CFPB Next Mass Grievances Update

In the past two weeks, NTEU has filed three mass grievances related to Management’s implementation of CFPB Next. Copies of each grievance are linked below.

1. Enforcement Mandatory In-Person Training: On Oct. 13th, the Chapter filed a mass grievance on behalf of all affected employees in the Office of Enforcement over Enforcement’s newly announced twice-yearly mandatory in-person training. The grievance alleges that this new requirement violates both the Remote, Telework, and Hybrid Program Article and the Health and Safety Article of the CBA. On October 25th, Chapter representatives attended an official grievance meeting with management and are awaiting management’s response to the grievance.
2. Work Schedules: On October 26th, the Chapter filed a mass grievance alleging that division and office-level restrictions to custom work schedules for certain groups of employees violate the new Work Schedules Article. The grievance uses as an example an email sent to examiners, which contained a narrow list of acceptable work schedules, but it seeks to have all such division or office-wide policies rescinded. The Chapter has also requested an official briefing on the Office of Enforcement’s announcement of restrictions on custom work schedules for Enforcement Staff. That briefing took place on Oct. 31st.
3. Work Location Designations (WLDs): On October 27th, the Chapter filed a mass grievance on behalf of bargaining unit employees who were denied a Remote WLD. The grievance alleges that the Bureau failed to comply with the requirements of the Remote, Telework, and Hybrid Program Article when determining a position’s eligibility for a Remote WLD, falsely identified job duties that are usually performed remotely or at a TDY location as duties that must be performed in-person at or near a Bureau facility, and created new job duties in an attempt to justify denying BUEs a Remote WLD. The grievance also alleges the Bureau’s violation was so massive and its effects so widespread, that the Bureau has repudiated the agreement, which is an unfair labor practice.

Mass grievances explained

With very few exceptions, if a Union (or union member) wants to challenge Management’s violation of the CBA or Federal law, it must do so through the grievance process. A mass grievance is a bit like a class-action lawsuit; it alleges management committed the same violation(s) with respect to many different employees. 

The grievance process has strict timelines that are fairly short:

• The Union must file a grievance within 20 workdays after the action that gave rise to the grievance occurred or 20 workdays after the Union became aware of the action.
• Within 10 workdays after the grievance is filed, Management must meet with the Union to discuss the grievance.
• After the meeting, Management has 20 workdays to issue a written decision on the grievance.
• If the Union disagrees with Management’s decision and wants to invoke arbitration, it must do so within 20 workdays of the written decision.
• Once arbitration is invoked, the timeline becomes somewhat dependent on the schedule of the arbitrator. After the arbitrator issues a decision, either part can file an exception with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). Management has no obligation to make changes or provide a remedy until a final decision is reached by the FLRA or the arbitrator (if neither party files exceptions), or the parties agree to a settlement.

Next steps

• Reach out to your union stewards if you have questions about your individual situation
• Continue to stay informed by reviewing the four remote work articles that management is supposed to be also following

We will keep you informed as the process for each grievance moves forward.