Q. Article 3 (Labor Management Cooperation) - What is the impact of the new contract language, which states, "the following sections should be considered as suggestions and not prescriptions?" This comes from Section 1.

A. According to the Executive Order and the VA Guidance, Management is required to offer the local the opportunity to participate in a labor management forum. This is not changed by this Article. The "suggestions" language refers to how the facility implements the labor management forum. These are suggestions, not directions, as each facility will have different requirements.

Q. Article 35 (Time and Leave), Section 2F - What is the effect of the change in language from "except in rare and unusual circumstances" to "if necessary to meet valid operational needs?"

A. By operation of law, no contract language would be legal, or probably enforceable, if it had the effect of precluding management from canceling leave altogether in any instance (because being made to work is a manifestation of the right to assign work and direct employees concerning when they will work). By adding the qualifier "valid," the Time and Leave article affords the possibility of challenging a decision to cancel leave for a reason that is not consistent with either the statute (see 38 USC 7421), or the Master Agreement itself. In a real world situation, the term "valid operational need" not only puts the onus on management to relate the cancellation to a business need, but it further requires that the need be actual rather than imagined/fabricated.

Q. Article 43 (Grievance Procedure), Section 9 - What is the effect of the changed language in time limits?

A. We didn't feel that we had a good chance of prevailing in if we had to go to the Federal Service Impasses panel (FSIP), and we were pretty sure that VA would go to the FSIP on this issue. Also, while we had some arbitrator's decisions that had used the prior language to reach a grant in a grievance, the case law was clear that it was an arbitrator's right to make their own decision as to whether to follow such a procedure, and many times the arbitrators had not followed this procedure. So, the legal impact of the prior provision was not at all established - we didn't have much, if any right based on the prior language. So, this language was essentially traded for other gains, such as official time.

Q. Article 35 - Why is there a difference between the bases for sick leave for Title 5/Hybrid employees on one hand and Title 38 employees on the other hand in Article 35, Sections 4 D and E? 

A. While there is a difference in the bases for sick leave in Article 35, Sections 4 D and E, in actual operation, there will not be a difference. In addition to the sections in the Contract (see Sections 18 and 19), the Office of Human Resources and Administration, published a January 2009 fact sheet. This sheet indicated that sick leave can be used by Title 38 employees for bereavement and to care for a family member; to care for a family member with a serious health condition; and for adoption purposes. Thus, there are policy and contractual provisions for the grant of sick leave for Title 38 employees essentially under the same bases as in Article 35, Section 4 D.

Q. In Article 35, Section 16 E6c, physician assistants are excluded as approved healthcare providers whereas nurse practitioners are listed.

  A. While not specifically listed at this section, under Section 16 E6d, this provision includes any health care provider recognized by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. This would include physician assistants, and would therefore be considered, as nurse practioners, to be approved healthcare providers.  

Q. Who were the negotiators for labor on the contract? 

A. There were core members and alternates. However, the Chief Negotiator, Alma Lee, served in that position for the entire eight years of the negotiation, while there were over a dozen Chief Negotiators for management. The negotiators for Labor were: