GovernmentExecutive.com

The American Bar Association last week recognized the Air Force for excellence in resolving workplace issues - discrimination complaints, contract disputes and workplace disagreements - outside the courtroom.

Because of its "breadth and depth," the Air Force's alternative dispute resolution program stands out from about 10 others nominated for the ABA's second annual "Lawyer As A Problem Solver" award, presented Aug. 8 at a San Francisco conference, said Jack Hanna, ABA's dispute resolution section director. The nominees included private sector programs.

Air Force officials have devoted substantial financial resources to their program, and have followed through on implementing a dispute resolution plan developed in the 1990s, Hanna said. "They've been doing this for a decade, and they've been doing it well," he said.

Like other federal mediation programs, the Air Force program encourages employees and outside parties to voluntarily enter into alternative dispute resolution before pursuing a full-fledged court battle. A mix of civilian and military lawyers are available to mediate cases. While the program has existed for a while, the Air Force "really got serious about it" in 1999, according to Joe McDade, the agency's deputy general counsel for dispute resolution.

The program has received several other national awards, but this latest honor stands out to McDade.

"How often do you see public sector organizations held up as examples to the private sector?" he asked. It is significant that the ABA chose to recognize the federal government for doing something right, he noted.

The Air Force has traditionally channeled its creativity into developing state-of-the-art military equipment, said Lela Love, chair of the ABA committee that presented the award. "It's wonderful that the same creativity was turned to legal problem solving," she said.

Through its alternative dispute resolution program, the Air Force closes cases faster, leaving more time to concentrate on complicated conflicts that cannot be settled through mediation, McDade said. Such complicated cases include those where a judge's ruling would establish a legal precedent or clarify agency policies.

Nearly 60 percent of the Air Force's discrimination complaints enter the alternative dispute resolution program, according to McDade. Mediators usually close discrimination cases within 42 days, he said. In contrast, the Air Force Equal Employment Opportunity Office spends an average of 466 days processing each complaint.

Of the discrimination cases entering mediation, 70 to 80 percent reach a resolution that pleases both parties involved, McDade said. A mutually agreed upon solution is usually more satisfying than a ruling imposed by a judge, he added.

Also, many of these cases do not belong in the Equal Opportunity Office in the first place, McDade said. At their heart, a "significant portion" are really about workplace issues, and do not involve legally provable discrimination, he explained.

The Air Force saves valuable time and resources by mediating contract disputes as well, McDade said. About 85 percent of contract disagreements are eligible for alternative dispute resolution, and about half the eligible contractors agree to enter the program. Those who enter usually close a case within eight months, which is a third of the time the case would typically spend in litigation.

Time is often of the essence in Air Force contractor disputes, McDade added. Halts in equipment maintenance or production caused by legal wrangles hurt the Air Force's military readiness, he explained.

Mediation has helped improve relations between the Air Force and unions as well, according to McDade. For instance, the Air Force Materiel Command and American Federation of Government Employees Council 214, the largest bargaining unit of Air Force employees, get along much better as a result of the dispute resolution program, he said.

AFGE Council 214 President Scott Blanch said he has also noticed a difference in labor-management relations. At first, union members were reluctant to enter into mediation because "nobody likes new things," he said, but the program has caught on. "Our experience is that [when] people . . . sit down and put their differences on the table . . .this improves relationships down the road."

For more information, visit the Air Force alternative dispute resolution Web site.

Personal Travel

Agencies are not obligated to reimburse employees for money lost rescheduling vacations because of unexpected work obligations, the Board of Contract Appeals ruled recently.

Rod Schmit had already purchased plane tickets for his annual leave when his Navy supervisor told him he had to cancel his trip. The tickets were essentially free, because Schmit bought them using his frequent flier miles. But he ended up having to pay $100 to recoup the miles after he cancelled his vacation.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service declined Schmit's subsequent request for reimbursement of the $100 and a $10 user fee associated with processing his original reservation. In an Aug. 6 ruling, the Board of Contract appeals affirmed Defense's decision.

Previous rulings have established that agencies are not required by law to pay employees for money lost changing annual leave plans, the appeals board said. For instance, in a 1981 case, the comptroller general, responsible for adjudicating travel disputes at the time, ruled an agency had "no authority" to reimburse a worker for fees incurred changing a "super-saver" plane ticket, because the employee bought the ticket for "purely personal travel."

"The same reasoning has been followed many times over the years," the Board of Contract Appeals noted. "We have consistently held that where the need to perform official duties causes delay or cancellation of personal travel plans and results in increased personal travel expenses to the employee, there is no legal basis to reimburse those additional costs."

Rod W. Schmit v. Defense Finance and Accounting Service, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (16146-TRAV), Aug. 6, 2003

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.