time John Leyden said that he felt that September 1st wouldbe a reasonable date for the FAA to submit a report with attached recommended grades. The FAA agreed that another meeting would take place with PATCO prior to their submitting the package to the Secretary of Transportation with the recommended grades. PATCO advised the FAA that the Reclassification Report would be submitted to the membership of PATCO the first week of September, 1975. REDUCEDAIRFARES The reduced air fares grievance was submitted for arbitration, and the FAA in Washington has taken the position that Article 15is not arbitrable. PA'lC has appealed their decision for determination to be made by the Assistant Secretary of Labor. In the meantime, to develop our case PATCO has taken the following steps to challenge the conflict of interest issue as outlined in letters reproduced below. As of this writing responses have not been received. Hr. Michael J. Rock Director of Labor Relations Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization 2100 "M" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Dear Nr. Rock: This is in reply to your correspondence dated ~uly 1, 1975, requesting arbitration for a grievance (ASO-75-58-RO). We have carefully reviewed the grievance and have determined that it is not arbitrable under the provisions of Section l2(a) of Executive Order 11491, as amended. This determination is based on Section 20l(a), Exec- utive Order 11222; Part 735.202 of the Regulations of the Civil Service Commission and Part 99.735-9(a), Department of Transportation Regulations. By the provisions of Article 15 of the 1973 PATCO/FAA agreement, the Union may enter into agreements with airlines to obtain reduced or free fares only where applicable law and regulations permit. In the foregoing case, the applicable laws and regulations specifically prohibit such an agreement. Grievance ASO-75-58-RO is denied. This represents our final decision on this matter. Sincerely, ./,'E.V. CURRAN ,;~, Director of Labor Relations ,.. SOUTHERNFLYR -5- Jul 1, 197 REDUCED AIR FARE CORRESPONDE E (Cont'd) Mr. Phillip M. Swatek Director ASO-1 FAA Southern Region P. O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Dear Phil: Your office has taken the position that FAA employees could not accept reduced air fares from air carriers because it wouldbe a violation of DePartment of Transportation regulations, Part 99. 735-9(a), which you have indicated constitutes a conflict of interest. As you already know, I am still considered an employee of the FAA even while holding my present position with PATCO. I am informing you through this letter that on July -6, 1975, I accepted and utilized reduced air fare tickets through certain air carriers who operate in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I Wouldappreciate a reply to this letter as to whether or not I have violated the conflict of interest regulations, and will I be subject to disciplinary action from the FAA. Sincerely, D~C~ DAVIDE. SIEGEL Regional Vice President Mr. Phillip M. Swatek Director ASO-1 FAA Southern Region P. O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Dear Phil: This letter is to request a determination be made by your office as to whether or not a.PATeO member's wife and dependents could accept and utilize reduced air fares from airlines that have offered them to PATCO members and their families. Sincerely, D~cf~ DAVIDE.SIEGEL Regional Vice President SOUTHERNFLYFR -6- July 31, 197 REDUCEDOTELRATES When staying in the Atlanta area PATCO members can re eive reduced room rates at the Sheridan Inn-Airport, 1325 Vir inia Avenue, East Point, Georgia 30344, Phone (104) 76 6660 Single 19.00 Double 25.00 All that is necessary to take advantage of the special rate is to how your PATCO I.D. card upon registering. Also enclosed in this mailing is a guide for reduced motel rates at participating Quality Inns for federal employees. REGIONAL SETvTINARS New Rep Seminar - August 14 and 15 Don't forget the next regional seminar is on August 14 and 15 in Atlanta at the Sheridan Inn. October Seminar A regional seminar has also been scheduled for October 16 and 17 with national officers attending from Washington. Please schedule your time off for this meeting. Additional information concerning this seminar will be f orthc oming • PATCO/FAA THIRD NATIONAL GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP Hosted by Miami Tower PATCO October 28, 29, 30, 1975 KEY BISCAYNE GOLF COURSE, KEY BISCAYNE, FLA. ENTRY: A sixty dollar ($60) entry fee shall he paid by every applicant. This fee pays all tournament green fees and cart plus the welcoming hospitality party and the Awards Banquet on the evening of the 30th. Use the attached form or facsimile and mail to Miami Tower PATCO, P. O. Box 593143, AMF, Miami, FL 33159. Make entry fee checks or money orders payable to Miami Tower PATCO. NOtE: We encourage all who plan to attend to submit their entry as SOon as possible as we are restricted to 160 participants. NAME....•...... ••..•.....••.•.• ADDRESS ...... •..•....•••••• CITY ••...... ••....••...•••.•.• STATE •.•••.•••..•.• ZIP ••...•.. FACILITY/SECTION •.•...•.••...... •....•.....••.••...•.••.•.... HANDICAP: Present handicap is •••••.••.•.•••••••••••.•••.••.••• HOMECOURSE•••••••••.••••.••••••.••.•.•.••••..•..••••.••••.••• If handicap not established, state average score ...•••••••..•. COURSE RATING ...... ••.•..•.•.. I/we will be staying at the Royal Biscayne. Yes No i EDITORIAL August 1975 The 1975 negotiated Agree en e ee PATCO and FAA has been effective since July 8, 1975 after being signed y r. Dow and Mr. Leyden. Successful negotia ions were occomplishedwitha remendous amount of hard work by the National officers and the egotiotions Commi ee, and a considerable cmount of help from many PATCO members. These nego iations were expensive to say the le~ but well worth all their efforts. The Agreement shows many improvements over our previous contract and is certainly the finest contract in the federal sector and the best possible under existing regulations. Itwas negotiated and then ratified for the benefit and protection of all Air Traffic Con- trollers and will serve that purpose and provide dividends for you when applied. However, in far too many instances, members are guil ty of knowingly violating the Agreement by agreeing with Management to conditions that are in direct violation to the negotiated Agreement. Ata glance this may appear to be their right concerning their freedom of choice; but if one looks beneath the surface, it becomes clear that members agreeing to conditions contrary to the negotiated Agreement are, in reality, placing an unfair burden on brother and sister Controllers. Two prime examples are as follows: Article 33 of the Agreement has in it two specific safeguards to protect the member from having his shift unjustifiably changed by Manage- ment at their whim. It is my position that if Management requests a member change shifts for the convenience of Management and the change is within the time parameter outlined in this article, Management isviolating the Agreement and it should be grieved. In a collective Agreement, unless otherwise specified, employees cannot waive ne- gotiated working conditions, any more than they can agree to providing a reduced separation between two aircraft. To allow exceptions to the Agreement such as these to go unchecked would be distructive to the very foundations of unionism, especially when individual employees are dependent on periodic performance evaluations by the very managers who may solicit volunteers. Arbitrators have previously ruled in favor of unions on identical grievances. The other example is Article 27, which eliminates, for the most part, collateral as- signments, a thorn in the side of Controllers for years. If a Controller volunteers for a collateral assignment that other Controllers in the facility in exercising their negoti- ated right chose to decline, the volunteer is suddenly "Mr. Good Guy" or "The Fair Haired Boy" who, in all likelihood, will receive a glowing rating and perhaps some award while brother and sister Controllers are considered uncooperative rebels. I ask you to seriously consider the impact your actions will have on your facility and the entire PATCO organization should you elect a course of action contrary to the negotiated Agreement. I also ask, not just for a majority, but for 100% participation in our Region in insisting the 1975A reement between PATCOand FAAbe adhered to in its entirety for the maxi- mum e it andpratecyn OJ Air Traffic Controllers. ~e L c;ce · THECOC Augus 975 Page 2 * OF EREST***** COLLATERALDUTIES Ar icle 27 of the 975 PATCO/FAA Agreement has, for the most part, eliminated collateral assignments. his Article provides that the primary function for an Air Traf ic Controller cons·sts of duties directly related to Air Traffic Control and further provides tha an employee shall not be required to perform duties that do not have a reasonable relationship to his primary function. As I see it, this Article eliminates the requirement to perform such duties as: 1. TIme and Attendance Clerk 2. Watch Schedule 3. Revise publications 4. Drafting posters, notices, and charts 5. Tour Guide 6. Supply Clerk 7. Medical Officer 8. Radiological Officer 9. Safety Offi cer 10. Monthly , daily, and yearly traffic count 11. Any other duties that fall into category scch as above The FAAdisagree$ with my interpretation of this Article and has taken the position that duties directly related toAir Traffic Control include the administrative duties necessary to perform the mission of the Agency. Let your Chief explain his position and when you are assigned these duties, immediately file a grievance. In this situation Ifeel it an absolute necessity that we in the Central Region take a strong Union position and say" NO" to Management on collateral duties. Again, when confronted with assigned collateral duties, PATCO members must exercise our negotiated rights by filing a grievance immediately. ****************************** NATIONALEXECUTIVEBOARDMEETING The next meeting of the PATCO National Executive Board is scheduled for September 10, 11, and 12, 1975 at MESA Facilities in Easton, Maryland. Items for the agenda must be submitted in writing and forwarded to my office by August 20, 1975. ****************************** BULKMAILING - 1975 AGREEMENT, ARTICLE9, SECTION 6 As agreed upon in the 1975 PATCO/FAA Agreement, the National Newsletter will be sent directly to your Facility by bulk mail. Your cooperation in the distribution will be appreciated, and if any problems arise, please contact the Central Region Office immediately. THECOCORD August 1975 "':le 3 co inued) REC_ OGRESS 975 a rnee ing took place between FAAAc .ng Administrator Dow, Joseph John Leyden, and Executive Vice President Robert PoU. The classW c:' nre ~,W05 discussed, and when FAAwas ked 10 submitthe·r r commend- edgraces .-~ vised that then were involved in performing co culations on the dolo and a ne ~rese.t ime were not prepared to state a position on grades. At Presidenr _e ee 's suggestion, FAAagreed September 1 would be a reasonable date for them "0 :_::-j" a report with attached recommended grades and that another meet- ing wo ...·: ****************************** INTERATIO LFAMTRIPS All FociIity Presidents have received the forms for requesting International FAMtrips. Our office hod a limited supply. So when you run short, Xerox additional copies. A schedule for the various air charters will not be available 05 originally thought. Therefore, memberswishing a FAMtrip may complete an application and mail itdirect- Iyto the a io 01 office. Applicants ust list the specific dates of requested departure and return, along with the reques ed point of departure. The National office will then by teletype contact NACAon de e ine which of the five carriers has a trip scheduled at approximately the dates requested. Notification of all pertinent information will be by return mail. The exact da es and pointof departure maynot be scheduled, but your reqeests will be adhered to 05 closely 05 possible. Please understand when making arrangements, some flexibility may be required on the applicant's part. *****OF INTEREST***** UNSAFESAYSOCCUPATIONALSAFETYANDHEALTHADMINISTRATION An inspection of 30 government field offices by OSHA compliance officers disclosed about 14,000 violations of jobsafety and healthstandards, broken down showed 9,3~ involved fire and electrical hazards, 3,093 involved mechanical hazards, 1,222 in- volved heal h hazards, and 331 involved housekeeping hazards. EdwardA. DensmoreJr. , Associate Director of the General Accounting Office's man- power and welfare division, in testimony before a House Government Operations sub- committee, said that these violations would have led to 90,000 in penalties had they been found in private industry. The above is just one good reason for the lengthy negotiations resulting in Article 46 of our newly negotiated PATCO/FAA Agreement. ****************************** THECOCORD August 975 Page 4 --OF ITEREST'" * EIS The 0 se i 5er ice etirement Subcommittee approved a bill to increase to 50 percen er ent's present contribu ion to federal employee life insurance premi ms. o ern:nent now pays one-third of the premiums. In approvi ng ill, he subcommittee deleted a provlslon that would have increased the go e esent 60 percent contribution to health insurance premiums to 75 percent in three nual 5 percent increments. They felt it would be best to get half a loaf rather h risk everything. ****************************** KUDOSTOUSERY Referring to an article in the July 16 edition of the FEDERALTIMES entitled "Ford Urged to Dump Usery--By Anti-Union Group", the views of the reactionary group called the" Americans Against Union Control of Government" is so anti-American that it circles the ridiculous. It is my belief the federal unions are making a dedicated effort to make government agencies most efficient and responsive to the needs of our Americal society. Unions are a voluntary combination of American citizens seeking common goals and trying to prove that Democracy can and does work. William J. Usery deserves praise and credit for being a responsive government official. Usery's recent speech calling for new legislation in the government's labor-management program has been long overdue. Labor and management should cooperate and work together more effectively to better serve the American public interest. ****************************** HOUSEPAELVOTESTOEASERESTRICTIONSONHATCHACT The measure to revamp the Hatch Act by broadening the participation of federal civil- ian and postal employees in political activities now goes before the full Committee on Post Office and Civil Service for consideration. The bill, as you know, is an outgrowthof HR3000, a measure introduced by Congress- man William Clay, D-Mo. This outgrowth improves the original bill by: Encouraging federal employees to exercise their right of voluntary political participation. Prohibiting the use ofofficial authority, influence or co- ercion with the right to vote, not to vote or to otherwise engage in political activity. TECOCORD ust 1975 ge 5 co inued) HOUSEPA = 0 ESTO EASERESTRICT0 SO HATCHACT(continued) roviding leave for candidates for elective office. Establishing an independent Boardof Political Activities of Government Personnel. Authorizing the CSC to investigate alleged violations. Subjecting violators to removal or lesser penalties. Requiring the CSC to conduct a program for informing federal employees of their rights of political participa- tion and report annually to Congress. ****************************** NEWPAYSYSTEMURGEDBYGAO TheGeneral Accounting Office has proposed to Congress that federal employees com- pensation be determined on a combination of pay and fringe benefits comparable to those in industry, rather than on just pay alone; and criticizes the governmentls pre- sent system ofgiving its employees piecemeal benefits adjustments without any regard for the total compensation package. There is a prospect that under a combined compensation package system future federal pay adjustments would not be as greatas in the pastwhen one considers Bureau of Labor Statistics figures which show that government fringe benefits costs comprise 32. 1per- centof total payroll, compared toindustry benefits of 28.7 percent of total. However, the GAO proposed that the benefits be evaluated ontheir value to the employee, rather than to the cost to the employer. ****************************** COMPTROLLERGENERALISRULINGEXPANDSSCOPEOFBACKPAY Expanding on the scope of back pay remedies, Acting Comptroller General Robert F. Keller ruled that agencies maymake retroactive payments to employees who have under- gone unjustified or unwarranted personnel actions--"even though such action was one of omission rather than one of commission." In earlier cases involving the Back PayAct, it was the CGls opinion that employees could only be paid for work actually performed and that such matters as the denial of the opportunity to perform overtime were not unjustified or unwarranted personnel actions. HECOCORD Au s 1975 P ge * ,. ,. con inued) CO P 0 E L'S RULI G EXP OS SCOPEOF BACKPAY(coninued) In more recen eeisions, the General Accounting Office has he d that "a vleletlen ofamandatory vision in a labor-management agreement which causes an employee tolose pay, all a es of differentials, is as muchan un·ustifled or unwarranted per- sonnel actio as is an improper suspension, furlough without pay, demotion or reduction in pay, as Ion the provision was properly included in agreement." Tow months ago, the CG ruled that the Assistant Secretary of Labor for LMRmay, under the Back Pay Act of 1966, order an agency to make an employee whole for pay and benefits I •asthe result of unfair labor practices committee by the agency, pro- vided it is s that the employee would not have suffered any harm had it not been for the unfair labor practice. The specific case involved entitlement to back pay for an overtime assignment denied in violation of the labor-managementagreementrepresenting a Kentucky Naval Ordin- ance Station and the International Association of Machinists. "Therefore," the GAO ruling states, "under the Back Pay Act, an agency may retro- actively grant bock pay, allowances, and differentials to an employee where he has undergone an unjustifiedor unwarranted personnel action, even though such action was one of omission rather than one of commission." ****************************** AVIS 20 PERCENTDISCOUNT EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY Avis has agreed to grant all membersof PATCOa 20 percent discount on car rentals in the United States upon presentation of the association card. The discountis to apply to the rates that are normally discountable. Thisdoesnot include pre-discounted rates. A 10 percent discount will apply to car rentals outside the United States and on all truck rentals. ****************************** FORDMAY ACCEPT8.66 PERCENTHIKE Administration officials feel there isfairly good chance that President Ford will agree to the 8.66 percent federal white-collar employee pay raise recommended to him by the Office of Management and Budget and the Civil Service Commission and drop his 5 percent pay raise stand. They base this view on the fact that the Democratic-controlled Congress will over- whelmingly defeat the plan for a 5 percent pay raise ceiling. With an eye on nextyear1s election, Ford may as well get political credit for the 8.66 percent pay raise with the nearly 2 million federal white-collar employees and the 3 million military personnel, not to mention the members of their families. ******************************' THECOCORD s 5 1975 P ge *** (continued) PRESIDENTLEYDESUPPORTSLEGISLATIO I j ...... ~-:: .: '1 .tt .~ '.;.;.--i WJJ P~OF=SSIONAl AI~ T;U;:fIC CONUOLlEilS ORGANIZATION SUITe 706/2100 M sraser, N.W., 'IIASHINGfON, D.C. 20037/(202) 29!.-6444 ,,;!I:...... wit;' M.E.J,.\, IA;:L.CIO) July 11, 1975 The Honorable David Henderson Chairman Committee on Post Office and Civil Service u.s. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: This organization would like to belatedly thank and congratulate you on the introduction of H.R. 507, dealing with the retention of the grade and salary of a federal employee whose job is downgraded. PATCO strongly supports this legislation, and we request·permission to testify on this bill before your subcommittee on the scheduled hearing date, July 22, 1975. Over the years, many of our members have been unfairly victimized by this downgrading procedure which, through no fault or ac~ion on the part of the affected employee, forces him to lose the salary and grade for which he has worked hard to achieve. ~hank you again for your continuing support of the federal e~ployee. Very truly yours, OLIIrt- ~~hn F. Leyden President THECO CO 0 975 Po;: *****REGIOALEWS**** REGIONALSEMIARPLANNED Tentative plans are being made fora Regional SeminarOct. 20 & 21. We anticipate the Seminar will have one or more officials from the Wash·ngton office in attendance and the location will be announced in the very neorfuture. Iencourage all locals to make preparations. In cases where Facility Presidents will not be attending, it IS important another member of the local be the representative. ****************************** GRIEVANCES It appears that between the time the new contract was temporarilyagreeduponand it was ratified bythe membership, the Management in many facilities either forgot they hadobligations to the 1973 contractor they forgot how to read. The volume of griev- ances and complaints increased by 100% in the final days of the old contract. Every Controller should remember that Management is notgoing to give you anything. You must go out and get what is yours. I would also like to say that I am very happy to see the contract being inforced and hope it will continue. OLDPATCO/FAAAGREEMENT-GRIEVANCES Arti cIe 28 - Annual Leave The Controller requested annual leave and was refused by Management even though no other Controllers were competing with him for leave at that time. A regional decision is forthcoming. Articles 5 and 7 AController trainee was given a letter ofreprimand for poor phraseology. It has been reviewed at the regional level and I am awaiting their decision. Article 22 - Back Pay TheController's promotion was improperly withheld because of administrative error in the facility. The region contends that the bureaucrats in Washington will not allow them to promote retroactively even though the Comptroller General has previously ruled in favor of the employees in situations such as this. Official decision is forth- coming, however I am not optillistic and will probably have to pursue it further. Article 40 - Overtime TheController was held beyond his regularly scheduled shift and Management refused to pay him his two hours overtime guaranteed by the contract. Management, in their increduluous interpretation of the contract, contends there is no violation of the con- tract because overtime was not officially ordered. It has been reviewed at the re- gional level and I am awaiting their decision. Page 9 ** *REGIO E :/S** **(continued) OLD PATCO/F AGREEMENT - GRIEVA CES (continued) Article 7- Pl.nishment for Just Cause The Controller was suspended five days for an alleged systems error and failure to re- portthe error. This occurred under the old contract and before the immunity progrc:m was implemented. Ithasbeen reviewed by he region and I am awaiting their official reply. NEWPATCO/FAAAGREEMENT-GRIEVANCES Article 27, Section 3 - Collateral Duties The Controller grieved the requirement of collateral duties assigned by Management. Regional review is pending. Article 22 - Compensation A Controller's promotion was withheld improperly for nearly a year. Regional review is pending. UNFAIRLABORPRACTICE The Unfair Labor Practice I filed with the Department of Labor against Mr. Melugin, Director of the Central Region, is at the formal level. ****************************** FAAROCKYMOUNTAINREGION Things must be more difficult than expected because the Chief of Manpower is look- ing for someone to buy the Rocky Mountain Region. I understand he is so sincere he has offered to take a personal check. Mr. John F. Leyden, President PATCO 2100 M Street, N. W. , Suite 706 Washington, D.C. 20037 , • • •- ~;>- ~~: I~ ;. i ~ ~ ;.(,1 " N l< I N)( ...... 0 • ...... U U"\ \D .(. 1&0 '" I ~ I I -D e-, ... ~ 1&0 >- -' !'l >- ~~ ~I< I N)( I ,... . ~iL t ':' I lw • ;!" lw ). 1&0 >- ~~ >- "I NK I '"N)(. I N)('" . N' . '":~ >- " I . 1&0 r:~ ~. ~ 1&0 t-:~ p.i >- e- . , t lw '"":~ t ~!1&0 '"":;! '":;! >- -.: --r'-':- '" r.. '"":~ t 1-8 -'~I'=--=( I