Posts

Ask FELTG Tackles EO 14003 and Clean Record Settlements/Official Time

February 16, 2021

After last week’s FELTG webinar on President Biden’s Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workplace, one thing is clear: You have a lot of questions. If you missed the webinar, you are in luck: FELTG will present an encore presentation of Changing Course: Understanding the Biden Executive Order on Labor Relations, Performance, Discipline, and Schedule F on February 25 from 2:30-4 pm ET.

Meanwhile, presenters Ann Boehm and FELTG President Deborah Hopkins address two of those questions in this week’s Ask FELTG.

As a result of Executive Order 14003, where do things stand on Clean Record Settlement Agreements?

EO 13839 was the first place we saw a ban on clean record agreements, and OPM incorporated that language into their updated regulations, which went into effect in November 2020. By revoking EO 13839, EO 14003 tells agencies that you can do clean record settlements again (though you don’t have to). There’s language in the EO that seems to indicate OPM will need to consider amending their regs to be consistent with 14003.

As a result of Executive Order 14003, should agencies go back to the term Official Time?

EO 13837 changed the term “Official Time” to “Taxpayer Funded Union Time,” and many agencies made the change as well. Now that EO 13837 has been revoked by EO 14003, it is probably a good idea – and shows good faith to the unions – to go back to the term that is in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) at 5 U.S.C. § 7131 – “Official Time.”

Do you have another question about Executive Order 14003? Or another federal employment law-related question? Ask FELTG.

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Ask FELTG: Can a union official make disparaging remarks about a non-federal employee (contractor) working with agency managers? Is the union official protected under the “robust debate” umbrella?

July 24, 2019
Abusive or insulting language made by union officials may constitute robust debate in the following categories:
  • Negotiations
  • Newsletter
  • Representational meetings
  • Bulletin boards
FELTG has not seen a case that involved robust debate toward a contractor (that doesn’t mean there isn’t one), though our guess would be if that person was working on the management side then the same principle would apply: As long as the union rep is wearing his union hat, he can say a lot of things that would otherwise be unacceptable in the workplace.
There are outside limits to robust debate (racist, sexist, or threatening language/actions) but it has to be pretty bad to not be protected.

Have a question? Ask FELTG.

 

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.