FPM SUPPLEMENT 296-33 PDF

Federal personnel manual system. C Frequency: irregular completely irregular. General Note: Description based on: Aug. General Note: Latest issue consutled: No. Record Information Source Institution: University of Florida Rights Management: All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location. This item is only available as the following downloads: XML.

Author:Kerisar Mikarg
Country:Indonesia
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Art
Published (Last):2 February 2018
Pages:101
PDF File Size:6.76 Mb
ePub File Size:1.13 Mb
ISBN:259-4-54877-383-5
Downloads:47367
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Mazutilar



See details: here. Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Case digests provide a brief synopsis of the most pertinent principles in merits decisions issued by the Authority. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions. The Arbitrator denied a grievance contesting an employee's termination under the Panama Canal Treaty of the Treaty.

For the following reasons, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction under section a of the Statute to review the Union's exceptions. After the grievant, a Panamanian national, was hired by the Agency, he became a United States citizen.

He was then directed by the Agency to sign a rotation agreement, 2 which is required of all U. The Union filed a grievance when the grievant was notified of the Agency's intention to terminate him under the agreement.

The matter was referred to arbitration, and the Arbitrator framed the issue as follows:. Did the Agency violate or misapply any provisions of the contract, or any policy or law when it terminated the [g]rievant. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? According to the Union, that provision did not apply to the grievant because the grievant was not a U.

The Arbitrator rejected the Union's argument. In this regard, the Arbitrator concluded that Article X, Paragraph 5 of the Treaty was ambiguous with respect to its applicability to employees who became U.

The Arbitrator further concluded that, as the Treaty is ambiguous on this point, the Union failed to demonstrate that the Agency violated the Treaty when it terminated the grievant. Consistent with her finding that the Agency's action was not inconsistent with the Treaty, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

The Union asserts that the award is contrary to the Treaty. The Union asserts that the grievant was hired as a Panamanian citizen and remained such when his employment was terminated. The Agency contends that the award is consistent with law and maintains that the Union's exceptions constitute mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings and conclusions and do not establish that the award is deficient.

Section a of the Statute provides, in part, that "[e]ither party to arbitration. Agency employees are not covered by 5 U. Accordingly, the issue before us is whether the award concerns a matter which is similar to a matter covered under section The issue in the grievance, as framed and addressed by the Arbitrator was whether the Agency misapplied "any provisions of the contract, or any policy or law when it terminated the [g]rievant[. In this regard, the Union alleged in its grievance and before the Arbitrator that the Agency terminated the grievant in violation of law and the parties' agreement.

As such, if the grievant were an employee subject to 5 U. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 5 U. See 5 U. We note, in this connection, that the Authority previously has reviewed awards where, despite a union claim to the contrary, the arbitrator concluded that the grievance involved a matter over which the MSPB lacks jurisdiction. For example, in Veterans Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local , 24 FLRA VA , the union claimed that an employee was terminated in violation of the parties' agreement as well as applicable law and regulation.

As in this case, the claim could have been submitted to the MSPB. However, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance on the grounds that the termination was not improper but, instead, merely constituted the expiration of a time-limited appointment. Noting that expirations of such appointments do not constitute adverse actions, the Authority concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the award. Insofar as the Authority's decision in VA , or any other decision, stands for the proposition that the Authority will review an award that otherwise is appealable to the Federal Circuit when an arbitrator determines that the disputed action does not constitute an adverse action, it will no longer be followed.

As the grievance arises under another personnel system, within the meaning of section f of the Statute, and concerns a matter similar to those covered by 5 U. Accordingly, we will dismiss the exceptions. See U. The Union also requested, and the Agency opposed the request, to file supplemental submissions. As the Authority's Rules and Regulations do not provide for the filing of such submissions, and as no basis on which to receive such submissions is present here, we deny the request.

For example , U. The rotation agreement provides:. I understand that upon appointment to a position in the Panama Canal Commission in the Republic of Panama, I will be subject to the rotation policy prescribed by paragraph 5, Article X, of the Panama Canal Treaty of and that my employment will be limited to a period of not more than three years from the date I arrive at my duty station in Panama.

I further understand that this agreement is not a "contract" with the U. Government and that my employment with the Panama Canal Commission can be terminated prior to the expiration of the three-year period, through appropriate procedures. Article X, Paragraph 5 provides:. The United States of America shall establish a policy of the periodic rotation, at a maximum of every five years, of United States citizen employees and other non-Panamanian employees, hired after the entry into force of this Treaty.

It is recognized that certain exceptions to the said policy of rotation may be made for sound administrative reasons, such as in the case of employees holding positions requiring certain non-transferable or non-recruitable skills. As the grievant is identified as a "dual U. In this regard, we reject as misplaced the Agency's arguments that the Authority has jurisdiction to review the award because the disputed action is analogous to actions excluded from coverage under 5 U.

The Union clearly claimed in its grievance and before the Arbitrator that the grievant's termination was both involuntary and unlawful. As such, it is similar to matters covered by section At this time FLRA remains fully operational.

Effective Friday March 20, until June 30, the agency will no longer receive in-person filings. Feedback about www. Find a listing of all of the FLRA's current job openings.

AMELIE NOTHOMB EL SABOTAJE AMOROSO PDF

Miscellaneous Changes in Office of Personnel Management's Regulations

See details: here. Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Case digests provide a brief synopsis of the most pertinent principles in merits decisions issued by the Authority. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions. The Arbitrator denied a grievance contesting an employee's termination under the Panama Canal Treaty of the Treaty.

CALCULUL SECTIUNII CONDUCTOARELOR PDF

Federal personnel manual system

.

INGENIERIA DE TRANSITO Y CARRETERAS NICHOLAS GARBER DESCARGAR PDF

.

Related Articles