ATC Contract Spat Continues With Both Sides Apparently Drifting Apart

The FAA and its unionized air traffic controllers continue to bicker over a new contract -- but instead of coming closer together on the fine points, the two sides appear to be drifting farther apart. Now, the FAA wants daily negotiations, while NATCA demands arbitrators be brought in to settle things.

National Air Traffic Controllers Association President John Carr Monday proposed that both NATCA and Federal Aviation Administration contract negotiators agree to allow private arbitrators to settle any issues that the parties cannot reach agreement on independently and voluntarily.

"This might prove to be the most expeditious format for resolving any disputes because, as a voluntary agreement between the parties, the arbitrator's decision would be binding upon us, with no potential for protracted legal proceedings," Carr said.

Carr's call for arbitration came in the wake of FAA Deputy Administrator for Strategic Management-Labor Relations Joe Miniace's request for daily contract talks in hopes of wrapping up the negotiations before Christmas.

Currently, there is no end date to negotiations and talks are held in one-week blocks only three or four days a week with a two to three-week hiatus in between. Negotiation sites have included Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, and Washington, DC, losing negotiation time to travel.

"We want to move quickly because the taxpayer cannot afford this contract much longer," said Joe Miniace, the FAA's deputy administrator for strategic labor-management relations. "Spending more time at the table will help us reach a balanced agreement sooner."

But in a letter to Miniace, Carr rejected Miniace's calls for establishing an arbitrary and artificial ending date for negotiations as well as his other proposals as another example of the agency attempting to release itself from a signed agreement. This time, Carr said, Miniace's proposals violate the parties' ground rules agreement that was signed before the current negotiations began.

Carr called a letter from Miniace last week that outlined the agency's proposals, "unique in its novelty; that is, a written offer to renege. Imagine my surprise. The FAA is famous for negotiating in good faith, signing purposeful agreements, and then running like hell from them. We were thinking perhaps the agency would try something new for a change. We call it, 'living by your signed agreements.' I encourage Miniace to at least become vaguely familiar with the ground rules agreement. We will be using it for the remainder of these negotiations."

Carr also said he senses an effort by the agency to rush toward an "artificial and illegitimate impasse."

"While the union wants to mindlessly 'roll over' several provisions from the previous contract, many of these had concessions that should never have been made," said Miniace.

"I am at a genuine loss to comprehend this false urgency on the part of the agency when it is an established legal precept that an impasse does not destroy the collective bargaining relationship," Carr said. "I must presume that Miniace, as a seasoned labor relations professional, is as aware as I that an impasse is not the end of collective bargaining –- rather, as a recurring feature in the bargaining process, impasse is only a temporary deadlock or hiatus in negotiations –- and that he will enlighten others at the agency of the futility and folly of attempting to rush toward impasse."

Carr concluded his letter to Miniace by stating that he believes a voluntary agreement is within reach. But, he added, "I think that private mediation/binding arbitration is the most efficient way to conclude any subjects on which the parties cannot reach resolution."

FMI: www.faa.gov, www.natca.org