June 30, 2017 - Significant Global Settlement Agreement (EEO Hearing / Arbitration)
Former Steward Harassed, Discriminated Against and Terminated.
Management began harassing and retaliated against SR in 2013 due to SR’s union activity – advocating for fellow BUEs and because SR agreed to be a witness for a fellow BUE in an EEO matter. As a result of harassing and retaliatory actions taken by management against SR, multiple grievances and eventually an EEO complaint was filed against management. When management refused to address SR’s EEO concerns and grievances informally, it was determined that the best course of action would be to take the EEO matter formal, which SR elected to do and thus, the process leading to an EEO hearing began. When the EEO matter went formal the grievances were held in abeyance pending the outcome of the EEO hearing.
During this time the agency withheld SR’s rating of record and initiated a flawed attempt at placing SR on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). It should be noted that prior to this, SR received Highly Effective ratings. Attempts to settle failed because a particular vindictive manager sought an agreement whereby SR would receive admin pay for 6 months and thereafter would resign and agree never to work for the federal government again, then "softened" to SR agree to never work for DOL again, These offers were rejected out of hand.
The agency claimed SR failed the PIP and initiated a Removal of Service under a performance based action, Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code for unacceptable job performance. When the Local mounted a defense based on the flawed PIP, management changed course and sought to remove SR under an adverse action, Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, for poor performance. In doing so, management had to apply the Douglass Factors in determining the action to be taken, and it was the union’s position, that the factors were not properly considered. Instead of seeking redress for the termination with MSPB, SR elected to grieve the matter and arbitration was immediately invoked. However, prior to the arbitration occurring, the EEO hearing was scheduled to take place.
President Kozierachi and EVP Byerley represented SR at the three day EEO hearing. Despite much of the testimony and cross examination supporting SR, the agency held steadfast in its decision to remove SR. That is, until the EEO judge ruled in favor of SR in a bench decision, finding six sustained counts of discrimination and retaliation. Shortly after and before the Judge entered a written decision, the agency earnestly entered into settlement negotiations. The settlement negotiation was handled by EVP Byerley. SR was reinstated with full back pay and fringe benefits, was transferred to a new telework eligible position at the agency’s national headquarters at the same GS level and at increased steps, SR's seniority level was maintained and the PIP and removal action was expunged from all records (except RSOLs).
SR has kept in touch with us, spoke at our 2017 steward’s training and to everyone’s delight, was just rated for year end 2017 as highly effective and SR’s supervisor said SR is well on the way to exceeding the standards next year! Clearly SR was an employee who brought value to the agency and continues to bring value to the agency. This was a long hard fought win and a major victory for the local!