Reply to New OPM Memo on RTO Implementation

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "New OPM Memo on RTO Implementation — CBAs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back.  Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid.  Unions will sue.  [/b]In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.[b][/quote]

I took Labor Law, but wow!  25 years ago. So, I’m very rusty.   I’m full telework, Bargaining Unit and am “assigned” to the only office for our component in DC (our HQ is not in DC)— which can hold our managers/NBUs twice a week. And that’s it.  And they would be looking at a couple thousand people returning to a building already at 100% usage. So, that’s not happening.

If they let our agency break the CBA, they would need to rent space, outfit it, disrupt a couple thousand employees, etc. I had always assumed there would be an injection that keep our CBA in place during litigation. Especially as ours is very tightly written— no manager discretion to decrease telework, no “up to X days language” only “temporary” decreases allowed for specific reasons and limited time, etc.

So, given the standard to issue a TRO, why wouldn’t a balance of equities if they try to break a well written CBA be issuing a TRO maintain the status quo (not have to find space, pay to rent and outfit it, bring people in, possibly causing them irreparable harm), especially since there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the CBA. CBAs are actually hard to invalidate. Ours is new, doesn’t have midterm reopening, has no wiggle room for management to decrease days or have a long term “business need”, doesn’t have a termination clause, etc.

Help me out. Everyone is assuming there would not be a TROs maintaining CBAs in place during litigation. Why not?  (And, as I said, my Labor Law is old, I freely admit I could be missing something and am glad to be *nicely* educated). [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics