Go back to the
SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
SPSE Newsletter #1, March 1998
Editor: P. Weidhaas
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
This year we welcome all members and non-members in celebrating SPSE's 25th anniversary and its achievements.
Quite a few employees will remember SPSE's legal fight in 1991 to make the Lab's ranking data public documents, thereby introducing accountability into ranking decisions. But how many employees are aware that they owe the benefit of UC-paid dental insurance to a hard fight by SPSE's affiliate CSEA* in the late 1970's? Or that we have 11 guaranteed holidays per year? Until the late 1970's, when a holiday fell on a weekend--tough luck, you lost it. Again, SPSE's affiliate, CSEA, won that fight for Livermore employees. These are just three examples of the many achievements fought for by SPSE that employees today take for granted.
Perhaps one of the most important activities of SPSE is the organization's assistance and support to professional employees with grievances. We are proud to have helped many employees who have faced unfair, unjust, or discriminatory treatment by their management.
As we celebrate this 25th anniversary, we engage in a major battle. We are fighting the Lab's attempt to sever us from the systemwide University personnel policies; and, adding insult to injury, the Lab's total neglect to give us legally required notice of this unprecedented change in our contract. The introduction of "Flexible Status," i.e., "Restricted Status" employees is just one ominous example of the new direction the Lab is taking, a direction that increasingly deviates from the University's.
The articles that follow detail the ongoing legal fight by SPSE. If LLNL scientists and engineers feel strongly about the Lab's connection to UC, if they dread the loss of traditional academic freedom, protection, and privileges provided via the close linkage to the University's policies, then they should realize that the best chance to reverse LLNL's course is by joining SPSE, thus adding to its momentum.
I am honored to be SPSE's new president, relieving past president Manuel Garcia. I thank Manuel for the leadership and direction he provided last year. I also thank all the members of the board, past and present, for their dedication, their courage, their expertise, and their efforts to support this organization. A list of the 1998 board, executive officers, and our web site is on the last page. I have asked Patrick Weidhaas to take over as editor of our newsletter, relieving George Craig. I thank George for his excellent work on the newsletters, and welcome Patrick to continue the challenging task of providing an independent employee voice.
We have an exciting and busy year ahead of us.
Together we will celebrate SPSE's 25th Anniversary with renewed vigor and
fresh ideas./Kalina Wong
A fierce court room drama, "SPSE vs. UC," is being played out these days. On February 26 and 27 hearings in front of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Administrative Law Judge on our "Unfair Labor Practice" charge commenced. Let's recall the issues.
Facing Off
As UC employees (as opposed to employees of DOE or of a private contractor)
we have traditionally enjoyed and highly valued the academic freedom and
culture that made the Laboratory into a UC campus, and has been responsible
for its scientific excellence in the past. This open, academic work environment
at LLNL has been due to our close linkage to the systemwide personnel policies
of the UC. The personnel policies at the campuses were also applicable at
the Lab with very carefully approved exceptions. We were indeed UC employees.
The employee-handbook of 1986 stated:
"As Laboratory employees we are staff employees of the University of California. Laboratory personnel policies match University staff personnel policies, with University-approved variations when necessary to implement Laboratory programs and to meet Department of Energy (DOE) requirements."
On October 8, 1996 SPSE filed an "Unfair Practice" charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) alleging that
"The University has changed its entire personnel policy regarding employees of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. On July 1, 1996, the University installed new policies systemwide. These written policies indicate that they apply to LLNL. However, both UC and LLNL deny that the new policies apply at LLNL. Furthermore, they claim that LLNL is now under policies that were only a local implementation of the previous UC policy governing LLNL. This was done without ever seeking employee input, and this violates HEERA [Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act]."
LLNL's response to this charge came in a letter that Laboratory representative Susan B. Angstadt wrote:
"The new University personnel policies do not apply to any other LLNL employees [i.e., other than 17 senior managers], including members represented by the Society [of Professional Scientists and Engineers]. ...[SPSE] has been informed by both Laboratory and University offices that the new policies do not apply to persons represented by [SPSE]. LLNL has its own policies...and has for many years. LLNL personnel policies apply to LLNL employees...including those represented by the Society"
Are the Rest of Us "Second Class" UC Employees?
What does Angstadt mean? I bet most Laboratory employees were and still
are under the impression that Laboratory personnel policies have to conform
to UC's systemwide policies, unless the University grants a specific exception.
In fact, the close connection to UC is one of the big advertising carrots
used when recruiting scientists and engineers. Now the Lab tells us that
we are mistaken in our impression of being linked to UC's policies. Instead,
at some point in time--certainly after the 1986 handbook was published--LLNL
switched us from UC's policies to LLNL policies--and no word about this
anywhere, no public discussion, just total silence. Without notification
we have become "second class" UC employee.**
Management's "F" Word
In total disregard of SPSE's unfair practice charge, LLNL has continued
to propose and implement changes to its personnel policies. One example
of the Lab's dubious new course is management's big "F"-word of
the `90's: "Flexibility." Our management is introducing so-called
"Flexible Status Employees," i.e., "Restricted Status"
employees who have no rights, and can be "fired" without cause
or reason. Once "Flexible Status" is a valid job category, how
many job postings do you think will still be open to us "career employees
with their highly inconvenient rights?"
SPSE Petitioned PERB for Injunction
On February 9, 1998, the UC approved Livermore's "Flexible Status Employees"
policy. On February 17, SPSE took a bold legal step, asking PERB to petition
a judge for an injunction against UC and the Lab. This was an attempt to
block the Lab from implementing any policy changes until the unfair practice
charges have been resolved. We sent a press release to several local papers
(see below). Unfortunately, PERB denied our request on February 25, but
left the door open to renew the request later.
Court Room Drama
OK, we had to take a rain check on the injunction. However, on the very
next day, during the first day of the PERB hearing, the Administrative Law
Judge denied UC's request for dismissal of our unfair practice charge. Score
one point for the employees.
What followed had all the action of a Perry Mason drama. There were witnesses on both sides (SPSE had Bruce Kelly and Richard White; UC had Susan Angstadt and Lubbe Levin, Assistant Vice President for Human Resources). There were sworn written declarations. There was sworn testimony. There was cross-examination.
UC claimed that in 1979 LLNL began to operate under policies that were similar, but disjoint from UC's Staff Personnel Policies at the campuses. UC's major policy change in July 1996 applied only to the campus-wide policies, and therefore UC did not need to notify LLNL employees of that change.
The judge then signed a subpoena, ordering UC to search their records to find any documents indicating that the Lab after 1979 had not been under the UC Staff Personnel Policies, as claimed by UC.
As of the second day of the hearing, UC had not been able to produce such documents, and PERB postponed the hearing until early April. SPSE, on the other hand, presented numerous documents that indicated that the policy split never took place. The judge's ruling may come in April, and it is likely that the defeated party will file an appeal, thus delaying a final resolution by many months.
What's at Stake?
SPSE, on behalf of all employees, is fighting a battle for:
This is a battle to regain our status as first class employees of UC./Patrick Weidhaas
Dear Sir/Madam,
At the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the "Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers" (SPSE) is fighting a legal battle against the University of California. The details are covered in the attached press release that went to three local papers (Valley Times, Tri-Valley Herald, and Independent) on Friday, February 20.
Beyond our immediate concern, expressed in the press release about the weakening link to UC, the bigger picture deals with the civilian oversight of the Nation's nuclear weapons complex.
By decoupling the LLNL personnel policies from the basic UC policies, the Lab's Director, Bruce Tarter, is allowed to run the Laboratory more like a private corporation than the public service organization it is. Corporate efficiency in government is laudable, but not when academic freedom and public accountability are at risk. We are very concerned about UC taking the path of least resistance and acquiescing to the Director's course.
In the past, the University was careful that approved changes to the Laboratory's policies kept the Laboratory in line with the university-wide policies. That practice has given way to one of rubber-stamping any policy changes desired by the Lab's Director. Ultimately, the accountability of DOE-UC-managed weapons laboratories to the public will suffer. Let's face it, in terms of nuclear safety, environmental controls, and waste management, this community under the Department of Energy has a poor track record.
We believe that of the three agencies involved, only UC instills confidence in civilian oversight. The only way that UC can continue to live up to this confidence is by vigorously enforcing university-wide policies at the weapons laboratories (LANL, LLNL, LBNL).
Perhaps you will find this an issue you or your readers would like to explore. It is certainly an issue that is on our minds at LLNL. We welcome any questions you may have about this issue.
Sincerely,
George Craig and Patrick Weidhaas
Editors, SPSE Newsletter
On Tuesday, the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers (SPSE) took legal action to halt proposed changes in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) personnel policies. SPSE petitioned the California State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to seek a court order prohibiting any policy changes until an unfair labor practice charge filed by SPSE is resolved by PERB. During the next several days PERB will investigate the basis and urgency of SPSE's petition and decide on whether to seek an immediate injunction.
SPSE filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB in October 1996 against the University of California (UC) which manages the Livermore Lab. The charge claimed that UC made substantial changes in the personnel policies affecting LLNL personnel without prior notification to employees. California law requires that UC and the Laboratory give prior notice to Lab employees before changing personnel policies. They are supposed to promote thorough discussion and seek employee input before any changes are made.
In July 1996, the University made sweeping changes in the UC systemwide personnel policies. A new "Personnel Policies for UC Staff Members" was installed and the prior "Staff Personnel Policy Manual" was eliminated. During the development of the new policies, campuses across the state were brought into the discussion. The UC President's Office instructed LLNL's Director at least twice to inform Lab employees that these changes were planned and told him to encourage thorough discussion. The Director ignored the President's instructions. The Lab employees were never notified of the impending changes.
The new UC systemwide policy did represent a major change for the LLNL personnel. The new UC policy eliminated the linkage between the UC and LLNL personnel policies, and changed the basis on which future changes to the LLNL personnel policy are made. In the past, LLNL personnel policies were the same as UC's except that some modifications to fit LLNL's special needs were permitted, if approved by the UC President. The new UC policy removes the language about "modifications" of UC Staff Personnel Policies and states that employees at the Department of Energy Laboratories "are covered by approved variations of these and prior policies. ...Employees at the laboratories should consult local policy documents for information about policies that apply to them."
By these changes, the many improvements in employee rights contained in the new UC policies do not flow through to LLNL employees. For example, UC policies now give employees the right to final and binding arbitration in disputes involving discrimination, hours of work, vacation, sick leave, holidays, leaves of absence, shift and weekend differential pay, and reprisal, as well as those involving layoff, disciplinary action, and termination. Under LLNL policy, arbitration decisions, except for the last three items, are only advisory to the Director.
LLNL now proposes to create a new class of "Restricted Status" Employees who can be terminated at will. In parallel, the concept of Term Employees will be phased out. This is an example of the erosion of LLNL employee rights that may slip by UC because the Lab is no longer required to conform to UC's personnel policies. The UC personnel policies, both prior and current, treat staff employed for longer than thirteen months as being in a career position. The UC policy does include provisions for layoff of career employees if necessary due to lack of funds or lack of work, and thus provides management with adequate flexibility.
SPSE found out about the UC policy changes affecting LLNL employees months after the policy changes were already adopted. We promptly filed an unfair labor practice charge. PERB will conduct a hearing on this charge later this month but they estimate it will take more than a year to get a final decision through the lengthy appeals process. In the meantime, the Laboratory is making changes in LLNL policies that diverge radically from UC's policies and adversely affect employee rights.
SPSE is seeking the injunction to block policy changes that will later have to be reversed if SPSE prevails in the unfair practice charges. There is a danger that personnel actions based upon proposed policy changes will damage employees in ways that are not reversible. For example, hiring and firing Restricted Status Employees, or denying final and binding arbitration to settle a dispute may have irreversible consequences.
Whether or not the court issues an injunction against the Laboratory, the action on the unfair practice charge will go forward. PERB's hearing on the unfair practice will begin at the Kaiser Center in Oakland on February 26.
If PERB sustains the unfair labor practice charge, then we will be back to the starting gate. The change separating LLNL from UC personnel policy will be void, but LLNL management could propose it again with a round of notification, comment, and submittal to the UC President's Office for approval. During this process the LLNL staff members would have the SPSE is a union of the scientists and engineers at LLNL. It formed in 1973 and has continuously fought to preserve employee rights at the Laboratory since then. SPSE's offices are located at 4047 First Street in Livermore, CA. The office phone is (510) 449-4846. The SPSE web page is at: www.spse.org and e-mail can be directed to spse@spse.org.
The press release referred questions to Bruce Kelly, Richard White, A. Thomas Sinclair, and William O'Connell.
The SPSE Board meets during noontime on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at varying locations at the Lab. Members are urged to attend and participate. For locations, call the SPSE office hours are Monday, Noon to 4:00 pm; and Tuesday through Friday, 8:00 am to Noon.
1998 Executive Board | ||
| Officers: | Members: | |
| President Kalina Wong | Sandra Brewer | Tom Reitter |
| President-elect Hilary Kauffman | George Craig | Ralph Riviello |
| Secretary Bruce Kelly | Rollin Harding | Norman Thomas |
| Treasurer Dave Lappa | John Hobson | Patrick Weidhaas |
| Bill O'Connell | Richard Yamauchi | |
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/