GovernmentExecutive.com

The Government Accountability Office has resolved a disagreement with a federal labor union over the eligibility of certain employees to organize, paving the way for a union election process to be completed in September.

Under the agreement, reached Wednesday with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, all permanent and probationary employees in Band I, Band IIA and Band IIB of GAO's paybanding system will be eligible to vote, the agency and IFPTE announced in a joint statement. Voting will end on Sept. 19.

The results will determine whether 1,500 analysts at GAO will have union representation. The election will mark the first time GAO employees have voted on the issue in the watchdog agency's 86-year history.

"I am very pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with IFPTE that will result in a timely election," Comptroller General David M. Walker said in a statement. "As I have consistently said, GAO recognizes and supports the right of GAO employees to organize if they choose to do so."

The election announcement marks a strong reversal from earlier this month, when IFPTE General Counsel Julie Clark indicated that under a proposed timeline, an election at the agency would happen no earlier than October, if at all.

GAO managers and the union have spent weeks trying to resolve disputes about the potential makeup of the bargaining unit, largely because of challenges brought by GAO that analysts in Band IIB hold supervisory roles that would make them ineligible to join a union.

IFPTE Secretary-Treasury Paul Shearon said Thursday that GAO leaders approached the union last week, questioning whether Band IIB analysts could be represented by a separate union. "That provided the option of discussing how we approach getting these employees to vote with the party of their peers," Shearon said.

The discussions allowed the two sides to reach a compromise Wednesday, allowing all permanent and probationary Band IIB employees to participate in the IFPTE election. As part of the agreement, the union agreed to withdraw an unfair labor practice charge filed against Walker late last month.

Headquarters employees will vote by manual ballot, and field office employees will vote by mail. Ballots will be counted immediately after the voting process ends, Shearon said.

After the election is complete, GAO management will have five days to allege a violation of the election rules. But if employees choose in favor of the union, certification is immediate. GAO's union would be an IFPTE local, and after certification, employees who join could begin electing officers and negotiating a contract, Shearon said.

The push to unionize is partly a response to a new personnel system at GAO, under which 308 senior analysts did not receive pay raises last year. IFPTE has said that most employees have cited what they consider to be a lack of transparency in pay for performance as a major driver of the organizing campaign.

Unlike most federal agencies, in which managers are not responsible for setting pay, bargaining over wages would be possible at GAO because of management's broad authority over compensation.

GAO's Personnel Appeals Board will oversee the election process and is expected to issue a formal election agreement in the coming days.

"IFPTE is grateful for the diligent efforts of all the people who had a hand in bringing this agreement about," said IFPTE President Greg Junemann, "and we look forward to continued mutual cooperation as we move forward to complete the election process."

COMMENTS

• Brad has a good point about administrative people and others not being eligible to be a union member. However, it still appears that excluding 1760 employees out of 3260 is beyond reason. Can someone out there supply the federal definition of those who are eligible for a union? The Federal Labor Relations Authority must have a solid, unambiguous definition of who is eligible and not leave it up to the head of an agency to decide. Can anyone help with a url link or actual citations? Let's get to the bottom of this story. Bill Posted July 26, 2007 8:31 AM
• In response to Bill, there is another class besides analysts and supervisors; that would be administrative staff. There are a lot of GAO employees who are security, maintenance, janitorial, etc. These employees will not be represented and yet are not supervisory. As for the allegations against Mr. Walker, it is also possible that the union organizers raised the lawsuit in an effort to push GAO to an agreement. Since the lawsuit was not settled, it can not be assumed that he or any part of GAO management was guilty. A professional services firm (governmental or not) usually has many levels of supervision and review. GAO is organized in a similar manner to that of a public accounting or a law firm. The structure of GAO is not in question. The only question is how much supervision is required before a staff member becomes a "supervisor". Brad Posted July 23, 2007 3:45 PM
• I find it less than honest that after Mr. Walker backed down from an unfair labor practice charge, thereby letting the Band IIB employees vote in the union election, that he issued the statement you quoted: "As I have consistently said, GAO recognizes and supports the right of GAO employees to organize if they choose to do so." It appears he only recognizes that right when he is forced to do so through the legal system. He certainly isn't consistent with his views and statements. The other item is one of union elgibility - you have reported 1,500 analysts will vote on the union representation where as the Washington Post reported today "about 1,800 GAO analysts". The exact number is not the issue, it is somewhere between 1500 and 1800, but what about the other GAO employees? According to a GAO posting, the number of employees in 2006 was 3,260. So that leaves between 1460 and 1760 employees who are not elgible to vote so must be in fact supervisors according to Mr. Walker. However, any reasonable person would question there are that many bone fide supervisors at the GAO who have signature authority for signing leave slips and performance ratings. Mr. Walker would be claiming his organization has a employee to supervisor ratio somewhere between 0.85 and 1.23. Even a simpleton knows that ratio is not valid so what is Mr. Walker hiding? Is he still being consistent by giving all GAO workers the right to decide for themself about the union or he is still excluding some that are elgible? Fess up Mr. Walker - where is the "Integrity" you profess for your office? Are you redefining the government defintion of "supervisor" for your own use to make your case? Bill Posted July 20, 2007 9:51 AM