RECRUITMENT

RECRUITMENT . . . UNION NOTIFICATION OF UNQUALIFIED APPLICANTS

Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Tennessee Air National Guard, Nashville, Tennessee and Music City Chapters, Association of Civilian Technicians, Case No. 01 FSIP 55, June 4, 2001 (Release No. 440).

The AGENCY proposed the following:

The HRO remote will notify the appropriate Labor Organization Official when the Adjutant General approves the selection and the appointment. After the selection, applicants who were not interviewed will be notified in writing by the HRO. The HRO will notify the State Chairman of ACT of all unqualified on board bargaining-unit technician applicants.

The UNION proposed the following:

[The] HRO remote representative will notify the Chapter president of unqualified applicants no less than three (3) working days before qualified applicants are forwarded to the selecting official. The Agency will document any delays in staffing the position during an 18-month test program. The parties will revisit the issue in bargaining at the end of the test period.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the AGENCY's proposal.

RECRUITMENT . . . RATING AND RANKING PANELS

Department of Defense, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Hanover, New Hampshire and Local 4, Chapter 1, International Federation of Professional and Technical, AFL-CIO, Case No. 01 FSIP 65, June 22, 2001 (Release No. 441).

The UNION proposed the following:

A technical panel (called a Factor IV panel in CR [Center Regulation] 690 1-4) consisting of a majority of non-supervisory researchers will review all material submitted by the applicant, determine the score for Factor IV and recommend to management the scores for Factors I-III. Management will audit the scores for Factors I-III. If management alters the scores for Factors I-III, it will provide written feedback to the applicant summarizing its reasons for doing so.

The AGENCY proposed the following:

The Factor IV panel will score only factor IV and a separate panel consisting entirely of managers will score factors I-III without recommendations from the Factor IV panel.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the following wording:

The technical panel (called Factor IV panel in CR 690-1-4) consisting of a majority of non-supervisory researchers will review all materials submitted by the CRREL applicant, determine the score for Factor IV and recommend to management the scores for Factors I-III. Management will audit the scores for Factors I-III. If management alters the scores for Factors I III, it will provide written feedback to the CRREL applicant summarizing its reasons for doing so.

RECRUITMENT . . . SELECTION PROCEDURES

Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C. and National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 01 FSIP 81, August 9, 2001 (Release No. 442).

The UNION proposed that:

1. Employees be given sufficient time, including duty time, to prepare and submit applications for the canine handler program.
2. Employees must be given written notice and an additional 20 days to prepare and submit a supplemental application, if any "factors, qualifications, and/or experience" to be considered in the selection process are not also "set forth in the notice to employee soliciting interest in a canine handler position."
3. If any candidate is orally interviewed, all similarly qualified candidates must be orally interviewed and the Union be allowed official time to observe all interviews.
4. The Union be given a copy of all applications for the canine handler program and advance notice (at least two working days) of oral interviews.
5. Written justifications for each selection would be provided to the Union.

The AGENCY proposed that the Panel order the Union to withdraw its proposal because it would unduly delay the selection process and would be burdensome to administer. Moreover, the proposal is unnecessary - the Union "has cited no instances in which the [Agency] has been unfair in the past when it has selected Border Patrol agents to be canine handlers."

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the following:

1. If a candidate is interviewed orally as part of the selection process, all candidates shall be interviewed orally;
2. The Union will be informed of the number or applicants for each canine handler position, and will be informed who was selected; and
3. The Employer shall provide written reasons explaining why a particular candidate was selected over others, if requested by a non-selected candidate.