|
Post by getready on Jul 8, 2010 17:32:24 GMT -5
Any news on East Coast transfers?
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Jul 10, 2010 9:19:34 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind for potential new hires. ALJ positions in the national hearing centers are non-bargaining positions. I believe this means judges there would not be eligible for the union transfer list. That would mean the only "way out" would be to apply for a HOCALJ position somewhere when one opens up. Something to keep in mind since there will likely be several hires made for the St Louis NHC from this cert.
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Jul 10, 2010 10:11:04 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind for potential new hires. ALJ positions in the national hearing centers are non-bargaining positions. I believe this means judges there would not be eligible for the union transfer list. That would mean the only "way out" would be to apply for a HOCALJ position somewhere when one opens up. Something to keep in mind since there will likely be several hires made for the St Louis NHC from this cert. This brings up a question that I had. I understand that the union transfer list would be a no-go, but wouldn't it still be possible to transfer the old-fashioned way (concurrence of the involved HOCALJs and/or RCALJ)? I do understand that such transfers may be few and far between.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jul 10, 2010 12:16:08 GMT -5
This brings up a question that I had. I understand that the union transfer list would be a no-go, but wouldn't it still be possible to transfer the old-fashioned way (concurrence of the involved HOCALJs and/or RCALJ)? I do understand that such transfers may be few and far between. Two words. "Hardship" transfers. Doesn't happen often. But it could be done if TPTB wants it done.
|
|
|
Post by hod on Jul 10, 2010 12:28:26 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind for potential new hires. ALJ positions in the national hearing centers are non-bargaining positions. I believe this means judges there would not be eligible for the union transfer list. That would mean the only "way out" would be to apply for a HOCALJ position somewhere when one opens up. Something to keep in mind since there will likely be several hires made for the St Louis NHC from this cert. The idea that the non-union ALJ's would not be eligible for transfers is probably not going to happen. Although technically true, SSA has always tried to keep the unions and non-bargaining on a similar status whenever possible. Management is non-bargaining, yet they generally get the same deals the union bargains with the notable exception being work at home. Plus, the last time the agency made the nonbargaining ALJ's mad they went out and unionized. So I am pretty sure that with issues such as transfers, everyone will be on an even playing field. As for hardship transfers-if one truly can show a hardship, they generally try to work with the employee. However, since the transfer option is more open and available now, I expect that the agency may take a cynical view at what constitutes a "hardship." I know of an ALJ who tried to get a hardship transfer about thirty seconds after walking in the door. The agency position was that he knew about his "hardship" before completing his GAL. (It was a long term situation). They fought for a while and he eventually won-but I would not count on that.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 10, 2010 13:13:01 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind for potential new hires. ALJ positions in the national hearing centers are non-bargaining positions. I believe this means judges there would not be eligible for the union transfer list. That would mean the only "way out" would be to apply for a HOCALJ position somewhere when one opens up. Something to keep in mind since there will likely be several hires made for the St Louis NHC from this cert. Are the ALJs at the national hearings centers unable to join the ALJ union? I read that on March 29, 2009, SSA lost arbitration to keep the NHC ALJ's in non-bargaining positions. Charles Hall noted: Social Security Loses Arbitration Over National Hearing Center Social Security has opened a National Hearing Center (NHC) with a few Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The workflow in the National Hearing Center was arranged a bit differently and Social Security declared that the ALJs at the NHC were supervisors, making them ineligible to join the union that represents other Social Security ALJs. An anonymous poster on the ALJ Discussion Forum reports that the Social Security Administration has lost an arbitration on this issue. The ALJs in the NHC have been declared to not be supervisors and eligible to join the ALJ union.socsecnews.blogspot.com/2009_03_29_archive.htmlHall cited to a link from this cite which stated: "Arbitrator holds in decision dated 3/29/09 that (1) the ALJs at the NHCs are not supervisors; agency failed to bargain with the union; (2) the ALJs at the NHCs are members of the bargaining unit; (3) the agency breached the CBA and the FSLMRS by failing to provide the union with reasonable notice of the intention to establish the NHCs; (4) the agency committed a ULP by unilaterally creating the NHCs and staffing them with ALJs without bargaining and by displaying an anti-union animus; (5) the agency and COSS Astrue will cease and desist from refusing to recognize the union as the bargaining representative of ALJs at the NHCs; (6) the agency and the COSS will cease and desist from refusing to bargaining with the union regarding the terms and conditions of employment of ALJs working at the NHCs; (7) the agency and the COSS will engage in impact and implementation bargaining as it pertains to changes in working conditions for ALJs selected to work at the NHCs; and (8) the agency and the COSS will post a copy of this award in all hearing offices. The hearing shall remain open for a period of 60 days to dispose of any problems that might be encountered by the parties in the administration of this award." aljdiscussion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=865Was there an appeal by the SSA?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 10, 2010 13:50:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 10, 2010 13:56:17 GMT -5
It's the same thread I linked in my post.
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Jul 10, 2010 14:22:07 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind for potential new hires. ALJ positions in the national hearing centers are non-bargaining positions. I believe this means judges there would not be eligible for the union transfer list. That would mean the only "way out" would be to apply for a HOCALJ position somewhere when one opens up. Something to keep in mind since there will likely be several hires made for the St Louis NHC from this cert. Are the ALJs at the national hearings centers unable to join the ALJ union? I read that on March 29, 2009, SSA lost arbitration to keep the NHC ALJ's in non-bargaining positions. Charles Hall noted: Social Security Loses Arbitration Over National Hearing Center Social Security has opened a National Hearing Center (NHC) with a few Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The workflow in the National Hearing Center was arranged a bit differently and Social Security declared that the ALJs at the NHC were supervisors, making them ineligible to join the union that represents other Social Security ALJs. An anonymous poster on the ALJ Discussion Forum reports that the Social Security Administration has lost an arbitration on this issue. The ALJs in the NHC have been declared to not be supervisors and eligible to join the ALJ union.socsecnews.blogspot.com/2009_03_29_archive.htmlHall cited to a link from this cite which stated: "Arbitrator holds in decision dated 3/29/09 that (1) the ALJs at the NHCs are not supervisors; agency failed to bargain with the union; (2) the ALJs at the NHCs are members of the bargaining unit; (3) the agency breached the CBA and the FSLMRS by failing to provide the union with reasonable notice of the intention to establish the NHCs; (4) the agency committed a ULP by unilaterally creating the NHCs and staffing them with ALJs without bargaining and by displaying an anti-union animus; (5) the agency and COSS Astrue will cease and desist from refusing to recognize the union as the bargaining representative of ALJs at the NHCs; (6) the agency and the COSS will cease and desist from refusing to bargaining with the union regarding the terms and conditions of employment of ALJs working at the NHCs; (7) the agency and the COSS will engage in impact and implementation bargaining as it pertains to changes in working conditions for ALJs selected to work at the NHCs; and (8) the agency and the COSS will post a copy of this award in all hearing offices. The hearing shall remain open for a period of 60 days to dispose of any problems that might be encountered by the parties in the administration of this award." aljdiscussion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=865Was there an appeal by the SSA? That was only the arbitrator's decision. The Agency modified the NHC ALJ job descriptions and they were found to be non-bargaining positions by a FLRA regional director. The full FLRA affirmed this decision on 6/22/2010. The decision is 64 FLRA 896 which you can scroll down to here- flra.gov/authority_decisions_volumes/64
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Jul 10, 2010 14:25:55 GMT -5
This brings up a question that I had. I understand that the union transfer list would be a no-go, but wouldn't it still be possible to transfer the old-fashioned way (concurrence of the involved HOCALJs and/or RCALJ)? I do understand that such transfers may be few and far between. Two words. "Hardship" transfers. Doesn't happen often. But it could be done if TPTB wants it done. Hardship transfers are still within the scope of the CBA. They are controlled under Article 20 along with the general transfer list.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 10, 2010 14:29:01 GMT -5
That was only the arbitrator's decision. The Agency modified the NHC ALJ job descriptions and they were found to be non-bargaining positions by a FLRA regional director. The full FLRA affirmed this decision on 6/22/2010. The decision is 64 FLRA 896 which you can scroll down to here- flra.gov/authority_decisions_volumes/64Thanks for the information.
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Jul 10, 2010 22:24:40 GMT -5
There are four transfer list and in order of priority they are:
Hardship Management ALJs Union ALJ AlJs in other agencies.
|
|
biker
Full Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by biker on Jul 14, 2010 19:06:23 GMT -5
Just an FYI: I received my transfer offer today to Seattle from Peoria, IL. That indicates to me at least that they may be running a little behind in the process. Or else they were just torturing me.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Jul 14, 2010 19:41:32 GMT -5
Biker - I don't think it means they're running behind. The Seattle office is full and they didn't have an opening until 7/1. They can't make transfer offers until they are sure the retiring judge is actually retiring. In the past, judges have backed out on their retirements only days before they were scheduled.....So you going?
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 14, 2010 21:00:04 GMT -5
Biker - I don't think it means they're running behind. The Seattle office is full and they didn't have an opening until 7/1. They can't make transfer offers until they are sure the retiring judge is actually retiring. In the past, judges have backed out on their retirements only days before they were scheduled.....So you going? I heard an OGC atty, already on the cert, is replacing a retiring Seattle ALJ? Is more than one ALJ retiring in Seattle?
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Jul 14, 2010 21:16:08 GMT -5
But Seattle wasn't a GAL location on this cert... Although I guess a favored candidate could be picked for a different location then immediately transferred...
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Jul 14, 2010 22:18:24 GMT -5
There was an earlier retirement, which was filled off the last cert. Now there is another, hence the transfer offer. Although Seattle is not on the current cert, Peoria is, so if Biker transfers that may mean another open position for this cert. So hurry up and make up your mind Biker!
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 14, 2010 22:24:40 GMT -5
There was an earlier retirement, which was filled off the last cert. Now there is another, hence the transfer offer. Although Seattle is not on the current cert, Peoria is, so if Biker transfers that may mean another open position for this cert. So hurry up and make up your mind Biker! Down the road, I'm interested in a Tacoma (any news when it'll open?) or Seattle transfer if I'm offered an ALJ post on the current cert. Tacoma, preferably. With all the Seattle ALJs that have retired in the last few years, it should be full for some time to come. Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Jul 14, 2010 23:49:30 GMT -5
I believe Spring 2011 is the latest guestimate for Tacoma. Yes Seattle is full up, but it is a big too, so who knows what may happen.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 14, 2010 23:50:37 GMT -5
I believe Spring 2011 is the latest guestimate for Tacoma. Yes Seattle is full up, but it is a big too, so who knows what may happen. Gracias!
|
|