Do they exhaust transfer list before new ALJ hire?

[northwest]

I'm starting this as a new thread because I'd previously buried this question in a different thread. There seems to be different opinions out there about whether they first look to the transfer list of existing ALJs, and only after that list of ALJs is exhausted (with people either accepting or declining the move to the location) do they fill the slot with a newbie. Or whether they need only give the first person on the transfer list a chance at an open slot, and for other open slots it's a free-for-all whether it's other folks on the transfer list or a newbie.

A related question: If it's the latter, does the HOCALJ get to have a say-so on whether to take the ALJs off the transfer list or new ALJs? Or are all hiring decisions made at HQ?

Some background: Nonamouse wrote in the thread "New Transfer Register, OCT of 08": "I can explain it the way that I understand it. When an opening is going to be filled in a particular office, the agency is required by the contract with the ALJ union to offer it to the first person on the transfer list. This will be an ALJ who has been on the job for at least 2 years and who wants to leave their current office for greener pastures. (You cannot get onto the transfer list until your first 2 years as an ALJ in SSA have passed.)

Once the offer has been made, the person can decline it or move at their own expense to the new office. If the first person on the list declines, the agency is free to offer to the next person on the transfer list or go for a new hire."

Barkley wrote in the thread "Thinking About Process":
"Once SSA choses their list, they must offer a spot to the top person on that offices transfer list. They could choose to go down the list with further spots (i.e., if they are hiring two ALJs for one location or if the first ALJ turns down the opportunity to move, SSA could go to the #2 person on the list) but they don't have to."

But Judicature wrote in the thread "Demographics of "second time around" club": The agency initially identifies which cities it needs additional ALJs in, and then goes to the transfer list and offers transfers in the order people request to be placed on the transfer list. When it completes the transfers it establishes the cities that now have openings post transfers (taking into account the cities folks transferred from and the cities to which no one transferred to). Then, it will start the selection process for new ALJ's

Here's the contract language:
"Prior to considering the assignment of newly hired Judges to a hearing office, the OHA will give first consideration for one reassignment to that hearing office to the incumbent Judge who is first on the reassignment register for that hearing office pursuant to these provisions. In the event OHA determines that an incumbent Judge’s reassignment pursuant to the provisions set forth herein results in a permanent opening in his or her former hearing office, OHA will give first consideration to the incumbent Judge who is first on the reassignment register for that hearing office and the provisions of this article shall cease to apply to any additional permanent openings created by the reassignment of those two Judges."

This site shows the new ALJs hired last year: www.ssa.gov/legislation/FY2008190NewALJAssignmentsListing.pdf

Had the transfer list for all those sites, including Seattle, been exhausted before those new hires? Does anyone have any more information about whether the new ALJs get slots only after exhaustion of the transfer list?

[odarite]

Last year they went further down the transfer list than they were required by the contract to go. Past action is no predictor of what they will do this time. Last year also, a number of transfer offers were declined, perhaps because of the lousy housing market. This year, there have been acceptances of offers to transfer. I assume (although I do not know) that there were declinations. This is why in the past there has been advice to the applicant corps not to get obsessed with the transfer list. The cities on the certificate will be what they will be and it is very difficult to predict them with any degree of accuracy because of the large number of factors in play.

[counsel]

Last year, in the first round, there was only one city on my list that matched the cities that SSA was trying to fill. After interviewing I found out that the one city was filled by a transfer. So no, they do not always exhaust the transfer list before requesting the cert.

[odarite]

Counsel makes an important point, which may come into play with this year's class. While they usually try to do all the transfers before they request a certificate, this year and last they were up against some very tough fiscal year budget restraints which meant that a certificate was requested before the transfers were completed. This meant that some cities they eventually meant to send an ALJ to came up empty, and some candidates were interviewed but shut out. Hold on to your hats: it will be a wild ride!

[judicature]

Counsel and Odarite are correct. Mea culpa.

I stated it the way it is intended to be and how it was explained to me.

Now that I reflect back on my own experience, one of my four cities on the register was filled by a transfer. So, the truth is they try to get the transfers done first, but with time constraints and pressures to hire, this isn't always possible...

[alj]

It may be that this year they are only going to offer a transfer to the first person on the list. In my city there are three judges on the list for a transfer in, and only the first judge was offered a transfer a month or so back. He declined, and the next on the list hasn't been contacted.

This could create a real problem for a judge trying to transfer back home if the judge ahead of him on the list refuses a transfer each time it is offered. That position would then be filled with a new ALJ each time a vacancy becomes available. The first judge on the list would be permanently blocking the transfer list. Thus the advice to not accept an appointment to a location at which one would not be willing to stay for at least ten years.

As to your question of whether a HOCALJ could block a transfer in or a transfer out, the general answer is no, but there are exceptions to that statement. Those exceptions are mostly unique to the special situations presented and really aren't relevant here. For your purposes it is sufficient to know that decisions about the new hires, as well as the transfers, are made by OCALJ.

EDIT NOTE: I was just looking at the transfer list and remembered that when a judge refuses a transfer, he is moved to the bottom of the list; he doesn't stay at the top. So, one judge would not be able to permanently block the list. Sorry for that misstatement. Also it appears that the Beagle has raised that question subsequent to my initial post.

[Legal Beagle]

So why is the rule not the same as with new ASLJs - if you are on the list and refuse a position (here a transfer), you drop off the list?

[ruonthelist]

Mar 12, 2009 8:18:30 GMT -5 northwest said:

I'm starting this as a new thread because I'd previously buried this question in a different thread. There seems to be different opinions out there about whether they first look to the transfer list of existing ALJs, and only after that list of ALJs is exhausted (with people either accepting or declining the move to the location) do they fill the slot with a newbie. Or whether they need only give the first person on the transfer list a chance at an open slot, and for other open slots it's a free-for-all whether it's other folks on the transfer list or a newbie.

Excerpts from AALJ/SSA Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 20. Sec. I 2:



F. Should the number of qualified volunteers exceed the number of positions the OHA decides to fill by reassignment in a particular hearing office, the OHA shall consider selecting the Judge whose name appears at the top of the register of volunteers for that hearing office if the Judge is eligible for reassignment. If an eligible Judge refuses the reassignment then the OHA shall consider selecting the next eligible Judge in descending order on the register of volunteers for that hearing office. . ..


H. Upon notification that he or she has been selected for a requested reassignment, a Judge will accept or decline within three (3) working days of the notification. If an eligible Judge declines reassignment to a hearing office that he or she has requested, then he or she shall have their name placed at the bottom of the reassignment register for that office.


The transfer request list was created in late 2001, after the contract was negotiated. The Azdell stay prevented any hiring in 2002 and 2003, so the first time that the list was implemented was in the round of hiring in 2004. My recollection is that in the first class hired the agency only made offers to the first judge for each city and, if that judge refused, did not proceed down the list, despite the language in subsection F. Later then-CALJ Washington informed the union that the agency would proceed down the register in the event that the judge(s) higher up on the list declined. They did it that way for the next several rounds of hiring. I have not kept up with the issue, so I don’t know what they do now.