GAO Union Testifies Before House Appropriations Subcommittee on Issues of Concern to GAO Employees 
On Wednesday February 24, 2010, the GAO Union testified before the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the House Committee on Appropriations chaired by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz at the subcommittee’s hearing with Members and Public Witnesses. In the GAO Union testimony, Union President Ron La Due Lake provided:

An update on the relationship between the GAO Employees Organization (the Union) and GAO management, providing a few examples where the relationship has worked well, such as working with GAO management to improve the GAO’s separate annual employee feedback survey by adding a few questions on employee engagement to make it more like the government-wide employee feedback surveys administered OPM and MSPB.

A description of the process for GAO’s first master contract negotiations, which began with developing ground rules for the negotiating process using an interest-based bargaining process, which will also be used for the master contract.

A citation of some of the problems and challenges to developing a collaborative working relationship with GAO management, including (1) GAO’s refusal to provide requested human resource management information–e.g., data necessary for assessing whether there is any relationship between employees’ performance evaluations and gender, age, or ethnic background–because GAO stated, after sitting on the request for 8 months, that it would be unreasonably burdensome to provide such data; (2) GAO management’s practice of routinely excluding GAO Union representatives from meetings where employees desire Union participation, including meetings leading to discipline and termination; and (3) problems encountered during recent negotiations regarding the pay structure for GAO’s entry (developmental) level analysts, which GAO management at first attempted to unilaterally decide and, after the union asserted its right to bargain and offered a counter-proposal, GAO management did not respond for several months before a mediator helped us work out an agreement.

A description of the Union’s difficulties and frustrations in recent months in attempting to negotiate with GAO management over the amount of merit pay— or performance based compensation—GAO employees will receive for their “performance” (i.e., ratings) in FY 2009, which have been caused by GAO management’s refusal initially to even meet and then to make make any concessions from the pay proposal they presented to the Union on December 22, 2009, even after the Union subsequently made significant concessions its position in an attempt to reach agreement.  As a result, the Union negotiators are concerned that the pay negotiations have been decidedly one-sided this year. For example, after a few hours at the bargaining table, GAO management announced impasse and in the subsequent weeks of negotiation and mediation refused to offer any concessions. As such, it appears to the Union that GAO management has not engaged the Union as an equal partner during these negotiations.  In addition, the Union is concerned about the process for handling the impasse in these merit pay negotiations. The GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) is the independent entity that handles negotiation impasses and matters of negotiability for GAO management and the Union. However, the GAO PAB has yet to establish the rules or processes for conducting impasse or negotiability procedures for the parties, creating considerable uncertainty as to how and when the impasse will be resolved.

A statement on behalf of the employees of the GAO represented by the Union that they are confident that the Congress, as it moves through the FY 2011 appropriations process, will provide GAO with sufficient resources that will enable the Agency to continue to carry out its important work for the Congress, and to compensate the employees of the Agency at a level comparable to that provided their colleagues in other federal agencies.

This year the appearance of the GAO Union and the other public witnesses took on added significance because, in contrast to recent years, the subcommittee’s Public Witness hearing was held prior to its hearings with the management officials with each of the legislative branch agencies. The Subcommittee wanted to have the benefit of employee and public input before hearing from the agencies in its appropriations requests. Since the Subcommittee did not ask the GAO Union to testify until late on Thursday, February 21, GAO Union representatives worked against tight time frames to meet the request for input.