Q & A Table of Contents
They Want 'Light Duty' But Can't Take It Lightly
From: Krista, Wichita, Kansas
Question: I am the civilian personnel officer (HRO) and labor relations officer (LRO) at an Air Force base with a bargaining unit of approximately 300 employees. We have an overall cooperative relationship with our union - primarily due to the personalities of the union president and me. We've had only one unfair labor practice charge filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority in the past five years - and it was dismissed as untimely.
Supervisors in general treat their employees well and employees in general seem to have a good work ethic here. I meet with the union on a monthly basis to discuss changes in personnel policy and working conditions and also to answer their questions. We also talk on the phone at least weekly and exchange e-mails on a regular basis.
In our aircraft maintenance organization, there has been a rash of employees presenting "light duty excuses" with no further information as to what their medical restrictions are. Management gave everyone a memo advising them that future requests for light duty must be accompanied by information on the employee's clinical status, prognosis, and specifics about what the employee can and cannot do. This required a bit of impact and implementation negotiations with the union - and some vigorous exchange of views.
Another problem has been on the flightline with active duty military personnel assigning duties to employees on light duty that do not comply with the physician's specifications - and either the employee doesn't speak up or an argument ensues when the employee does speak up.
After another discussion about these two problems (lack of documentation, employees not speaking up)the first and second level supervisors sent me an e-mail on which they'd designed a t-shirt that says "Stop (with a hand held up) - I am on light duty." Then on the back: "If there is any question as to what duties I may be assigned, contact: (then listed first and second level supervisors and me and another member of my staff). On one sleeve was a Red Cross symbol and on the other, the universal handicapped sign.
At first, I thought they were serious about the t-shirt and advised them that this would never fly with the union. The second level supervisor then informed me that it was supposed to be a joke - which sounded right to me because these guys have more sense than that.
I sent an e-mail of the shirt to the union president, advising him it was a joke, and thinking he'd get a kick out of it. I received a curt note back that he didn't appreciate it; and were these the same supervisors that were supposed to ensure the employees' privacy?
I responded back that I was sorry I found it funny, that it was my mistake for sharing it with him and asked him not to hold it against the managers, and also that since they accommodated two employees for six months with no more information from the Doctor than "light duty" it seemed to me the supervisors do care about their employees.
I then had to tell the supervisors what I'd done in the event they got any flack from the union about it - and of course, apologized to them. Obviously, this is a problem of me misjudging the union's reaction. This is not totally off base though - one time they printed in their newsletter that "management walked out on negotiations over alternative work schedules" when that never happened. When I confronted them about it, the president at that time said it was a "joke". I let it go at that.
This is a problem I created for myself. How can I regain my credibility with the supervisors and repair any damage done with the union without groveling and prevent additional problems between these supervisors and the union?
Response: It can be awfully frustrating to discover that something intended as a joke hits someone's 'hot button'. When both the originator and the recipient of the intended humor take each other's reaction in a negative way that makes things even more difficult.
You have done a pretty good job of describing your labor relations history and your own personal history of good and effective management. You also make it clear that your attempt at transparency -- telling each side that the intentions of each party were innocent -- backfired because each took offense at the situation.
Now it is time to grab the bull by the horns. You have had good relationships in the past. You should think about the leadership of the union, the active duty military personnel, and folks from the civilian side of management. What are their interests, the objectives that drive their decision-making? It sounds in this case that some of them need to satisfy their constituencies who might be upset to think that the leadership laughed at joke at, for example, the union membership's expense.
In addition, looking at the personalities of the people involved, there may be ego issues needing to be addressed.
Far more complex is the question whether this tempest in a teapot really reveals deeper issues concerning the individuals involved. Are there real issues that need to be discussed or negotiated that have been bubbling under the surface?
The first step could be to convene representatives of the leadership to discuss the whole 'light duty' issue. For example, should they be given the task of determining 'universal' guidelines describing 'light duty'? If there is a common task creating those guidelines, with you doing an expert job of facilitation, that could be a mechanism for reinforcing your credibility -- without groveling.
So -- look for real problems and utilize a creative process to address them. Your process leadership should go a long way towards resolving the substantive issue, learning more about underlying problems, and enhancing your reputation.
Good luck,
Steve
| 
