Master Agreement Va Afge

Ibidun Roberts: That`s right. It is the master contract, the locals get certain arrangements to negotiate on the ground. But it is for the general concepts on which we agree at the national level. 3. The parties laid the groundwork for Article 44 in previous negotiations on Article 43, local complements, where local trade unions have been granted the right to negotiate matters in their endorsements already covered by the AD as long as there is no opposition with the AD. Gage testified that “until we concluded the negotiations mid-term, all parties understood that we would not do so – if a deal could not be negotiated in the medium term, it should be identified in each article.” Everyone has spoken, it is understood that medium-term agreements at all levels can include Ibidun Roberts: Oh yes. The VA is therefore seeking a ten-year contract. We are looking for the traditional three-year contract. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that other unions can challenge our certification after three years, but changes are happening as well. And if these changes happen, we want to be able to open the agreements and accept those changes. And this is especially true for the VA, which has had a number of changes.

For example, the Accountability Act is an important change that we want to include in the agreement. Another is President Trump`s executive orders, if we had a 10-year agreement, we would not be able to get changes, like the ones I just mentioned. A shorter term is better than a 10-year term. Ibidun Roberts: So what we`re looking for in the treaty is really the procedures, right? You can`t negotiate the law itself. Congress has deemed this law appropriate, so we can only carry out the procedure. For example, the law reduced the time it takes employees to take action to 15 days. Therefore, as soon as the VA submits a deportation proposal to a staff member, it has seven days to respond to this proposal. And then, within a fortnight, eight days after its response, the VA must make a decision. This really reduces the time that the union can look for evidence to help and actually give the answer to that employee. To meet with the employee, gather evidence and formulate a response.

It`s really too insensible. And if you add that the union is not in the facility now, I`m sure we`ll get there, it makes it a lot harder to meet an employee to meet a move, a big upheaval in their lives. That is what we want to see in the agreement. We want the procedures to allow workers to meet with the union, give them time to do so and allow the employee to participate when that meeting is scheduled for response, instead of management setting their own appointment, which could be the next day or two days later, if the employee may not have had the opportunity to do so yet. to formulate his answer. So we want to have formal procedures in the agreement. NVAC submitted an application to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the parent authority of the FSIP, to stay the decision until the pending appeals concerning several articles of the agreement and the constitutionality of the appointment of FSIP members are clarified. At the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 47 FLRA 1004 (1993) (SSA), FLRA stated that an agency was not required to negotiate if the purpose of a union`s bargaining request was covered or contained by the parties` collective agreement.

About the Author:

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.