National Border Patrol Council - LOCAL 1613 BLOG

Heat Wave Safety Tips from NOAA

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:37:00 +0000

Please review the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s article about Heat Wave Safety Tips (click the title above). The article also presents NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index (see below) and explains how to understand the Heat Index.

There is an important note about the Heat Index table that must be considered when reading it: HI values were devised for shady, light wind conditions; therefore exposure to full sunlight can increase HI values by up to 15°F. In addition, strong winds with very hot, dry air can be extremely dangerous.

Two recommendations for preventing heat stress are out of our control: wear lightweight clothing to allow free air movement and wear light-colored clothing to reflect the heat and sunlight. As we all know, the Border Patrol uniform is dark colored which means it absorbs heat and sunlight; and the new rough-duty uniform is extremely thick which means it prevents free air movement. When the body armor is worn in addition to the thick, dark-colored rough-duty uniform, it will drastically affect your body temperature and your ability to keep your body temperatures normal.

Please take this seriously and protect yourself and your partners in the field.

NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index:

"The FBI - Antennae of Death"

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:32:00 +0000

"The FBI" is a show that aired in the 1970's. This particular episode, "The Antennae of Death" is based on the true story about Border Patrol Inspectors Theodore L. Newton Jr. and George F. Azrak (names, locations, etc. were changed, as indicated at the end of the video). Thanks to Harold Newton, brother of Theodore Newton, we received a copy of a link to this show after Harold spent time searching for the show ever since he first viewed it in the 70's. According to Harold, this episode aired on November 29, 1970. Click on the above title to view the video.

To read more about Border Patrol Insectors Newton and Azrak, click here:

The murderer, Jesus Navarro Montes

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:40:00 +0000

The following is a copy of the letter I sent this morning to all five San Diego members of the House of Representatives and both California Senators. I encourage all Border Patrol Agents and citizens to take action and demand a satisfactory outcome in this travesty of justice.

Dear Congressman Hunter,

I am writing to you on behalf of the 1600 Border Patrol Agents who serve in the San Diego Sector of the United States Border Patrol. It is with utter disbelief and a great deal of anger that our agents have learned that Jesus Navarro Montes, the murderer of Senior Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar, Jr., was released from a Mexican jail for “time served.” Even more galling is the possibility that this occurred due to the fact that the United States Department of Justice failed to file charges or request Montes’s extradition from the Mexican government.

This situation is unacceptable. Border Patrol Agents are not expendable pawns to be cast aside when it suits the U.S. government. Over 100 Border Patrol Agents have given their lives while defending this country against the dangers of criminals and drugs. Their sacrifice and especially that of Agent Luis Aguilar, Jr., cannot be forgotten or allowed to go unpunished because of neglect or bureaucratic mistakes.

Mexico is the recipient of billions of U.S. dollars in trade, foreign aid, and assistance to fight criminal smuggling organizations. This represents quite a bit of leverage that could be used to put pressure on the Mexican government to re-arrest Jesus Navarro Montes and extradite him to the United States where he should stand trial for murder. Agent Aguilar deserves nothing less and Border Patrol Agents will accept nothing less.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning this matter. I appreciate your time and concern for this most important subject.

Sincerely,
Shawn P. Moran

Border Patrol Agents Mourn the Loss of a Border Patrol Agent

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:02:00 +0000

National Border Patrol Council - Local 1613 (San Diego, CA) is deeply saddened to report the death of San Diego Sector Border Patrol Agent Jarod Dittman. Agent Dittman was traveling on Otay Lakes Road when the Jeep he was driving rolled over. The cause of the vehicle accident is being investigated by the California Highway Patrol.

Agent Dittman entered on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol on March 5, 2007. He was assigned to the Brown Field Border Patrol Station.

Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and coworkers during this difficult time.

San Diego Sector management continues to display contempt for your Union

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:39:00 +0000

NBPC Local 1613 has been forced to file another grievance recently regarding violations of two agreements that were made in 1998 and were honored by San Diego Sector for the past ten years. The following is the official grievance which was submitted to the Agency:

[GRIEVANCE - BEGIN]

March 3, 2008

Michael Fisher
Chief Patrol Agent
United States Border Patrol
2411 Boswell Road
Chula Vista, CA 91914

RE: Union Initiated Grievance

Chief Fisher,

The following constitutes a Union-initiated grievance filed in accordance with Article 33 F. of the 1995 Agreement between U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and National Border Patrol Council (hereafter referred to only as CBA). As per Article 33 F (2) of the CBA, I have been designated by T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), to file this grievance.

The Union determined the violations complained of herein occurred as a result of actions initiated by San Diego Sector Labor and Employee Relations (LERS) Specialist Ralph DeSio and Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Richard Barlow. In accordance with Article 33 J of the CBA, if management deems this to be an inappropriate level for this grievance, the grievance will be considered timely and management will forward the grievance to the level it designates as being responsible for the action being grieved.

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2008, the NBPC submitted a request, in accordance with Article 7 F (2) of the CBA, for Union representatives to attend Union representative training on April 1, 2008 through April 3, 2008.

On February 11, 2008, Bobby Artis, Labor Relations Specialist (LRS), responded to the NBPC’s request and approved the training. However, LRS Artis said: “…local managers may authorize the use of official time for training by the designated NBPC representatives to attend the training…”

On the same day, LERS Ralph DeSio sent an email to Chris Bauder, NBPC Local 1613 Union President, regarding the NBPC training request. The email stated, in pertinent part:

Chris, Sector is in receipt of the attached request for official-time for the April 1-3, 2008 NBPC Training. Sector will only approve 30 man-days for this event which would imply 10 employees for the 3-days. The present list indicates 16 employees. Could you please provide me with an adjusted list that will support the 30 man-days so that I may check with the stations to ensure that the release of the employees is feasible?

Bauder called LERS DeSio on the same date to discuss the email. Bauder asked LERS DeSio why San Diego Sector was ignoring the prior local agreement from 1998 and the subsequent long-standing past practice that allowed the Union to go beyond the thirty “man day” maximum set forth in the CBA. LERS DeSio acknowledged there was a local agreement, but challenged the past practice. LERS DeSio said he believed management retained the right to approve or disapprove attendees.

Bauder explained how he was present during the meeting in 1998, and the parties agreed they would no longer be bound by the maximum number of man-days set forth under Article 7 F (1). Bauder said under the agreement, management retained the right to approve or disapprove attendees; however, management agreed they would only exercise their right if the number of attendees negatively impacted the operations at a specific station. Bauder asserted the current requested number of attendees was not unreasonable or excessive and should have minimal impact, if any, on the station’s operations. LERS DeSio agreed fifteen representatives was a reasonable number in a sector with over 1500 agents assigned to eight different stations.

LERS DeSio acknowledged San Diego Sector allowed Local 1613 to exceed the maximum number of man-days in previous years. However, he claimed the variances were only due to management’s decision and not the agreement or past practice. LERS DeSio also said he informed DCPA Barlow of the previous years where Local 1613 exceeded the maximum number of man-days. LERS DeSio said he would forward the information to DCPA Barlow for further review.

On February 21, 2008, LERS DeSio sent another email to Bauder. The email stated:

After our February 11, 2008, discussion related to your request and reasons that the Agency should grant 16 employees three man-days each for the April-1-3 NBPC Training, it went to the Deputy for further review.

The Deputy has directed the releasing of 10 union officials to use the 30-man-days for the three-day event as provided for by Article 7, Section F (1) of the national labor agreement. Anything above 10 will be allowed Annual Leave to attend the training IF the stations are not operationally impacted. That determination will be made at the station level. Therefore, this means the union will have to, at a minimum; reduce its request from 16 union officials to 10. Further, you will have to tell the Agency which 10 union officials will use the man-days so this can be coordinated with the stations for consideration to its work load requirements and proper entry into time and attendance records. Please provide the list at the soonest possible time so it can be effectively processed.

On the same day, Bauder replied to LERS DeSio’s email. The reply stated, in pertinent part:

As you expected, I will be filing a grievance on this matter. In the meantime, you can remove Shawn Moran and me from the list since we are on official time and our names probably should never have been included in that list, due to the prior agreement regarding the full-time positions. In addition, you can remove [name removed] from that list. I believe I told you before that his name would be removed. Finally, all other names shall remain on the list, but instead of three days for training, each will be utilizing only two days for training in combination with a/l since they have to request a/l for the business meeting anyway, which will result in the local only utilizing 26 man-days. I will be speaking with the representatives and if any of them are not interested in using two days of a/l for this event, I will inform you of those individuals so their names can be removed from the list. If you need clarification, please feel free to call me.

On March 3, 2008, LERS DeSio sent the following email to Bauder:

Chris - you said you would be speaking with you representatives and if any of them are not interested in using two days of Annual Leave or this event, you would let me know so their names can be removed from the list. Are there any adjustments to make?

Also – the Agency recognizes you and Shawn Moran on 100% official time for your regular Monday through Friday work week under Article 7 (A) to perform representational duties under Article 7 A 4 (a-h). However, Article 7 (F) 1 is not for representational duties but rather to attend training approved by management. Consequently, the Agency does not agree with your position that you and Mr. Moran should be excluded from the presented list of attendees to attend the training on April-1-3. Therefore, the present list minus [name removed] reflects 15 representatives - and with the use of annual leave for a day would constitute the full use of 30 man-days. Also, as stated earlier, the Deputy had approved 10 representatives to attend. The authority beyond the 10 has not yet been given. Once the final list is presented and the breakdown of man-days and annual leave is determined, it will be re-presented to the Deputy for consideration.

On March 7, 2008, Bauder spoke with DCPA Barlow. During the phone call, Bauder discussed LERS DeSio’s emails, and the agreement and subsequent past practice from 1998. Bauder explained how this was the first time in ten years since the agreement was made that the Union experienced problems with sector management approving attendees for training. DCPA Barlow said he did not believe he should have to abide by an agreement made with a previous Chief. Bauder explained the sole purpose of the agreement was to not be restricted by the thirty man-days set forth in Article 7 (F) 1 so that an adequate number of Union representatives could be properly trained to fulfill their duties under the CSRA.

DCPA Barlow said he spoke with someone in Labor and Employee Relations (LER) who informed him of the thirty man-days maximum under the CBA. He said LER told him every other sector was abiding by the thirty man-days and San Diego Sector should do the same. He also said LER informed him the CBA took precedence over local agreements and past practices. The Union explained there was case law from the FLRA that contradicted the guidance from LER. DCPA Barlow said he would allow fifteen representatives to attend, but they would only be approved for two days of administrative leave instead of three days. He also said station management had the final decision based on the impact to their operations.

Bauder asked DCPA Barlow about LERS DeSio’s email that misrepresented the terms of the local agreement pertaining to the full-time Union positions. DCPA Barlow said LER informed him of those terms. Bauder explained he was present during the meeting in 1998 and none of the terms cited in LERS DeSio’s email were ever discussed during the meeting. Again, DCPA Barlow reiterated his belief that he should not be bound by agreements made with previous Chiefs. Bauder provided the background for both agreements and discussed the underlying reasons for the agreements.

Bauder also discussed the term “administrative excusal”, as written in Article 7 F (1). The Union contends the term “administrative excusal” implies an excusal from the regular duties as a Border Patrol Agent. Since the two Union officials are currently serving in a full-time Union capacity, the parties understood in 1998 there would be no reason for a full-time Union official to request approval in advance for administrative excusal from his/her duties as a Border Patrol Agent to attend training when the full-time Union official is already administratively excused from his/her regular duties. DCPA Barlow disagreed and said his decision, which was based on guidance from LER, was final and the two full-time Union officers would now have to request approval in advance to be administratively excused from their full-time Union duties to attend Union training.

DCPA Barlow expressed his disapproval of content on the Local 1613 official website and blog. Specifically, he was upset about a picture of the Chief of the Border Patrol appearing as a puppet and on a Mexican Peso. He said he was dissatisfied with an article on the Union’s blog about Michael Fisher, Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) for San Diego Sector. DCPA Barlow insisted the article regarding CPA Fisher was inaccurate but he did not provide any specific references to inaccurate content.

DCPA Barlow informed the Union how he would meet with the Union in the future under two conditions. The first condition was the meeting would have to be restricted to one hour. The second condition was Local 1613 would have to remove all negative content from the official Union website and blog before he would meet. He further explained how the Union would be required to meet with him to resolve any issues before the Union could post any negative content on the Union’s official website or blog.

On March 10, 2008, for the first time since the training was approved by LRS Artis, LERS DeSio notified station management of the list of attendees and the dates for the training. LERS DeSio informed station management that the final decision to release a Union representative for the training was subject to workload review and the station’s ability to allow a representative to be absent during that period.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

During a labor-management relations meeting in 1998, San Diego Sector and NBPC – Local 1613 entered into a local agreement regarding training for Union representatives. According to the local agreement, the parties would no longer be bound by the maximum number of man-days for Union representatives to attend training, as outlined in Article 7 F (1). In addition, the parties agreed:

1. The Union would make every effort to provide training to Union representatives prior to certifying a person as a Local 1613 representative, when possible.

2. The Union would advise management in advance of any training that was to be conducted for Union representatives or prospective representatives;

3. The Union would provide management an advance list of attendees for the training. The number of attendees for a particular event would be reasonable and would take into consideration the needs of the Service so as to avoid negatively impacting the operations at a given station;

4. Management retained the right to reduce the number of attendees assigned to a station if management believed the number of attendees was unreasonable and would negatively impact the operations at the station where the attendees were assigned;

5. If the Union identified training offered by a third party (EEO, OWCP, FLRA, etc.) that appeared to be of mutual concern to the Service and the Union, and appropriate for joint training of management officials and Union representatives, then the Union would provide advance notice to management about the training so management could consider sending management officials with those requested to attend on behalf of the Union.

There were many reasons for this agreement, some of which are outlined below:

1. The agreement resulted from a discussion initiated by Chief William T. Veal. Specifically, Chief Veal asked about the increasing number of grievances and Unfair Labor Practices filed improperly by Union representatives.

In response, Union officers explained how Article 7 F. (1) of the CBA restricted the number of representatives who could attend training in a year. The Union discussed how Union representatives, unlike any other collateral duty in San Diego Sector, were expected to attend training on their day off or annual leave. As a result, Local 1613 had been forced to certify representatives without ever providing training due to the maximum number of man-days imposed by the CBA.

2. Both parties recognized the growth in the bargaining unit since 1995 when the CBA was signed and acknowledged the bargaining unit in San Diego Sector was expected to double by the year 2000. This meant the number of Union representatives at each station increased to accommodate the growth in the bargaining unit. Both parties questioned how a sector with 200 employees received the same number of man-days as a sector with 2000 employees.

Since signing this agreement, CPA William T. Veal, CPA Darryl E. Griffen, DCPA Harold Beasley, DCPA Paul Blocker, and all current and past (Acting) CPA’s, (Acting) DCPA’s, ACPA’s and (Acting) ACPA’s abided by the agreement and refrained from declining training for representatives because of the thirty man-day limit set forth in the CBA. The above mentioned officials never denied official time for training for representatives, never requested an adjustment to the list of attendees, nor have they ever refused to allow the Union to participate in training offered by third parties. Furthermore, the Union consistently fulfilled their obligation to take into consideration the impact to operations when identifying attendees for each station, and when possible, avoided certifying representatives before providing representative training.

The only reasons provided by the Agency for violating the local agreement were:

1. DCPA Barlow believes he does not have to abide by agreements made with previous Chiefs;

2. DCPA Barlow stated his decision was based upon the following LER guidance:

a. Article 7 F (1) of the CBA provided a maximum of thirty man-days for Union representative training and since every other sector was abiding by the CBA, San Diego Sector should do the same;

b. The CBA takes precedence over a local agreement or past practice, regardless of how long the agreement or practice has existed;

3. LERS DeSio believed management retained the right, under the local agreement, to limit the number of attendees without any rational justification.

To date, management has not mentioned the impact to operations at the stations where the attendees are assigned. Instead, LERS DeSio waited until March 10, 2008 to send the first correspondence about this training event to station management.

During the meeting in 1998, San Diego Sector and NBPC – Local 1613 also entered into a local agreement regarding two full-time Union positions. None of the terms cited in LERS DeSio’s email were ever discussed or stipulated during the meeting. Regrettably, it appears someone in LER dishonorably falsified the terms of the local agreement to justify the current violation. At the meeting, San Diego Sector management never attempted to limit the full-time positions to a Monday through Friday workweek; they never stipulated the positions only perform representational duties as outlined under Article 7 A 4 (a-h); and they never intended for the full-time officials to request approval in advance to attend training. As previously explained, both parties understood it was unnecessary to require a full-time Union official to request approval in advance to be administratively excused from his/her full-time Union duties to attend Union training.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

The Union contends DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio violated the following sections of the CBA, local agreements reached between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector in 1998, and the subsequent long-standing past practices that were established over the past ten years as a result of the local agreements:

1. The local agreement between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector from 1998 said the parties would not be bound by the maximum number of man-days set forth for in Article 7 F. (1) of the CBA, as previously outlined above.

DCPA Barlow did not challenge the existence of the agreement and subsequent past practice. Instead, DCPA Barlow provided three immaterial excuses to justify the unilateral abrogation of the local agreement.

LERS DeSio only challenged the past practice, but acknowledged Local 1613 had exceeded the maximum number of man-days in previous years. LERS DeSio believed management retained the right to limit the number of attendees under the agreement. He said neither the agreement nor the past practice required management to automatically approve the list of attendees. The Union informed LERS DeSio his belief was in part true, but under the agreement, management’s right to deny attendees was triggered by an impact to station operations, not the restriction regarding thirty man-days.

Neither LERS DeSio nor DCPA Barlow ever asserted a negative impact to operations, nor did they attempt to allege the number was unreasonable. On the contrary, LERS DeSio agreed fifteen representatives was a reasonable number in a sector with over 1500 agents assigned to eight different stations.

2. The local agreement between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector from 1998 regarding two full-time Union positions.

Someone in LER dishonorably falsified the local agreement regarding the two full-time Union officials. None of the criteria cited in LERS DeSio’s email was mentioned during the meeting in 1998. The parties understood the bargaining unit worked twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and for this reason, the full-time Union officials were not restricted to a Monday through Friday workweek. The parties also never specified the full-time positions were only authorized to perform representational duties under Article 7 A 4 (a) – (h) since the parties recognized there were other duties that did not fall within the list which could lawfully be performed by representatives, as is evident by the last paragraph of Article 7 A 4.

The parties also established the full-time positions would be administratively excused from performing their regular duties as Border Patrol Agents to perform full-time duties as Union officials. For this reason, the parties recognized the full-time Union officials would not be required to request approval in advance to attend training since the full-time Union officials would already be administratively excused from their regular duties.

3. Article 3A, A, which states, in pertinent part:

The parties recognize that from time to time during the life of the agreement, the need will arise requiring the change of existing Service regulations covering personnel policies, practices, and/or working conditions not covered by this agreement. The Service shall present the changes it wishes to make to existing rules, regulations and existing practices to the Union.

The Union never received advance notice from DCPA Barlow about the changes he wished to make to the local agreements and subsequent past practices. Instead, he unilaterally abrogated the agreement and long-standing past practice regarding training for Union representatives and he unilaterally changed the agreement and long-standing past practice regarding training for the full-time Union officials.

4. Article 6 A. which states:

The Service shall not impose any restraint (except as may otherwise be provided in the CSRA or this agreement), interference, coercion, or discrimination against employees in the exercise of their rights to organize and designate representatives of their choosing for the purposes of collective bargaining, Labor-Management Relations, or upon duly designated employee representatives acting on behalf of an employee or group of employees within the bargaining unit.

The Union contends DCPA Barlow revealed his objective in violating the local agreements when he announced the conditions to the Union about meeting with him. The Union argues the conditions that require the Union to remove all negative material from the Union’s official website and blog and to avoid posting any negative material in the future without first speaking with DCPA Barlow is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the lawful activities of Union officials and coerce Union officials into compliance with his personal preferences.

The Union did not play a role in destroying the positive labor-management relationship that evolved in the San Diego Sector since 1998. Up until late 2006, San Diego Sector honored existing agreements and past practices and preserved the effective means of communication between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector. Since late 2006, San Diego Sector unilaterally abrogated or modified several local agreements and subsequent past practices, and dismantled the effective means of communication between the parties at the sector level. Consequently, the content which DCPA Barlow deems negative is merely a reaction to San Diego Sector management’s actions in the past two years. Instead of imposing unlawful conditions on the Union, DCPA Barlow should compare the counterproductive actions of San Diego Sector management in the past two years to the positive labor-management relationship which existed prior to 2006 to understand how to achieve his goal of preventing negative content on the Union’s official website and blog.

5. Article 7 F (1), which states:

The Service agrees that official leave may be administratively authorized for Union representatives to attend training approved by Management which is designed to advise representatives on matters within the scope of the CSRA, which are of mutual concern to the Service and the Union. Administrative excusal for this purpose will not exceed ten (10) man days per fiscal year for each Sector with less than 50 employees, 20 man days per year for each sector with 50-199 employees, 30 man days per year for each Sector with more than 200 employees, and 20 man days per year for the Council.

As previously explained, the Union contends the local agreements from 1998 modified Article 7 of the CBA. However, DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio disregarded those local agreements and subsequent past-practices. Therefore, if DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio intend to hold the Union to a strict interpretation of the CBA in violation of the local agreements/past practices, then they should be mindful of their obligations under the Article they claim they are enforcing.

The Union insists the delays in responding to the request were due in part to the improper interpretation of Article 7 F (1). LERS DeSio consistently stated Local 1613 was required to reduce the list to just ten attendees because of the thirty man-day restriction. However, the Union asserted the local agreement and subsequent past practice took precedent. Nevertheless, to avoid further delays and to comply with the Agency’s unlawful request, the Union modified the use of the man-days so each representative could attend by using only two days of official time in conjunction with their annual leave and/or scheduled days off.

LERS DeSio still attempted to restrict the number of representatives to just ten; however, nothing in the CBA gives the Agency the authority to dictate how the Union will use the thirty man-days. For example, the Union believes the Union retains the right, under Article 7 F (1), to determine how to use the thirty man-days. If the Union chooses to send thirty representatives to a three-day training event, with each representative only using one man-day for purposes of official leave, the only authority the Agency has regarding this decision is whether or not the thirty representatives can be administratively excused without negatively impacting the operations at a station.

Even after the Union asserted the right to determine how we intended to use those man-days, LERS DeSio still indicated DCPA Barlow only authorized ten representatives to attend the training. As previously mentioned, DCPA Barlow’s only reason for limiting the number to ten representatives was the maximum of thirty man-days, not the operational needs of a particular station. LERS DeSio’s assertion that DCPA Barlow must still approve the 15 is not based on any authority under Article 7 F (1) of the CBA; especially since the stations still had not been contacted to determine how many representatives could be released from the respective stations. That determination was not delegated to the stations until LERS DeSio sent an email to station management on March 10, 2008.

6. Article 7 F (2), which states, in pertinent part:

Management shall notify the Union of its decision no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the agenda.

Based upon the previously cited chronological list of events, the Union contends the delays in responding to this issue are completely unnecessary and are rather ironic considering the fact LERS DeSio and DCPA Barlow claim they were enforcing the terms of the CBA. LERS DeSio and DCPA Barlow should have been mindful of the fifteen days that are provided for management’s decision. Prior to the email LERS DeSio sent to station management officials on March 10, 2008, DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio never cited a negative impact to a station; yet the impact to operations should have been the only basis for denying representatives under the local agreement and Article 7 F.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

The FLRA has held a condition of employment is established when a past practice is established over a long period of time. In Department of the Navy, Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN and AFGE, Local 1744, 5-CA-80431; 36 FLRA No. 65; 36 FLRA 567 (August 10, 1990), the Authority found the employer committed an Unfair Labor Practice when the employer violated 5 USC 7116(a)(1) and (5) by changing the procedure for scheduling official time for representational meetings. The Authority rejected the employer’s argument that the matter was set forth in the contract since the past practice was established.

In U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and POPA, 39 FLRA No. 130; 39 FLRA 1477 (March 27, 1991), the FLRA concluded the employer could not unilaterally change a past practice in an attempt to conform with the collective bargaining agreement. In 31 FLRA 952, the Authority initially concluded that the unilateral implementation of the changes did not constitute an Unfair Labor Practice. However, the Union appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court, 872, F.2d 451 (89 FLRR 1-8013) and the court disagreed with the FLRA. On remand, the FLRA accepted the Court’s interpretation and determined a past practice did exist, which permitted official time for both grievance and non-grievance issues. The FLRA rejected the employer’s argument that the action was an attempt to enforce the contract and explained that an Agency may not change a past practice even if the established practice differs from the express terms of the parties’ agreement.

REQUESTED REMEDIES

The Union hereby requests the following remedies to resolve this grievance:

1. The Bureau shall cease and desist from:

a. Unilaterally changing conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees by changing existing past practices.

b. Unilaterally abrogating the local agreement regarding training for Union representatives;

c. Unilaterally modifying the local agreement regarding the full-time positions;

d. Violating the CBA, particularly Articles 3A A, 6 A, and 7 F.

2. Immediate and full compliance with Articles 3A A, 6 A, and 7 F of the CBA;

3. Immediate and full adherence to the provisions of law, the CBA, local agreements, and subsequent past practices, including the rescission of all unilateral changes and a return to the status quo ante and the maintenance thereof until such time the parties mutually agree to changes in past practices and/or contractual provisions;

4. For all representatives who were forced to use one day of annual leave to attend the third day of training, the Bureau shall restore the annual leave to the representative’s leave balance;

5. The Bureau shall be responsible for any financial losses caused to the Local for the untimely response to the Union’s request for official time to attend the training.

Due to the twenty-nine plus days it took for the Bureau to determine how to terminate, violate, and misrepresent the local agreements and subsequent past practices, the Union was forced to postpone notifying attendees. This resulted in a significant delay in reserving lodging and airfare. The Union contends the Bureau is responsible if Union representatives are charged a higher rate for lodging or airfare than the rates offered at the time the request was supposed to be adjudicated.

In accordance with Article 33 F. (1), the Union is prepared to meet to discuss this grievance. Please feel free to contact me directly to schedule a meeting regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Bauder

San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher shows contempt for your Union

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:17:00 +0000

Since taking over as Chief, San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher has destroyed the positive labor-management relationship that evolved between San Diego Sector management and Local 1613 since 1998. This is the first time since I have been a Union representative that I can honestly say I now understand why Union officials act the way they do in some locations. How is the Union supposed to respond when the management official in charge of San Diego Sector shows complete contempt for your Union and prior agreements without any rational explanation?

For the past nine years, I have participated in meetings between sector management and the Union. I witnessed the labor-management relationship evolve into an effective forum for resolving labor-management disputes. Chief Fisher, without considering the history of labor-management relations in the San Diego Sector, decided that the relationship was non-existent, eliminated the management-labor workgroup, and essentially terminated all effective communications between your Union and sector management. In addition, Chief Fisher has attempted to unilaterally terminate several prior agreements without even providing the Union as much as a courtesy notice.

Chief Fisher decided that he can do a better job than you in selecting your representatives. So, instead of meeting with your elected representatives, Chief Fisher formed a new workgroup called the Radar Screen Workgroup. Each station sends participants, which in some locations, the participants were hand-picked by management and in other locations the participants were selected by the Detail Management Team. In addition, supervisors were sent to represent your interests.

Now, I realize some may argue that we have always had workgroups in the past (i.e. Quality Initiative Workgroup). However, there is a major difference between the past workgroups and Chief Fisher’s workgroup. In the past, anything that was proposed by a workgroup of bargaining unit members and supervisors was presented to the Union prior to implementation. Under Chief Fisher, the Union is bypassed and whatever is proposed is implemented, regardless of what the majority of you may want or desire.

One of your elected Union representatives attended the last Radar Screen Workgroup. During the meeting, your elected representative listened to Chief Fisher as he praised the workgroup for their ideas. Ironically, a majority of the ideas he praised them for were ideas that were presented by the Union in the past and rejected by Chief Fisher. The following is a list of items from the last workgroup meeting:

1. Within Sector transfers-VRP should now allow for in-sector laterals.

In 1999 and then again in 2005, Local 1613 proposed a system for San Diego Sector Agents to transfer to another station within SDC at no cost to the government. The main difference between the Local 1613 proposal and the Office of Border Patrol’s VRP was that the selections were to be made by seniority since the government was not paying the agent to move. Another difference is that every station in sector would have a predetermined number of openings and every agent in sector, regardless of location, would be eligible to participate.

Chief Griffen was in favor of this program, as was every other management official who we spoke with during our negotiations. However, when Chief Fisher took over, the Union learned that Chief Fisher abandoned the idea. Chief Fisher never had the courtesy to notify the Union of his decision.

As for the VRP now handling in-sector transfers, we will have to wait and see what happens. We have already learned that there are several restrictions on which stations are participating, but for unknown reasons, that information is secret. Furthermore, does anyone understand the purpose behind asking an agent to fill out an application, as if they were applying for a new job, when the agent is just requesting a transfer from one location to another? Clearly the purpose of this application is to make it easier for management to deny a transfer for personal reasons. This is why Chief Fisher prefers this system for in-sector transfers.

2. Create or update station standard operating procedures

After witnessing the manner in which some stations responded or didn’t respond after September 11, Local 1613 proposed that management review and update as necessary the SOP’s for the stations. In addition, we proposed that the agents be made aware of the SOP’s, specifically what was expected in an emergency.

3. BIC and station Intel units providing updates briefings at muster

When operations became more Intel driven and Intel units were given more authority, Local 1613 requested that agents in the field be better informed as to the Intel that was being gathered. One aspect of this request was that station Intel units provide updates at muster.

4. Additional manpower

Since 2001, Local 1613 repeatedly questioned the lack of manpower and resources in San Diego Sector that were necessary to operate under the current National Border Patrol Strategy. Local 1613 also requested that Imperial Beach station not flex east until the appropriate resources and manpower were provided to the station. However, under Chief Fisher, that flex occurred without any regard to the safety hazards that exist when there is an insufficient number of agents to occupy a given area, especially an area that is prone to a high number of assaults against agents.

5. Station to Station Standardization

Local 1613 consistently requested the standardization of policies throughout sector. This resulted in Chief Griffen forming the Standardization Workgroup, which consisted of management and Union representatives. In addition to standardizing the disciplinary process throughout the San Diego Sector, we attempted to standardize the DMT policies. Chief Veal and Chief Griffen supported a standardized DMT policy and Local 1613 worked with various management officials throughout SDC to develop a standardized sector DMT policy that would have resolved many issues that are present with the existing outdated policies. However, Chief Fisher rejected this standardized DMT policy and again, never had the courtesy to notify your elected Union representatives.

6. Contracted Hospital Watch

Hospital watch has been an ongoing problem since at least 2000. Previously, Local 1613 requested that Detention and Enforcement handle hospital watch, as this fell within their duties. When DHS was created and we lost all of our Detention and Enforcement Officers, Local 1613 asked management to consider contracting out that position to ICE since the DEO’s were now under ICE. In addition, Local 1613 proposed a hospital watch program that required two agents to oversee a detainee in the hospital. There were several reasons for this program, but the foremost reason was the liability issues involved when just one agent was assigned to a detainee. Under Chief Griffen, an agreement was reached that required two agents for hospital watch. Under Chief Fisher, this agreement is being dismantled without any discussions with your elected Union representatives.

7. Press releases will be sent to stations. Goal of having several releases per week carried by the media.

Although Local 1613 has not previously requested that the press releases be sent to the stations, we have routinely proposed that sector PIO become more aggressive in releasing positive news to the media for consideration. Since we deal with the media on a regular basis, we realize the media will ultimately choose what to publish, but that sector PIO should work toward challenging the media when they misrepresent the facts. The local’s proposal also discussed the perceived lack of support by management for agents who are involved in critical incidents.

8. Non-traditional awards of gift cards, etc. on a timely basis to agents and supervisors.

Local 1613 engaged in discussions with the previous Chief’s about awarding employees with other available means since the existing methods were restrictive. Although we never suggested gift cards since that money would have to be allocated or taken from the sector budget, we did propose that management award people with comp days. Due to our proposals, the previous Chief’s did award agents with comp days in certain situations. Under Chief Fisher, we are already hearing problems with the granting of comp days for certain situations (i.e. to reward agents who participated with the recent fires).

9. Team Leader, OIC development.

With the elimination of the Senior Patrol Agent position, as we knew it before the across the board positions were approved, Local 1613 proposed that management make every effort possible to provide agents with opportunities that once existed, like the Team Leader and Officer in Charge positions.

10. Limit time on sector details based on training and experience requirements.

As previously mentioned, Local 1613 worked with management officials under Chief Veal and Chief Griffen to revise the existing DMT policies and to standardize these policies into one sector policy. The revised sector DMT policy specifically addressed establishing a set time for details. However, Chief Fisher rejected the standardized sector-policy and instead is working to dismantle the DMT policies at your stations so that we can go back to the days of nepotism, cronyism, and control of the rank and file by fear of retaliation.

11. Early retirement training for agents.

Local 1613 has regularly requested additional retirement training for agents. At the last meeting we had with the now-dismantled labor-management workgroup, Local 1613 requested more training and that request was granted. We realized that the retirement training has always been disproportional to the amount of agents who need retirement training. Consequently, in the past, Local 1613 successfully sponsored retirement training for our members; however, that required coordination with sector officials. Under Chief Fisher, the only coordination we have observed is a coordinated effort to remove your Union from the workplace and to dismantle all the labor-management relations that were established over the past ten years.

A sampling of some of the other items raised by your management-appointed representatives:

Rapid response and dynamic operations based on threat assessments.
Rename sensors according to zones they are in.
More station level STRIKE teams.
Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
Sector Training to provide briefing of SDC Enforcement Strategy and National Border Patrol Strategy to agents and stations.
Briefings to stations regarding Special Ops Units and their missions.
Reorganization of Special Ops Division.
Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
Implemented online system to increase direct contact between field and the Chief.
Install flat-panel TVs in muster rooms.
Install Chief’s mailbox on Outlook.
CBPNet- Ask Chief Fisher icon.
Increased Command Staff visits to musters. (Anyone aware of these?)
Frontline Newsletter. 1000 copies will be sent to stations and units. Family news to be included.
Training with DCPA Barlow for new supervisors.
Sector Training to explain Intern responsibilities. Field Training Unit program and Post Academy to visit musters to explain.
More leadership training to be held at DTAC and Range.
Civilian analysts for Intel thus returning agents to the field.
Command 101 Program.
Technical Training Course for new supervisors.
Mentor program through Wilson for new supervisors.

As you can see by the above list, some of your management-appointed representatives were looking out for your best interest and attempting to resolve important issues that affect your conditions in the workplace. I am curious how many agents agree that the Agency should hire civilian analysts to handle Intel or how many agents wanted to learn more about the Special Ops units. More importantly, how many agents want to hear more propaganda about the National Border Patrol Strategy? I think it is safe to assume every agent has heard more than enough about this Strategy since Chief Fisher arrived in San Diego Sector.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Chief Fisher does not respect your right as an agent to be a member of a Union, nor does he respect your right as a Union member to designate a representative of your choosing. Instead, Chief Fisher has decided it is in his best interest to circumvent your elected Union representatives and meet with agents that are selected by management. Basically, Chief Fisher has determined that management can do a better job than you in selecting who speaks on your behalf.

Now you may not participate with the elections of Union officials or you may not be actively involved with the Union, but here is the difference: with the Union, you have the ability to decide who represents you; with Chief Fisher’s program, you never will have a say in who represents you. Furthermore, you have no recourse if that person promotes their personal agenda or even better, management’s agenda.

All that is required of you by your Union is to stay informed, check the Union websites, and communicate with your Union representatives (email, phone, meetings, etc.); attending meetings isn’t even necessary with the current technology that is utilized by your union. If you regularly disagree with a particular Union representative on an issue, you always have the option of changing that person at the next election. If the person is appointed, you should express your concerns with your elected Union officials; otherwise, how are your elected officials ever going to know there is a problem. So, you decide, do you want to retain the right to choose who represents you on issues that affect you in the workplace or do you want management to retain that right and make the choice for you?

SDC Electronic OWCP filing

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:34:00 +0000

Recently San Diego Sector implemented a new pilot program called ECOMP, which involves employees electronically filing their CA-1 or CA-2. Here is the problem; ECOMP is an old program that is riddled with problems. DOL/OWCP personnel have stated that they don’t know why the agency is using ECOMP since it is a program they don’t even use.

Under Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), the employee is entitled to a copy and receipt of their CA-1 and CA-2. With ECOMP, the employee does not get a copy of the form or a receipt. The Union recommends that if you are injured at work that you fill out the CA-1 that you can download on our website. Then, turn in the CA-1 to your immediate supervisor.

If you are going to seek medical treatment, make sure you request a CA-16 from your supervisor. In accordance with FECA, your supervisor has 4 hours to give you a signed CA-16. Your supervisor cannot deny your CA-16. If you encounter a supervisor that refuses to take receipt of the CA-1 or CA-2 or denies your right to a CA-16, please contact Ron Zermeno at 1800-620-1613, ext 82. I have also included some questions and answers that were copied from DOL/OWCP CA-550.

B-1. What must an employee do when injured at work?

(a) Report the injury to the supervisor right away and obtain first aid as necessary;
(b) Complete a written report (Form CA-1 or CA-2) and give it to the supervisor;
(c) If a traumatic injury is involved, and further medical treatment is needed, obtain authorization (Form CA-16) from the supervisor for treatment by a physician of the employee's choice. If that physician is not available, the employee still has the right to choose a treating physician and should therefore select another (see question E-3);
(d) If a traumatic injury is involved, furnish the supervisor with medical evidence of any disability within 10 calendar days of claiming continuation of pay (see question D-5).

B-2. What forms are used to report injuries and diseases?

Form CA-1, "Federal Employee's Notice of Traumatic Injury and Claim for Continuation of
Pay/Compensation" is used to report a traumatic injury.
Form CA-2, "Notice of Occupational Disease and Claim for Compensation," is used to report an occupational disease.
The employee should carefully follow the instructions attached to Forms CA-1 and CA-2. Form
CA-1 should be filed within 30 days of the injury, and Form CA-2 should be filed within 30 days
of the date the employee realized the disease or illness was caused or aggravated by the employment. The forms may be obtained from the employer or from OWCP. The employer is expected to submit the completed form to OWCP within 10 workdays.

B-3. What is the difference between a "Traumatic Injury" and an "Occupational Disease or Illness"?
A traumatic injury is a wound or other condition of the body caused by external force, including stress or strain. The injury must occur at a specific time and place, and it must affect a specific member or function of the body. The injury must be caused by a specific event or incident, or a series of events or incidents, within a single day or work shift.

Traumatic injuries include damage solely to or destruction of prostheses, such as dentures or artificial limbs. Traumatic injuries also include damage to or destruction of personal appliances, such as eyeglasses or hearing aids, when a personal injury requiring medical services occurred.
(See question A-8 concerning personal property.)

An occupational disease or illness is a condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than one work day or shift. The condition may result from infection, repeated stress or strain, or repeated exposure to toxins, poisons, fumes or other continuing conditions of the work environment.

The length of exposure, not the cause of the injury or the medical condition which results, determines whether an injury is traumatic or occupational. For instance, if an employee is exposed to toxic fumes for one day, the incident is considered a traumatic injury. If the employee is exposed to toxic fumes for two or more days, the incident is considered an occupational disease.

B-7. What can an employee do if his or her supervisor refuses to accept a notice of injury, illness or death?

The employee should notify OWCP of the refusal. Federal law provides in 18 U.S.C. 1922 that:
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States charged with the responsibility for making the reports of the immediate superior specified by section 8120 of title 5, willfully fails, neglects, or refuses to make any of the reports, or knowingly files a false report, or induces, compels, or directs an injured employee to forego filing of any claim for compensation or other benefits provided under subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5 or any extension or application thereof, or willfully retains any notice, report, claim, or paper which is required to be filed under that subchapter or any extension or application thereof, or regulations prescribed there under, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

C-11. Does the employer have the authority to accept or deny a claim?

No. Only OWCP may make this decision. While the employer pays or withholds COP, this action is subject to review by OWCP in every case.

These Q&A were taken from;
Publication CA-550
Revised July 2002
This booklet contains answers to questions often asked about the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act (FECA). It describes the basic provisions of the FECA in simple language,
and it discusses the issues most commonly raised about entitlement to benefits.

Are you a Freeloader?

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:29:00 +0000

One of the most vexing problems faced by any union representative is the knowledge that all his/her hard work not only benefit the dues paying member, but the freeloading hangers-on that seem to wind their way into everyday issues. We've all been there right? You get a cold-call from an agent at a different station regarding a contract issue and in the blink of an eye, you read through the pertinent section(s) of the contract, maybe place a few preemptory calls to an involved supervisor, write a rough draft for a Step 1....and, uh oh....you find out the agent that called you doesn't even pay dues.

Doesn't that just make you feel like one of your freeloading brothers just stopped by your house with his unemployed wife and two kids, telling you he's there for a cup of coffee, but waking up in the morning and finding that he's moved in? Yeah, its alot like that....only, you could kick him out and never talk to him again which is unlike the pickle you're in as a rep, in that you have to keep working with those agents that are too cheap to foot the bill like everyone else. And sure enough, those same disgruntled agents that claim to never have had their needs met, or are pissed over some silly trips to Vegas, or are convinced that even though they have no labor management relations experience, they just know better and continually proclaim "can't we all get along"?, or are simply convinced that they'll never get into any trouble or run afoul of any vindictive and/or equally inexperienced manager, will call on you again. Oh sure, you'll get the standard non sequitur "Look, I don't want to make any waves, but..." Right. They want you to make the waves and then of course take the heat because they're too gutless to do it themselves. The latter situation doesn't just lend itself to non-members by the way and you agents all know who you are.

Given all the stark successes due in large part to the efforts of all local officials, officials of the NBPC, AFGE and NTEU, the membership rolls should run at 100%. Here are but a few of the cold hard realities that I'm talking about:

1) PORAC coverage is damn sure unheard of in the Federal Law Enforcement circles, yet, its alive and well within the ranks of the Border Patrol; critical incident response times for PORAC attornies in San Diego, El Centro, Yuma and Tucson Sectors are usually within an hour.
2) Pay for Performance has been foisted upon thousands and thousands of federal employees across the Federal Government...but none of them wear a Border Patrol uniform.
3) Full due process rights remain in effect even after President Bush tried to squelch them and dare I say it, eradicate them.
4) OIG cannot simply order you into an interview room as the subject of an investigation without the presence of your attorney. This is a direct result of the Legal Services Plan (as envisioned by Local 1613) and their related cousins in other sectors.
5) AUO, Night Dif, Sunday Pay, etc, are all alive and well and relatively untouched. In fact, a few landmark lawsuits in favor of BPAs have been decided that will further prevent the agency from abusing such legislatively guaranteed forms of pay.

I could go on, but the non-members, the freeloaders, the hangers-on, will only find another silly and nonsensical reason to shortchange the rest of the dues paying members. Who knew that such a welfare mentality existed within the Patrol? Well, the union reps have always known. Shame on those that won't pay their way and bless those that do.

What am I paying you guys for?

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:58:00 +0000

What am I paying you guys for?
Is the union really looking out for me or just the best interest of the representatives?
What good is the union?
Nothing’s going to change!
It doesn’t make a difference what I say.
I had to handle the problem myself because the union person told me they would not do anything.

I hear different version of these statements/questions several times a week when I talk to agents or just overhear conversations.

Many people have been personally burned or disappointed by an individual representative and have extrapolated that experience to every representative and e-board member. I am not about to try to defend every representative or e-board member. I know it has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, where a representative has less than honorable intentions for becoming and practicing as a union representative. Hell, that is one of the reason I became so involved in the union. It was because I experienced a representative first hand who was looking out for himself not the agent (yes, I am referring to you Mr. J. Carter).

The union is an entity that was created for and by the agents it represents. Representatives are simply extensions of the agents. Representatives are there to make sure the voice of the agent is heard in circles that believe they do not and should not have to listen to agents. This is the atmosphere we are in now. Our current “Command Staff” follows their leader Chief Fisher and Chief Aguilar in there march to the drums that beat the death song of union and bargaining rights. They do not believe the union represents the agents and will and have done everything they can to weaken the union by blaming the union for its own shortcomings. A perfect example is the Radar Screen work group. I cannot blame agents for being excited to be chosen and challenged to participate in dialogue to improve conditions in San Diego sector. You have to ask yourself how did they get to the point where the dialogue was necessary? You have to ask yourself why would managers want a dialogue with the agents? Ask yourself what is in it for the managers? If you believe Chief Fisher simply wants to ensure that his sector is doing everything it can to improve conditions for its agents you have to take into account a few facts.

Chief Fisher has dismantled the Union-Management work group.
Chief Fisher claims article 4 (look it up) of the contract in all labor disputes.
Chief Fisher at first would not meet with the union unless all e-board members came to the meeting in dress uniform.
Chief Fisher refuses to make any agreements with the union.
Chief Fisher refuses to notify the union of changes in working conditions.
Chief Fisher was hand picked by Chief Aguilar.

Does this sound like someone who wants the best possible conditions for his agents? Now, don’t get me wrong Chief Fisher is pro enforcement and that is a plus for our agency. The scary fact is that is a plus instead of a given. You would think that it would be an automatic thing that any manager of a law enforcement agency would be pro enforcement. Those of us who have work for managers who were not, know it is not a given with this agency (SCM is a perfect example).

The union has for years fought for the rights of the agents. Now, we have become labeled as a hindrance to the “Mission” by managers and this is believed by many agents. Let me explain why managers need you to believe this. They need you believe this because if agents realized how much they are being deceived by managers for the sake of the mission and their careers agents would have to question every statement made by a manager. Agents would have to ask the questions managers can’t answer.

Questions like:
Why haven’t managers allowed the HIP program to be implemented?
Why did SDC change the job swap program without the union’s input?
Why won’t SDC sign a sector detail policy?
Why are agents being mandated to the academy for 8 months to a year at a time?
Why did IMB flex before it was ready?
Why aren’t manager’s held accountable for their action, yet agents are told everyday they are held to a higher standard?
Why did sector create a work group to get ideas the union has been presenting for years?

I know I am rambling now but I want to make it clear. As Agents you have choice to make. Believe what managers are telling you or get involved and find out the truth for yourself. Go to a meeting, pull a couple of representatives aside and ask some questions. I trust every agent to see the truth and work with the union to improve things.

As the union we will continue to endeavor to represent each and every agent to the best of our ability. We are attempting to train more representatives and to get additional training for the representatives we have. Although we representatives are not perfect we are trying. So, all I ask is let us know what you want/need/think and we will do whatever we can to make it happen. The union needs the members to work with us so that we can work for you.

The union has made some additions to the website so sign up for the email notifications and/or the blogs.

Thank you for letting me serve as one of your representatives.

Terence L. Shigg
Fair Practices Coordinator
NBPC Local 1613

Trouble at IMB

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:55:00 +0000

I sometimes forget that we work in a field that is often confusing to the general public and those that have not been exposed to law enforcement for very long. For lack of a better term our jobs and our personalities are alien to them. I have always hoped however that all of us who wear the green would be able to look out for one another, not create problems out of nowhere.

For over a decade I have had the distinct privilege of serving at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station. Some of the finest Americans I will ever know have made their ways through the doors of this station, along with some of the most demoralizing people I have ever met.

Imperial Beach has undergone some significant changes over the past several years. Much of this has to do with the changes in leadership. For too long the IB station was allowed to languish under the "Do Nothing" regimes of PAICs Arnie Forsyth and Dave Brown. It seemed they were more concerned with counting the days until retirement than with managing their station or checking on morale. The relationship with the union was contentious due to a few Field Operations Supervisors operating on their own and doing all they could to suck the will to work from the troops. While these two PAICs passed through a change was occurring in the amount of alien traffic. Smugglers were realizing that less and less agents were on the line and instead of going to the desert they could push their groups through in IB fairly effectively. But IB management tried what has now proved to be a failing strategy of doing more with less agents.

In 2005 Raleigh Leonard became the PAIC of IB. I have known Raleigh Leonard since I was a trainee since he was my Field Training Officer. I believed he would do many things to improve the work conditions at IB. On that account I turned out to be right...and wrong. PAIC Leonard allowed his agents to work and morale definitely improved. There was open communication between the station management and the union. Problems were solved with a phone call instead of grievances. But alien traffic continued to increase and the assaults on agents were through the roof, all while operating with a near record low amount of agents.

I believe that overall PAIC Leonard did more good than bad for IB. But in 2006 IB took over the area from the ocean to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. I sat in a meeting where PAIC Leonard assured us that, "We will not flex east until we have the manpower to do it." Four weeks later they did it anyway.

I will fast forward to the current situation. Manpower is stretched to the breaking point now and assaults are an everyday occurrence. SRT, BORSTAR, Horse Patrol, and the Air Mobile Unit have been brought in to supplement the line units which have been completely overwhelmed. The outgoing PAIC, Mark Moody, continued the good relationship between the union and management but his hands were tied concerning the manpower issues and the increased operational area.

This brings me to the main point of this post. Recent events have shown that some managers, namely (A) APAIC Mike Apple, are reverting to the old ways of crushing morale through micromanagement, jumping to conclusions which never benefit the line agents, and my favorite of causing more problems for agents by not following policies OR READING THE CONTRACT!

Mike Apple has shown a callous disregard for the union and by extension the membership at IB. He has attempted to violate the rights of union members by denying them representation during the course of an investigation. I know he is only the "Acting" APAIC but he deserves an Oscar for the conviction with which he told me that he, "was looking out for the agents" and "that the agents know he has their back." Several agents I related that to were incapacitated by fits of laughter.

I have tried to explain my actions and my thoughts to (A) APAIC Apple, but my impression from his words and tone is that he does not care. He is going to have the agents do what he wants when he wants it. His people skills are non-existant and my guess is that he is looking to move up the food chain. Unfortunately he is attempting to do that on the backs of the agents and complicit in it are his supervisors who have allowed him to do so. It seems that by his chronic actions the relationship we once had at IB is on life support. I believe it will be up to the new PAIC to continue the working relationship that has existed over the past few years. The union hopes that we can again work together to make the job easier and safer for the agents.

I take no pride in saying that (A) APAIC Mike Apple has exhibited the new agency mantra of "Honor Last."

Border Patrol Agents Mourn the Loss of Agent Luis Aguilar

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:30:00 +0000

National Border Patrol Council - Local 1613 (San Diego, CA) is deeply saddened to report the death of Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar from the Yuma Sector of the Border Patrol. Agent Aguilar was 31 years old and is survived by his wife and two children. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and coworkers during this difficult time.

Read the Agency's official press release related to this tragedy.

Visit the Officer Down Memorial Page for SPA Aguilar.

Memorial Services Scheduled for Border Patrol Agent Aguilar.

An account has been established with the National Bank of Arizona in the name of Luis Aguilar:

National Bank of Arizona

For the Benefit of Agent Luis Aguilar

1800 S. 4th Avenue

Yuma, AZ 85364

Jose Olivas - Dishonored

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:15:00 +0000

Jose Olivas, former Border Patrol Agent in San Diego Sector, recently plead guilty to one count of conspiring to smuggle aliens and one count of conspiring to launder money. Olivas faces a maximum of 15 years in prison. We hope that Olivas receives the maximum penalty for this despicable act. See the U.S. Attorney's press release.

Olivas was sentenced to only three years in prison for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and money laundering. This traitor provided sensitive reports to the smugglers and he only receives three years? Read a related story.