Supplemental statement by NFFE Local 1998 in the case of WA-CA-04-0186
The second sentence of the Union’s proposal # 56 reads: “Specialists who signed off on such applications will have their identities protected.” The word “applications” refers to potential applications for U.S. passports submitted by terrorists or notorious criminals. The intent of this proposal is to protect the identity of employees who, in order to meet the strict numerical production standards required by Management, may not be able to give each application the scrutiny that they deserve, which may result in the issuance of a passport to someone that should not receive one.
The genesis of this proposal came in March 2002, six months after September 11th, when the approval for the change in visa status for terrorist Mohomed Atta arrived posthumously at the flight school where he had prepared for the terrorist attack. The application for the change in status was published in print and online media, including CNN. The image of the application clearly shows the signature and stamp of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employee who approved the change in status. To Passport Specialists, this signature and stamp are reminiscent of how they approve passport applications. Here is the relevant portion of the application:
Here is an image, found at http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/12/inv.flight.school.visas/ , showing the photo of terrorist Mohomed Atta superimposed over a picture of the INS employee’s approval:
The implication of this image could not be clearer. For example, a web-posting at one website, http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000736.php , asks, “Do you know if the INS drone who okayed Mohammed Atta's visa renewal--on the six month anniversary of 9/11--was ever fired? Or do the government service worker unions not allow that kind of thing?”
Article 18 of the contract does not cover the issue of protecting the identity of employees who makes mistakes as a result of being required to spend too little time on each passport application, nor could the Union have reasonably anticipated the very compelling need for this proposal during bargaining over the performance standards. The Union and the employees are deeply concerned about issuing a passport to terrorists and criminals, because the performance standards – and changes to them – do not allow sufficient time to properly adjudicate passport applications. While every effort is made within the context of meeting job expectations to adjudicate diligently, if a serious mistake is made as the result of the strict and unreasonable numerical performance standards then the employees should not be blamed for simply doing what Management expected of them. It is important to understand that passport adjudication is done within a context where employees have been told that, because they have low error rates, they have room to make more errors and increase their error rate in order to approve the issuance of more passports.
While we would have much preferred to work with Management and have input into the establishment of a reasonable standard that would provide sufficient time for diligent review of passport applications, that has not happened, and so we are left with attempting to ameliorate the impact of the current standards on the employees.
The second part of Proposal #56 was a reasonable, negotiable proposal, that was not covered by the contract, not reasonably foreseeable during bargaining, and which provides an appropriate arrangement to address the adverse impact of the exercise of a Management right.
Therefore, Management committed an Unfair Labor Practice by not only implementing the change in performance standards without bargaining over this proposal, but also by stating that they would respond, then delaying the response, then responding after implementation without addressing this proposal, and then refusing to clarify.
Respectfully submitted,
Colin Patrick Walle
Interim Union President, NFFE Local 1998
March 15, 2004