Va Hospital Master Agreement

The AFGE filed with the FSIP on June 3, arguing that the Department of Veteran Affairs had proposed significant changes to its collective agreement with the union, and then refused to negotiate in good faith with AFGE representatives proposals without orders substantially similar to those of the current agreement. To the extent that the question of whether the disputed case is “covered” by the collective agreement, General Counsel argues that the VA waived its right to assert a “covered” defence with respect to the Tour of Duty amendments. In support of this assertion, General Counsel cites the decision of an administrative judge (ALJ), in particular the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Benefits Delivery Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, case No. BN-CA-90301 (26). 1805668912 General Counsel submits that Article 44(1) of the European Union explicitly has the right to negotiate changes in service and that there is no change in the length of service in Article 20 of matters which may be negotiated in the medium term. Furthermore, General Counsel submits that the respondent did not provide evidence compromising the results of the ALJ to VA in Philadelphia. General Counsel asserts that, in the light of the earlier dispute relating to the “covered” issue, the doctrine of the legal authority262216589 precludes this argument in the present case. The Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), made up of 10 president-appointees who resolve deadlocks in negotiations between agencies and unions, amended the agreement in its Nov. 5 decision significantly, supposedly to align the labor agreement with several Trump administration implementing executive orders that govern federal staff. But a va spokesman told the Federal Times that the changes they want to implement are aimed at improving care: “Whether by condemning the MISSION Act or working to repeal the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, afGE has consistently fought for the status quo and opposed making VA work better for veterans and their families.

It is not surprising that AFGE has taken the same approach by refusing to accept reasonable improvements to its collective agreement. Va`s collective bargaining proposals aim to put Veterans first and foremost what we do and we look forward to working with AFGE to achieve this goal. VA management and AFGE began negotiating a new collective agreement in May 2019, but the agency twice declared an impasse in October and December of the same year. On December 19, 2019, the VA asked the Federal Services Impasse Panel to intervene, a situation that has been going on ever since. The respondent submits that even assuming that the terms and conditions of employment have changed, the issue is “covered” by the collective agreement between AFGE and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Specifically, art. 20, a number of provisions which lay down conditions for intervention by teams and missions and, in view of these provisions, credulity weighs on the fact that the parties have considered negotiating whenever a class of workers is adapted to the workload. .

Spread the love