*** New Website Look and Content changes coming March 28th ***



Skip navigation links
CHR Home
Employment
Benefits
Compensation
Training & Development
Executive Management
HR Offices
Programs & Services
Skip navigation links
Labor Relations
Labor Relations Forums
Recent Cases
LER Awards
Weingarten Notice
Resource Library
Drug Free Workplace
Strategic Workforce Management
Continuous Process Improvement (CPI)
Employee Relations
Performance Management
Non-Appropriated Fund

 RECENT / SEMINAL CASES

Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. National Association of Government Employees, Local R3-77
64 FLRA 128 (2010)

In a recent decision, the FLRA let stand an arbitrator’s merits decision in a case involving the discourteous conduct of a temporary supervisor toward a union official in which the arbitrator awarded $300K in compensatory damages.


US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Albuquerque Service Center, Human Capital Management, Albuquerque, New Mexico
64 FLRA 31 (2009)

The Authority denied the Agency’s application for review letting stand the Regional Director’s decision to include certain personnel positions in the bargaining unit. In determining the proposed unit appropriate, the RD found the HR specialists performing staffing, classification and performance management functions at the Human Capital Management Center exercise their duties in a routine manner, do not exercise independent judgment, and do not perform their duties in such a manner as to create a conflict interest.


Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Washington, D.C.
62 FLRA 40 (2007)

The Authority determined that a contractor serving as an EEO investigator on behalf of the Agency violated the Statute when holding formal discussions with bargaining unit employees concerning a formal EEO complaint without notifying the Union. The Authority found that the contractor conducting EEO investigations is a management official, the interviews with bargaining unit employees concerned a formal complaint - and therefore a grievance - filed by a bargaining unit employee, along with other attendant circumstances support the administrative judge’s finding that the union was entitled to be present.

Emergency Preparedness
Key Strategic Documents
Website Accessibility/Section 508
Privacy Notice Terms of Use Contact Us
614 Sicard Street SE, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20374-5072
This is an official U.S. Navy website
FOIA NAVY.mil
No FEAR Act Navy IG
EEO USA.gov