Rob Arnold
President
IAM/NFFE Local 1998
Step Two Grievance Response
To: Aileen “Lee” Smith, Director, PMO
Date: 11/3/15
Re: Agency grievance concerning deciding official
In accordance with Article 20 of the Master Agreement between Passport
Services and the National Federation of Federal Employees-Local 1998, I am
responding as the deciding Union official in the matter of the step 2 Agency
grievance filed with the Union on October 2, 2015. The subject of the grievance is
the accusation that the Agency was harmed by the Union President responding to
the grievance.
Background
On July 31, 2015, the Agency submitted a step 1 grievance regarding which Union
official had responded to a June 4, 2015 Agency grievance. The officer who
responded on behalf of the Union was the sole issue of the July 31st grievance.
The earlier, June 4th grievance was of little importance to the Agency, as there
was no discernible harm at issue.
The Agency now directs a step 2 grievance to the Union President, even though
the alleged violation the Agency seeks to address is the Union President’s
qualifications to answer the charges in the grievance.
The Agency quotes Article 20, section 5c as the main violation committed by the
Union. Article 20, Section 5c reads:
c. At any step of the negotiated grievance procedure, when any Management
deciding official designates someone to act on his/her behalf, that designee will
have complete authority to render a decision at that step and will render the
decision. Any designee for a Step 2 Grievance cannot be the same person who
issued the decision for the Step 1 Grievance. (Emphasis added)
The second sentence of 5c is tied to the first sentence of 5c. The Agency’s July
31st grievance pointedly leaves out the first sentence of Article 20, section 5c
when quoting from it.
Article20, 5c is the main violation that the Union is accused of. The Agency also
makes reference to statutory findings that the grievance process be simple and
fair, however the overall grievance procedure is not what the Agency argues
constituted a violation.
The agency regularly violates the exact same Deciding Official requirements of
the contract that it argues necessitates its latest grievance. The Agency often
dictates that step 2 grievances be directed to the Deputy Assistant Secretary
instead of PMO head Aileen Smith1. The contact clearly spells out who the step 2
responses will be submitted to; the Agency regularly violates those same
concepts of the contract that it claims to defend. One instance occurred on May
7, 2015, when a suspended employee was ordered to provide any grievance
within 30 days (the time frame for a step 2 grievance) and submit it to DAS
Brenda Sprague. Quoting from that Agency decision letter:
If you decide to submit a grievance, you must do so within thirty (30) calendar
days from the effective date of the suspension. The name of the union president is
Rob Arnold; he can be reached at (206) 346-2905. Your grievance must be
submitted to Brenda S. Sprague, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport
Services (CAlPPT).
(Emphasis added)
Even after this violation was pointed out again to the Agency, it committed the
exact same violation again (in a 10/8/2015 suspension decision). The Agency
ordered the suspended employee to submit any Step 2 grievance to DAS Ms.
Sprague. To quote from that letter:
1
Which contradicts the guidance in Article 20, section 8 c(i):
Since you occupy a position in the bargaining unit for which NFFE, Local 1998,
holds exclusive recognition, you may grieve this decision under the provisions of
Articles 20 and 24 of the Negotiated Labor-Management Agreement between the
Department of State and NFFE. The name of the union president is Rob Arnold; he
may be reached at (206) 806-57692. If you decide to submit a grievance, you
must do so within 30 calendar days from the effective date of the suspension.
Your grievance must be submitted to Brenda S. Sprague, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Passport Resources (CA/PPT).
The Agency now argues that directing employees to direct grievances to the DAS
constitutes a past practice (an argument that, if valid, would from now on allow
the Agency to violate that contract provision continually). The past practice
argument overlooks the fact that the Union has pointed out the violation to the
Agency multiple times.3
Since the Agency’s lack of concern about following the Article 20’s Deciding
Official language is unmistakable, it is surprising that the Agency considers this an
issue worthy of consuming time and resources on.
The step one Union grievance response was filed by the Union President. The
Union President admitted a violation had occurred and that the Agency’s June 4th
grievance was not without merit. The President made the admission and
submitted the grievance response with the knowledge of the Union Vice
President. Whether the submission by the President represents a technical
violation or not is largely irrelevant, since the Agency has a track record of
intentionally violating similar contract provisions.
Besides the already-cited instances of the Agency declaring that it will change the
Deciding Official, local Agency directors regularly pass valid step one grievances
on to Passport Headquarters to answer, and then dictate that the step one
grievance is now a step two grievance. On July 10, 2015, the San Francisco
Director did exactly this in regards to a grievance where San Francisco employees
had been improperly drug tested. The rationale used in such instances was that
the Director of the local agency was not responsible for the alleged violation. In
doing so, the Agency deprived the Union of access to a multi-step grievance
procedure. The Agency here is claiming that the critical issue at stake is the
2
The Union President’s phone number is not 206-806-5769 and never has been. The employee was
hampered in grieving his suspension due to the Agency’s inaccurate information.
3
The Union has never made it the subject of its own separate grievance due to it being a technical
violation, but has noted in several grievances concerning employee dismissals/suspensions.
multi-step grievance procedure. If the Agency believes the right to multiple steps
of appeal is an important principle, then it is surprising that it would casually
violate the Union’s access to this procedure.
Further shedding light on the Agency’s sincerity is the Agency’s underlying
grievance. In the Agency grievance whose response from the Union created the
issue here, the Agency deemed it a “step one grievance”, yet submitted the
grievance to the Union President. Thus, on June 4, 2015, the Agency’s position
was that the Union President was the proper recipient of an Agency step one
grievance, but by July 30, 2015, a step one response from the Union President
was a violation that rose to the level of being grieved.
In the last week, emails from the PMO mailbox suddenly began omitting the
name of the sender. Asked to resume the practice of the sender identifying him
or herself, the Agency refuses.
The violation alleged in the Agency’s October 2nd grievance relies on the Agency’s
ability to distinguish one Union officer response from another. The Agency is
currently in the midst of changing its practices to deny the Union the ability to tell
which Management official sent an email to the Union. This represents one more
example of the Agency’s disregard for the principles it purportedly seeks to
uphold in filing its grievance.
I find that the Agency suffered negligible or no harm as a result of the Union
President responding to the June 4th “grievance meeting” grievance of the
Agency. I believe that the Agency’s July 30th nuisance grievance was not meant
to correct a wrong, and instead designed to consume Union time and resources.
Agency conduct consistently makes clear it does not hold the Deciding Official
language from the CBA sacred.
 The first half of the Agency’s requested relief is that the Union provide
non-presidential review and signature of all Step 1 grievances filed against
the Union.
 The CBA states Agency grievances should “normally” be submitted to the
Union Vice President. Thus, it specifically reserves the possibility that the
grievance might properly be submitted to another official. If the grievance
is submitted to an officer other than the Vice President (for example, the
alleged violation is an action of the Vice President), the Union official in
the best position to respond would be the President. Since the CBA does
not rule out the President being the appropriate official to respond to
some Step one grievances, the Agency’s first requested relief may make
sense in many cases, but not all cases.
The Agency is not clear exactly what it would consider “non-Presidential
review” of a Step one grievance. If the Agency submits a Step one
grievance alleging a violation of the President, the Vice President would
likely consult with the President in order to investigate the President’s
action. That investigation might or might not satisfy the Agency’s
definition of “non-Presidential review”.
However, the Union does agree with the principle that a two-step
grievance process is poorly served if the responding official is the same for
both steps of the grievance.
The Union agrees to the Agency’s request that the Union give greater
attention to ensuring the Union’s step 1 responding official is a different
officer from the Union’s step 2 responding official.
 The remainder of the Agency’s requested relief is that the Union grant all
relief requested by the Agency in two earlier grievances.
 This second relief is denied. The technical violation committed by the
Union here does not justify granting relief above and beyond that related
to the specific violation. Since the Union President acknowledged a
technical violation in its July 1st grievance response to the Agency’s earlier
grievance, the harm to the Agency of the response coming from the Union
President would seem to be extremely limited or non-existent.
Furthermore, the Agency’s May 4th grievance has been withdrawn under
the terms of a settlement. The Agency obtained the terms it desired in
resolving that complaint. Trying to obtain further concessions on the
same matter - after the Agency has already bargained it to conclusion with
a settlement - is not appropriate.
/s/
Rob Arnold
President
NFFE Local 1998
Attachments:
June 4th Agency grievance