DATE,
2003
VIA FACSIMILE
William E. Persina
Acting Regional Director
Federal Labor Relations Authority
800 K Street N.W., Suite 910
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. Persina:
Attached,
please find an unfair labor practice charge involving the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. We certify that
a copy has been sent via regular mail this date to:
Joyce Ong
Chief,
Labor Relations
U.
S. Patent & Trademark Office
2011
Crystal Drive, Suite 612 (CPK1)
Arlington,
VA 22202
Please
direct all original correspondence concerning this matter to Sandra Humphries
Riviears, Assistant Counsel, National Treasury Employees Union, 1750 H Street
N.W., 6th Floor, Washington, D.C.
20006, with a copy to the undersigned.
Respectfully,
Colleen
M. Kelley
National
President
Attachment
cc: Sharon Quinn Harris
National Counsel
Howard Friedman
President, NTEU Chapter 245
ATTACHMENT
On or about April 1, 2003, and continuing, the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office (PTO or Agency), by its agents and
representatives, has committed an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C.
7116(a)(1) and (5) by its unilateral implementation of the First Action System
for Trademarks (FAST) and its failing and refusing and continuing to fail and
refuse to negotiate in good faith over all legally negotiable matters
associated with the implementation of FAST.
On August 13, 2002, management notified NTEU that the
implementation of the new FAST system would occur on or about October 1,
2002. Demonstrations were provided
to NTEU Chapter 245 on August 15, 2002 and August 29, 2002. By e-mail dated August 15, 2002 NTEU
notified the Agency of its intent to bargain over the impact and implementation
of FAST. By e-mail dated August 21,
2002, the Labor Relations official Dave Dalke notified NTEU Chapter 245
President Howard Friedman that “FAST would have no adverse impact on the
bargaining unit.” However,
he requested proposals from the Union to determine if NTEU Chapter 245
identified any potential adverse impact on the bargaining unit. On August 29, 2002, NTEU submitted a
written formal request to bargain and formal proposals. NTEU asked that the Agency delay any
implementation of the changes until negotiations and any related impasse
procedures are complete. NTEU noted that by entering into negotiations, NTEU
has not waived any rights to charge the Agency with premature implementation
and other violations of the statute.
FAST was not implemented in October 2002. Indeed, it was not implemented until April 2003.
NTEU inquired about FAST in February 2003. Management responded that there was a
de minimus impact on the bargaining unit, and, therefore there was no duty to
bargain with NTEU. That was the
first time that management claimed that it would not bargain with NTEU since
NTEU had submitted its proposals.
On or about April 1, 2003 FAST was deployed. However, the system that was implemented in April 2003 was
different from the one presented at the demonstrations on August 15 and 29,
2003. Furthermore, the FAST
implementation significantly impacted the way that attorneys examine
trademarks, not only in the usage of computers to examine electronically, but
also because of the problems that resulted due to the deployment of FAST.
On May 29, 2003 Mr. Friedman called Deputy
Commissioner for Trademarks Bob Anderson regarding another matter and
subsequently inquired about FAST.
Mr. Anderson responded by expressing a willingness to discuss the
deployment of FAST and its impact on the bargaining unit. By e-mail dated June 2, 2003, Howard
Friedman notified Bob Anderson that he was willing to meet as soon as possible
regarding this matter. By e-mail
dated June 2, 2003 Bob Anderson responded that he was willing to engage in
discussions as long as it is understood that there will be no further
negotiations regarding the implementation of e-government/e-commerce
examination and that there will be no reopener of the agreement reached
regarding implementation of e-government/e-commerce in the law offices. By e-mail dated June 4, 2003, Mr.
Friedman responded that he was not trying to reopen the agreement, but wanted
to discuss the impact of the FAST system on examination. He noted the union was not waiving its
rights, including bargaining.
Later that date, Mr. Anderson responded that he was not willing to meet
given the union’s position on retaining its rights and noted that an
agreement was reached regarding the implementation of E-commerce.
By e-mail dated June 6, 2003, Howard Friedman advised
the Agency that NTEU continues to request bargaining over FAST and requested
that the Agency delay implementation until negotiations and any impasse
procedures are complete. He also
noted that the union does not waive its right to charge the Agency with premature
implementation by entering into formal negotiations. However, Mr. Friedman suggested that the parties work to
informally resolve the matter by meeting instead of “going the legal
route.” By e-mail dated June
12, 2003 Mr. Friedman notified Mr. Anderson that since he had not received a
response to his June 6 e-mail, he presumed the Agency did not want to meet. Therefore, he then gave notice pursuant
to the collective bargaining agreement that NTEU intends to file an unfair
labor practice over the matter.
The Agency’s unilateral implementation, failure
to bargain and its continued failure to bargain over this change in working
conditions is a failure to negotiate in good faith and an unfair labor practice
under 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5).
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 612 (CPK1)
Arlington, VA 22202
National Treasury Employees Union
1750 H Street N.W., 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Joyce Ong
Chief, Labor Relations Division
(703) 306-0943
(703) 305-8303
Sandra Humphries Riviears
Assistant Counsel
(202) 572-5620
(202) 572-5640
(5)
Colleen M. Kelley
DATE, 2003