The Union does not accept either the Agency's proposed time schedule or their proposed method of calculation. I have no problem with CBP NFC adding staff to process the claims in a timely fashion. However, if the CBP NFC cannot perform calculations in a timely fashion give the job to NFC(Ag). If I understand Mose correctly, NFC(Ag) can do the calculations in a timely fashion.
The cut-rate calculation method suggested by the Agency also does not pass muster. Leave usage does not suggest that employees use annual leave on a weekly basis. Rather, leave is usually saved and used for longer vacations or other needs. Suggesting otherwise would, essentially, eliminate large amounts of "duty free lunch" S&P overtime and the Union would not agree with such a proposal.
JGoldberg, for the Union
From: Tsungu, Ilir M [mailto:EXTRACTED]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:57 PM
To: Sam Vitaro (E-mail); Joe Goldberg
Cc: Angelia Wade; Rosario, Leynisha
Subject: FW: Summary of Proposed Alternate Calculations
Sam and Joe,
During our Tel con with CBP's NFC, we tried to work on a proposed alternate way of performing calculations for the SOP LEO lunch periods cases. If calculations were to be performed in the following fashion, calculations could be complete within 5 - 6 weeks. If not, the process may take 3 months. However, if we are to move forward with the lengthier types of calculations, we would be requiring CBP to add staff to complete them in less time.
Alternate Method:
- Use rate of claimant's end of year grade and step including locality pay;
- For each period for which claimant is entitled to SOP payment,
- assume claimant earned 8-hrs of leave per pay period;
- assume employee took all annual leave earned during the claim period;
- make other considerations for sick leave, LWOP and holidays.
Please know though that the Agency is very concerned about potential law suits by employees against both the Agency and the Union regarding an alternate method of performing calculations. I have seen this happen before although further research needs to be done. There is a strong chance that claimants who feel they were entitled to more, may sue both the Agency and the Union for failure to accurately perform calculations consistent with the arbitrator's award. Perhaps one way to deal with that issue would be to render a supplementary award on the issue modifying the original award. I am not sure at this point.
Ilir M. Tsungu
Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer