What is the AFGE Master Agreement
The AFGE Master Agreement is the comprehensive union contract that governs labor relations between fifteen federal agencies and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). As the largest federal employee union with 700,000 members, the AFGE has a master bargaining agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Social Security Administration (SSA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Justice Management Division, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) , among others. Each particular agency also has a dependant collective bargaining agreement with the AFGE, so the AFGE Master Agreement works in conjunction with other specific agreements to provide overarching labor relations benefits. The AFGE Master Agreement is comprehensive and has been actively negotiated since 1967 and is regularly re-negotiated. According to the National Labor Relations Act, the AFGE Master Agreement falls under Chapter 14 of Title 5 of the United States Code.
Major Provisions of the AFGE Master Agreement
The AFGE Master Agreement is organized into 25 parts and includes a general provisions section. Sub-specific provisions in the AFGE Master Agreement that are of interest include:
In General
The AFGE Master Agreement is non-discriminatory. The AFGE Master Agreement is not discriminatory based on a classified basis. The AFGE Master Agreement also prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, training, salary, promoting, mentoring, discipline, and termination.
Aptitude Testing
The AFGE Master Agreement prohibits the use of any employee aptitude tests or tests of values that have been deemed biased against a class or group of people.
Work Hours
The AFGE Master Agreement establishes compulsory Saturday, Sunday, and holiday overtime for both pay and leave periods as well as compendium overtime at the election of the agency and subject availability.
Health and Safety Inspections
The AFGE Master Agreement regards all AFGE members as critical to the safety and health of their respective workplaces. Accordingly, AFGE members are afforded the right and responsibility of conducting inspection of all work areas at any given time. In addition to inspections, the AFGE Master Agreement provides excellent resources to employees with regard to filing OSHA complaints.
The AFGE Master Agreement contains an extensive grievance procedure enabling all employees to file grievances and appeal grievances up the chain to the FLRA. The AFGE Master Agreement, among other federal labor law settlements, entitles all employees to representation including those under "pay and leave" issues.
How is the AFGE Agreement Negotiated
The AFGE Master Agreement is negotiated between the AFGE and the Federal Government’s "government bargaining representatives." Id. Government’s "government bargaining representative" is defined as "the representative(s) designated by the head of an Agency to act on the Agency’s behalf in its relationships with its employees and with Union officials." 5 U.S.C. § 7114(a)(2)(A).
The rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the negotiation and administration of Master Labor-Management Agreement ("MLA") are governed by Statute, Federal Personnel Manual Handbook ("FPMH"), and the Master Labor-Management Agreement itself. An MLA is a term and condition of employment for bargaining unit employees in a particular unit. The Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute ("Statute") contains general provisions for the negotiation, execution and amendment of MLAs.
Basically, the Statute requires the parties to bargain in good faith over conditions of employment in a Federally recognized unit until an agreement has been reached. Specifically, the parties must:
However, the Statute specifically recognizes that a "government "bargaining" representative in the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") is authorized to service more than one agency, and as such the Master Agreement would be "binding on all employees [in the bargaining units"] served by such a representative," regardless of the specific agency at issue. Id at §7114(a)(2)(B).
Also, the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") is required "to disseminate information concerning [MLA’s], including drafts of such Agreements [MLA’s], between a [Federal] labor organization and [the Federal Government] to interested parties." Id. at 7114(b)(2). It is OPM’s responsibility to "provide guidance" to management and labor practitioners on how they should "develop and negotiate [MLA’s] as well as to assist in identifying and resolving major collective bargaining issues." Id. at 7114(b)(2) Although OPM provides assistance and guidance, the Statute does not make OPM a party in Master Agreement negotiations.
Implications of the Agreement to Federal Employees
Federal employees are also impacted by the AFGE Master Agreement. Many Federal employees are also union members and based on seniority, may be members of the National Council of Field Labor Locals or the Field Locals. The Field Locals are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Every few years, the unions and the Management negotiate this collective bargaining agreement which is then referred to as the Master Agreement.
For instance, the Master Agreement (MA) affects working conditions, rights and responsibilities of Federal employees. But, the MA also affects rules and regulations for how the Federal Labor Relations Board (FLRA) will conduct the grievance process. The MA can also affect impasses procedures, arbitration of grievances and steps for negotiation impasses. The grievance procedure is outlined in the MA for the Local and National levels. If there are any grievances filed in large numbers, the Courts want to see the grievance filed, the grievance closed with a written decision, and the decision reviewed at each level of the grievance process.
Although the MA may not include all provisions impacting the Federal employees, it certainly takes away the right of the Federal employee to seek review in district court. Certain matters must be tackled with the grievance procedure outlined in the MA. The Fifth Circuit Court Appeals ruled, through U.S. Department of Labor v. Federal Labor Relation Authority, that enforcement of the arbitration provisions in the MA was appropriate to provide uniformity, avoid unnecessary litigation, and reduce the delay associated with resolving what the courts have viewed as straightforward procedural matters.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, in Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Von Raab, ruled that the Collective Bargaining Agreement or Master Agreement is enforceable because there is deference or respect extended to a Labor Management Negotiated Agreement, if it is derived from the negotiated process. The negotiated process is under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71.
Recent Changes and Revisions
As mentioned, the AFGE Master Agreement does not last forever. The AFGE Master Agreement must be updated periodically to reflect changes in the law, changes in agency operations and changes in work rules affecting Bargaining Unit employees.
If the parties cannot agree on what changes, if any, to make to the AFGE Master Agreement, an arbitration may be necessary. What this means is that a neutral arbitrator will hear the parties’ positions and order one of them to implement its final offer – either an offer for change to the AFGE Master Agreement or the status quo – walking the fine line between requiring change but providing stability when needed.
After bargaining, the parties may issue what is known as an "implementation notice" to Bargaining Unit employees . The implementation notice is just that, a notice of how the parties plan to implement the terms of the revised AFGE Master Agreement. Bargaining Unit employees have the right to file a grievance contesting how the implementation notice is being handled, but those time limits are subject to the grievance timeliness standards set forth in Article 50 of the AFGE Master Agreement.
Further, each agency has its own rules and regulations regarding implementing an updated AFGE Master Agreement. For example, while the authority to order the AFGE Master Agreement to take effect has been delegated by the AFGE and the Agency to individual directors or other personnel, they must still follow their own regulation procedures found in their agency’s policy and procedures manuals and Human Resources management directives.
Concerns and Criticism
Despite the benefits, there are challenges and criticisms surrounding the AFGE Master Agreement. From the perspective of some employers, the contract can be very unwieldy and may complicate negotiations with other locals that are governed by it. These employers argue that the AFGE Master Agreement makes it so that AFGE coordinators have a significant amount of final authority regarding interpretations of the Master Agreement. As a result, it could take an employer more time to negotiate with all the locals at once, because each of them would need to have a representative included in the negotiations. These employers also argue that employee unions do not always act in the best interest of the whole organization, which negatively affects the decisions made during negotiations and ultimately hurts the staff morale as a whole.
From the perspective of employees, some workers feel that there should be more common ground when it comes to negotiating proposals. These employees are not getting the voice that they believe they deserve in the negotiations with their managers over working conditions and raises. Others believe that the AFGE is too lenient with the managers in their negotiations and that employees should have more power in the bargaining process.
In some cases, the AFGE has been criticized for how it handles its negotiations with the government. In particular, Positions and Roles of Federal Employers have indicated that the AFGE does not always keep the best interests of the government as a whole at the forefront. They argue that there is not enough transparency and the recommendations into certain policies should be more open.
The Future of the AFGE Master Agreement
The future of the AFGE Master Agreement is inevitably tied to the political climate in the United States. As the political environment and public sector unions continue to shift, the AFGE Master Agreement will face new challenges and opportunities. The question of its future is fundamentally a question about the role of public sector labor relations in an evolving society.
One potential trend foreseen by many labor relations professionals is a decline in membership in public sector unions. Membership in the AFGE has declined in the last decade along with other public sector unions. It seems clear this trend will not be reversed any time soon. As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to address Janus v. AFSCME, AFGE and other public sector unions have a variety of responses to that case. It is clear the Court is considering the argument unions unfairly spend non-member fees on non-representational activities.
Rather than expensive litigation, AFGE’s focus must be on strengthening its brand. If non-members do not understand the purpose of their union , they are much more likely to seek out other forms of representation. This means the AFGE must emphasize its substantive work in replacing the Master Agreement with individual agencies. It also means the AFGE should focus on improvement of overall working conditions in a tangible way. The goal should be to foster an understanding that the union has value and that non-member dues are well spent.
Another possible future trend for AFGE’s Master Agreement lies in re-establishing an appropriate relationship with OPM. The weaknesses of the OPM in the last 10 years are no secret and likely have not been subject to enough scrutiny from Congress. Regardless, as the agency that is responsible for administering the conditions of employment for many federal employees, the OPM has a vested interest in reducing grievance and arbitration filings. As formerly demonstrated in their oversight of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, OPM is willing to take a more active role when it is called upon to do so.
Although some would say the life of the AFGE Master Agreement has been rocky at best, with the assistance of OPM the AFGE could bargain for, and receive much more favorable treatment in the Master Agreement negotiations. A strong union, a definite desire from OPM to cut down on grievances and arbitrations from both OPM and federal agencies; these factors bring hope for the AFGE in the next year or two.