News

Get Updates!

Want to get updates that we can't send over management communication platforms like Teams and Outlook?

Fill out this form here to provide your personal contact info (no spam, we promise). We'll send out important updates surrounding issues that effect your workplace!

Compressed WOrk Schedule and Return to Office Memos Denied by DOD, Union Files appeal to flra

An update on our two agreements that we ratified and signed last month. The DoD (which reviews such agreements by law as the "agency head") disapproved the memos in thier entireties, citing President Trump's recent Executive Order 14251.

Local 777 has filed Petitions for Review with the FLRA for both disapprovals. While we appreciate that LRC management is so far honoring these agreements, we need to be able to enforce them if it comes to it.

Compressed Work Schedules:

• Petition

• Union's Statement Supporting Petition for Review

Return to In-Person Work:

• Petition

• Union's Statement Supporting Petition for Review

Tentative Agreement on "RetuRN to In-Person Work"!

I wanted to let everyone know that the union’s negotiating team reached a tentative agreement on the “return to office” process with management today.

Read the text of the tentative agreement on "return to office":  Click Here

Read the text of the agreement that would "lock in" our current compressed work schedules: Click Here

We are holding a ratification vote between this evening and 11:20 am CDT tomorrow. Only dues-paying members (or those who join by 9am CDT) will be sent a ballot. This voting window is so small because it meant that in exchange, we were able to get a 31-day delay in implementation of the return to the office.

That said, The Local 777 bargaining team recommends approval because:

• The agreement locks in a certain date, allowing for folks to plan.

• The agreement keeps reasonable accommodations decided at the lowest level.

• The agreement establishes a right for both remote workers and long-distance-commuting teleworkers to request to work from a closer office; and failing that, protects the right to negotiate favorable PCS terms for remote workers and streamlines retention incentives for folks who don't move.

• The agreement locks in transit and childcare agreements - only Congress blocking them by law could take it away. To our knowledge, this is a first in the Army.

• Given the threats from the administration to end the downtown office lease and the fact that telework is a topic for which only "procedures" and "arrangements" may be negotiated; we feel this is the best outcome we can get while we fight a larger battle to win back regular and recurring telework.

A "no" vote would send the bargaining team back to the table; where the issue could proceed to an impasse that would need to be resolved by the Federal Impasse Services Panel (FSIP) which would look at management's and the union's positions and hand down a binding decision; which could entirely favor either side.

Bargaining Update on "RetuRN to In-Person Work"

The following is an update on the state of negotiations with management on return to office (RTO) orders and an agreement on regular and recurring telework. Generally, this process had been happening slowly, then suddenly - so we want to keep our members up to date with changes that are likely to affect many of us.

As stated at last weeks’ monthly membership meeting, management had finally gotten back to us on our initial proposals in what was supposed to be our quarterly “partnership” meeting. At this meeting management stated that they believe that they cannot substantively bargain over regular and recurring telework. We vehemently disagree, as the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has consistently ruled that this is something management has discretion to bargain on (with one exception that was overturned by the federal courts). As such, we will be petitioning the FLRA to (once again) rule on the negotiability.

In the meantime, we have been negotiating an agreement on the impact and implementation (I&I) of the RTO orders that management is clearly motivated to pursue. This is a power that federal labor unions possess to reduce the negative effects from changes in working conditions.

It’s important to note that management generally cannot implement changes in working conditions until bargaining is completed. In this case, with the threat of the loss of the lease on the downtown Chicago office (a threat management made at the bargaining table even though GSA has rescinded the lease termination for now), the bargaining team feels we have to consider a scenario where we have to bargain “return” to office and then engage in separate negotiations for regular and recurring telework- negotiations that may take years and complex litigation.

Here’s an attempt to breakdown the current state of negotiations -

Here are some things the union and management appear to have agreement on regarding RTO:

• Management will inform bargaining unit employees (BUEs) of several benefits that affected employees can take advantage of.

• Management will adhere to regulations providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities - protecting us from escalated reviews and keeping it at your supervisors level.

• BUEs will have the period from when the agreement is signed to when the agreement is effective to submit changes to benefits.

• BUEs without a dedicated cubicle or office space will be approved for situational telework until such space becomes available.

• BUEs can request a request to report to any USACE, DoD, or GSA Federal coworking facility located closer to their residences. Management will make reasonable attempts to accommodate such requests.

• BUEs currently on remote work agreements where there isn’t an available office within 50 miles will have the right to union bargaining over the options they have in terms of moving/PCS entitlements. This will allow for a stronger hand on things like getting the defense home sales program approved.

• The paperwork to request a retention incentive will be streamlined for those who live more than 50 miles from their office and cannot be assigned to a closer office. This will help expand options for employees to pursue to offset increased commuting costs.

Things the union and management have yet to resolve:

• Guarantee of the transit and childcare benefits regardless of whether Army continues them.

• Implementation timeline – the union had initially proposed 60 days from agreement while management countered 7 days initially. We will likely land somewhere in the middle, but those of us in the negotiating room are not prepared to accept less than a month.

If our proposal to guarantee transit and childcare benefits is not accepted, we plan to offer proposals that would lock in:

• Use of maxiflex schedules to accommodate a loss in workplace flexibility and the impacts therein.

• The conditions by which situational telework would be approved.

• The ability for BUEs to utilize “mobile work” to mitigate the impacts of increased commute times by working while commuting on transit and having that count as part of their workday.

Depending on the results of the RTO negotiation, we will propose a separate negotiation on restoring regular and recurring telework and remote work.

We are set to resume negotiations with management Monday, March 17th, so please don't hesitate to provide feedback and share with us how these changes would affect you. Being able to point to the concerns of our fellow workers greatly helps us in the negotiating room.

In concluding these updates, I think it’s important to highlight that all of this is confined to formal negotiations. A union is any group of workers engaging in collective activity to better their workplace. As with any change in working conditions, we are always able to engage in collective action to put pressure on management to accept our demands. YOU are the Union and our executive board is prepared to support our fellow workers who want to get creative.

Ongoing Administration-Driven Policy Updates

We are going to share here the updates relevant to our members as we learn them. [Note from 29-Jan-2025: I am working to catch up on posting contents of emails I'm sending to members and bargaining unit employees here. Please check back for more info.]

OPM's "Fork in the Road" Deferred Resignation Program

• On January 29, 2025, IFPTE Local 777 filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the FLRA against OPM regarding this email; as it is clearly "direct dealing" with bargaining unit employees. Federal sector labor law is clear that when a group of employees has a certified "exclusive representative" that the government cannot directly bargain with any of those employees in the unit. They must go through the union. In this case, OPM offered bargaining unit employees something in exchange for an agreement; with a short deadline to respond. It is a blatant attempt to pressure workers using used-car-sales tactics that wouldn't work if collective bargaining had been respected.

• This scheme is unlike any legal "buyout" such as the VERA or VSIP programs that are well-established in law and policy. Instead, it appears this is a work-around to avoid all of the process required by those regulations to try to pressure employees to make a quick decision with limited information. 

Local 777 President Sends Updates on New Policy from the White HOuse

Below is an email sent to the whole Chicago District bargainng unit, plus Local 777 members. I've also added some annotations here that I didn't feel I could add on the email that was sent to government/official emails.

I know that many of us - myself included - have seen the news of the various policies of the new administration that have now been put into writing. Some of these target us as federal workers; some target groups of people who may include us, our families, and others in our communities. These documents tend to be injected with tones ranging from informality to malice that is uncharacteristic of government documents.

I want to validate feelings of uncertainty, fear, frustration, anger, and even despair. I also want to recognize that some of us may be feeling excitement or anticipation. Any of these feelings are normal and okay to have. As President of IFPTE Local 777, I want to assure each and every worker here at USACE Chicago District that our union has a place for you and cares for you and will always do everything we collectively can to be ready to support you.

I’m going to share some thoughts about the major policies that have come out, how they might affect us, and how we might be able to respond. I cannot discuss issues of strategy in this email. [Those thoughts are here on this website!]

First of all, no matter what changes may come, you have a legal right to problem-solve with your coworkers through collective action. Don’t forget that any strength we have is found in solidarity and standing together, supporting each other. There’s a lot more about this in the attached ACE Council Newsletter. Please give it a read.

On the topic of telework, I have seen the Presidential Memorandum on telework/remote work (no, it’s not an executive order despite how it’s been commonly referred to). I’ve also seen the OPM Memo that provides more guidance to agencies on the topic. Both of these are, in my first reading, rushed and difficult to determine their exact legal meanings. That will unfold over the coming days. In the meantime, the agency (in our case, that refers to DOD and maybe Army HQ) has been instructed to revise their policies in a very expedited manner. I am not convinced that this is possible, especially in the DOD given how such policy revisions usually occur. That said, if they do move quickly; it would still be illegal for management to change your working conditions, or conditions of employment, without first notifying the union and fully meeting their obligations. In that regard, these guidance documents have their issues, and the underlying case law on bargaining over telework is unsettled. While nether side can be expected to bargain in bad faith (e.g., using stalling tactics), the process could still take quite some time to play out fully. Appeals to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, US Court of Appeals, etc. may be necessary in addition to the normal bargaining process. [Local 777 has also started a petition to demonstrate how deeply and widely felt this issue is. We will present this to management and we will insist that in our negotations, we do not "comply in advance" and take these policies at face value. Any assertion by the agency that they do not have to bargain this with us will be met with petitions (and/or unfair labor practice charges) to the FLRA to get a legal ruling from the current FLRA. The most recent telework decision from FLRA was by Trump-appointed majority that overruled years of precedence. We will also not fall for attempts to "informally" bargain, or to concede issues on the basis that the Agency Head may/will disapprove a provision. We will make the Agency actually disapprove it and challenge that decision if warranted.]

On the topic of probationary and temporary/term employees, my thoughts are generally similar. The order requiring agencies to send names of probationary, temporary, and term employees to OPM so that the administration can order an employee fired at their most vulnerable point is outrageous. However, assuming that this goes forward, I foresee several things that may balance how quickly and completely the agency chooses to carry this out. Agencies may well struggle to balance carrying out this directive with the administration’s hiring freeze, and so this may be complex and may take a while to be implemented at the LRC level. [There are many ways to challenge a termination of a probationary employee. Among them, it is illegal to fire a probationary employee for political reasons. (Of course, any other kind of discrimination is also illegal, and retaliation for EEO, Union, or Whistleblower activity are also all on the list of why it's illegal to fire someone in their probationary period. Local 777 will pursue grievances or other complaints if our bargaining unit employees are fired due to this new process. One good site that outlines some of the strategies we like to use is here.]

On the topics of the DEI/DEIA message the MG Colloton sent out today, this action by the administration is another that is profoundly uncharacteristic of a government document [it's amateurish, gross, and hateful.] (MG Colloton just sent what the administration said to.)  That said, I do not think it directly affects our bargaining unit in terms of anyone being put on leave or fired. Since none of us are managers or involved in HR, I do not think that the threating language about “reporting” efforts to hide DEIA programs or officials applies to us either. Similarly, the order regarding Schedule F is not likely to affect our bargaining unit in the near term, if at all, in my estimation. [We will still do anything we can - either directly if it pops up in our bargaining unit, or through our parent union - to oppose these attacks.]

My bottom line is this. Now is the time to use your legal rights; especially the right to stand together and have one another’s backs.

It is illegal; and you should notify the union ASAP, if you encounter:

• Supervisors telling you that you may not or should not join or associate with the union (whether it’s because you are probationary, or due to the overall climate, etc.).

• Supervisors changing your working conditions (including terminating or altering a telework or remote work agreement) without notice to the union.

• Any political retaliation.

I care about every one of you, and I want us all to be able to do our jobs and serve our communities and our nation. I will give you all that I can, and many of your coworkers have made similar commitments by taking on roles in our union. We will make it through by supporting each other. Please help when you can, and ask for help when you need it. [If you have not joined the union and are eligible to do so, NOW IS THE TIME.]

In unshakeable solidarity,

-Colin

Local 777 Wins Team of the Quarter Grievance

Today, Local 777 announced that it won a class grievance for 26 workers who received the Chicago District "Team of the Quarter" award, but never received any cash award as the previous awards policy required. Management agreed to provide all of these employees a 4-hour time off award in finding for the union and the class grievants!

Local 777 Advocates for Better Pay For Mechanics At the Upper Wabash

Some folks are skeptical about unions in the federal government, since our pay rates are one of the topics we can't bargain over with our local management. However, Local 777 has shown how a high-participation union can still affect the pay of its members. Recently, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management proposed paying wage grade workers at one of the Upper Wabash lakes based on prevailing wages in the Indianapolis area instead of the Ft. Wayne area. Local 777 advocated that all three Upper Wabash lakes should be treated the same and paid the Indianapolis-based wages. We did this by submitting official comments to OPM for them to consider. We are also working with local members of Congress to try to secure a letter from them to OPM as well. More to come!

Local 777 Adopts Bylaws Revisions

The members of Local 777 voted by overwhelmingly at the December monthly meeting to adopt several altered versions of the amendments that were adopted in August. The IFPTE office in Washington identified a constitutional issue with the "Auxiliary Member" concept. Therefore, all references to "auxiliary members" were revised further to refer to associate members. To ensure proper adoption, the members ratified these minor changes. The IFPTE office has approved the bylaws and they are now effective.

Local 777 votes to ratify the Draft of the new Telework, Remote work, and Mobile Work Policy

The members of Local 777 voted by a final margin of 97.6% to ratify the proposed draft. LRC management has been notified that we are ready to approve the draft. Thank you to over 40 members who participated in this vote!

New Fitness Policy has been signed

The update to the LRC Fitness Policy has been signed and you can now start using it. Key wins for workers here:

• The fitness period can start at one location (e.g. office) and end at another (e.g. home).

• The "log" of the fitness activities is no longer required; entering that data in CEFMS will suffice.

Encouraging Legislative progress in the 118th Congress

Local 777's political advocacy, together with that of IFPTE, has secured:

• Language in the House Appropriations Bill and the Senate Appropriations bill that would require transparency in the Corps' plan to automate locks and dams.

• Language in the House Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill that would ensure no job loss due to lock and dam automation.

Draft of the new Telework, Remote work, and Mobile Work Policy out for pre-ratification review

The workers who speak together as IFPTE Local 777 (the union that represents this bargaining unit) have been informally bargaining with management to draft a new Telework, Remote Work, and Mobile Work policy.

Based on feedback we previously received, we advocated for and won (among other things):

• A table that sets measurable criteria for eligibility for telework (incl. situational and regular/recurring) and remote work (local and CONUS).

• Language that would explicitly allow working while commuting (where applicable).

• Language that requires supervisors to explicitly account for benefits, not just costs, in assessing remote work requests.

• Requirements that any denials or revocation of telework or remote work be in writing. Revocations require advance notice.

Way forward: The dues-paying members of the union will vote on whether or not to ratify this draft policy. If you have questions as to your membership status, please contact President Colin Smalley during off-duty time by email at president@ifpte777.org.

The LRC Corporate Board will also be reviewing the draft at the same time.

If the union members ratify the draft, we will indicate to management that their obligations have been met and the policy may be signed. If the ratification vote fails, or if the corporate board does not recommend that the commander signs this policy as informally negotiated, the union will demand to formally bargain on these topics.

Please let President Colin Smalley – or any Local 777 steward or officer – know if you have any questions or would like to provide any feedback.

Proposed Amendment to the Local 777 Bylaws

At the August 2024 membership meeting, President Colin Smalley introduced several proposed amendments to the IFPTE Local 777 Bylaws. Please review these proposed changes, and provide your thoughts in the members-only email list, or directly to President Smalley.

The quick version:

• Removes the ability for former members who took management positions - in Chicago District or elsewhere - to remain as Associate Members of the local.

• Creates a new category of membership, Auxiliary Member. Auxiliary Members would be those working in DOD positions who are eligible for union representation but are not currently represented by any union. Auxiliary members would be eligible to vote, to run for certain elected positions, and to be appointed to positions.

• Redefines Associate Membership as for members who retired from federal service and are not currently management.

DA Fellows & DA Student INterns - FINAL UPDATE!

ALL good news: We have reached an amended agreement with management that confirms that all DA Fellows AND DA Student Interns assigned to Chicago Distirct are bargaining unit employees. Just like we'd been saying all along. It's the strength of our solidarity that won the day as management faced the reality of a hearing under oath at the FLRA. Read the Amended Settlement Agreement here!

DA Fellows & DA Student INterns - UPDATE!

The good news: Management proposed, and Local 777 negotiated and signed, a settlement agreement that results in recognition that DA Fellows are bargaining unit employees. Management emailed each Fellow about their union rights. In exchange, we agreed to withdraw our clarification petition and our related unfair labor practice charges with the FLRA. The current DA Fellows ratified the agreement prior to union signature. Read the Settlement Agreement here!

The bad news: During the FLRA clarification petition, it seemed we were headed toward a hearing. Because there were no DA Student Interns on-board with LRC at the time, FLRA asked us to amend our petition to remove them from the ultimate decision. Now, management is maintaining that the DA Student Interns are outside the bargaining unit. We are engaging in conversations with management, but should those fail to be productive, we will re-file our petition and request an expedited hearing from FLRA. More to come soon!

NEW  Time & Attendance Policy

As of February 2024, the new Time and Attendance Policy that we negotiated with management is in effect. We won a new 4-10s compressed work schedule and expanded voting leave! Get familiar with the new policy here.

We'll soon begin negotiations with management soon on a separate LRC telework and remote work policy.

DA Fellows & DA Student INterns

What: The Chicago District, with guidance from the Army Civilian Human Relations Activity (CHRA), determined (without notifying us) that the DA Fellows that work for the Chicago District are no longer in the bargaining unit, and therefore are not protected by the Collective Bargaining Agreement or other federal law relating to their collective bargaining rights. We disagreed with this action, and tried to convince the agency, with no luck. 

In response, we filed a “Clarification of Unit” petition with the FLRA, which is what we believe the agency should have done before stripping these workers of their rights. Instead, we are making the case to the FLRA that these workers are part of a community with other Chicago District workers, with common interests. We are unequivocally saying that these workers have been, and continue to be, part of our bargaining unit. We hope to get a decision from the FLRA – the only agency that can determine whether or not an employee is in a bargaining unit – soon. We tried to get the only legal solution completed before a serious issue arose.

Unfortunately, an unrelated issue did arise that resulted in the need to file a grievance on behalf of the DA Fellows. We got an almost immediate response from CHRA that said that the DA Fellows are not entitled to use the Negotiated Grievance Procedure. Instead, CHRA says that they have to use the DoD administrative grievance procedure, which has no appeal or review process. This is hollow, though, because if the FLRA agrees with us that the DA Fellows are in the bargaining unit, then the DoD procedure does not apply to them – but by then, we would have missed the chance to use our negotiated procedure. We did not, and will not, fall for this trick. Local 777 filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the FLRA, which will be decided after the clarification petition is decided.

Files:

• Union Petition (May 2, 2023)

• Agency's Position Statement (June 15, 2023)

• Union's Position Statement (June 15, 2023)