NOTICE: Due to Virginia's stay at home order
we are shipping orders on a limited basis.
All eBook orders are available immediately after checkout.
2009: #01-1 | #01-2 | #01-3 | #01-4 | #01-5 | #01-6 | #01-7 | #01-8 | #01-9 | #01-10 |
2010: #02-1 | #02-2 | #02-3 | #02-4 | #02-5 | #02-6 | #02-7 | #02-8 | #02-9 | #02-10 | #02-11 | #02-12
2011: #03-1 | #03-2 | #03-3 | #03-4 | #03-5 | #03-6 | #03-7 | #03-8 | #03-9 | #03-10
2012: #04-1 | #04-2 | #04-3 | #04-4 | #04-5 | #04-6 | #04-7 | #04-8 | #04-9 | #04-10 | #04-11 | #04-12
2013: #05-1 | #05-2 | #05-3 | #05-4 | #05-5 | #05-6 | #05-7 | #05-8 | #05-9 | #05-10 | #05-11 | #05-12 | #05-13
2014: #06-1 | #06-2 | #06-3 | #06-4 | #06-5 | #06-6 | #06-7 | #06-8 | #06-9 | #06-10 | #06-11 | #06-12 | #06-13 |
2015: #07-1 | #07-2 | #07-3 | #07-4 | #07-5 | #07-6 | #07-7 | #07-8 | #07-9 |
2016: #08-1 | #08-2 | #08-3 | #08-4 | #08-5 | #08-6 | #08-7 | #08-8 |
2017: #09-1 | #09-2 | #09-3 | #09-4 | #09-5 | #09-6 | #09-7 | #09-8 | #09-9 |
2018: #10-1 | #10-2 | #10-3 | #10-4 | #10-5 | #10-6 | #10-7 |
2019: #11-1 | #11-2 | #11-3 | #11-4 | #11-5 | #11-6 | #11-7 | #11-8 | #11-9 | #11-10 |
2020: #12-1 | #12-2 |
The "News and Case Alert email" is FREE, signup!
Sign up now to start receiving issues on time. Expect 10-14 issues a year.
We will never spam or give out your address.

My e-mail address is:  

Dewey Publications Inc.
News and Case Alert
Issue #12-02
TABLE OF CONTENTS


FEDERAL CIRCUIT NIXES MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE PROCESSING OF APPEALS BLOCKED BY AGENCY CONCERNS ABOUT MSPB JUDGES' STATUS



FLRA VACATES AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES BASED ON GROSS PROCEDURAL ERROR



REASONABLE TIME FOR CONTINUATION OF SETTLEMENT TERMS


New Releases

The Federal Supervisor
A Guide for Supervisors New to Federal Service
The Federal Supervisor

More details at:
deweypub.com/tfs



Managing Employees' Time
Managing Employees' Time

More details at:
deweypub.com/met



Supervising the Unionized Federal Workplace
Supervising the Unionized Federal Workplace

More details at:
deweypub.com/sufw



Federal Sector Disability Discrimination Law Deskbook
Federal Sector Disability Discrimination Law Deskbook

More details at:
deweypub.com/ddld



Preventing Workplace Disruption
Preventing Workplace Disruption, 2019

More details at:
deweypub.com/pwd



Compensatory Damages and Other Remedies
Compensatory Damages and Other Remedies

More details at:
deweypub.com/cdor



Federal Sector Workers' Compensation
Federal Sector Workers' Compensation

More details at:
deweypub.com/fswc



Federal Supervisor's Guide to Workplace Disability and Accommodations
Federal Supervisor's Guide to Workplace Disability and Accommodations

More details at:
deweypub.com/wda



MSPB Case Summaries
MSPB Case Summaries, 2019

More details at:
deweypub.com/mscs




MSPB Charges & Penalties
MSPB Charges and Penalties, 2019

Edition: 11th/2019
More details at:
deweypub.com/mscp



Dewey's FREE MONTHLY "News and Case Alert" keeps you up-to-date with the latest federal sector employment and labor laws, cases and news.

VISIT US ONLINE AT

www.deweypub.com


FEDERAL CIRCUIT NIXES MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE PROCESSING OF APPEALS BLOCKED BY AGENCY CONCERNS ABOUT MSPB JUDGES' STATUS

Readers recall from the News and Case Alert last month that the Federal Circuit's decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (2018-2140 Oct. 31, 2019), addressed the validity of the appointment or removal scheme for administrative patent judges. Some agencies are challenging the authority of MSPB AJs, questioning whether their appointments are constitutionally valid. Some AJs are placing appeals into DWOP status until MSPB can decide the issue. To the extent there's been no quorum at MSPB for three years and counting, there is no MSPB to decide the appointments question. The result is for those cases that are DWOP'd there's no discovery (unless the parties agree otherwise), no motions, no hearings-the appeals are moribund. Seeking to get his IRA appeal moving (filed with MSPB in May 2019), one appellant sought mandamus from the Federal Circuit. The court declined to enter mandamus on February 28, 2020, in the writ styled "In re: Ajit Jadhav, No. 2020-109. The court noted that the petitioner did not seek a ruling on the authority of AJs to issue decisions, but wanted an order directing discovery and a hearing. The court said that it would not issue mandamus based on delay, but it "will not rule out the possibility that the delay here could become egregious in the future, which could merit a reconsideration of the issue."



The Dewey Publications
Podcast

Free to subscribe via iTunes or RSS

Hosted By Peter Broida. View a detailed list of all past episodes here.


FLRA VACATES AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES BASED ON GROSS PROCEDURAL ERROR

Continuing with its redefinition of counsel fee award standards, FLRA vacated the award of counsel fees by an arbitrator who determined that the agency committed gross procedural error by exceeding the time limits set by the labor agreement for investigating misconduct and issuing a suspension. Missing from the award, said FLRA, was consideration of the "central concepts of prejudice and burden to the grievant." FLRA relied on MSPB decisions tying gross procedural error to severe prejudice to the appellant. Member DuBester, dissenting, noted that the arbitrator considered the delay prejudicial because it caused the grievant needlessly to endure almost two years of uncertainty. DHS C&BP and AFGE Local 1929, Border Patrol Council, 71 FLRA 597 (Feb. 26, 2020).





REASONABLE TIME FOR CONTINUATION OF SETTLEMENT TERMS

If a settlement states that an employee will be reassigned, or given a telework assignment, does that condition of employment last indefinitely if there's no time limit expressed in the agreement? The Federal Circuit, considering all the circumstances of a settlement of a reprisal case, determined that a compressed work schedule, to include pay for travel time to a different location, could be changed after sixteen years following the settlement when the agency demonstrated working conditions and the employer's needs had changed sufficiently to warrant departure from the settlement terms. Said the court, "where a contract is silent on the time limit of its term, it is established that the term is ordinarily effective for a reasonable time" under the circumstances. The court determined that the employee had not met his burden of proof to show that the claimed animosity persisted at his prior location 16 years after the settlement. Sanchez v. VA, Fed. Cir. 2018-2171 (Feb. 10, 2020).

Please use the "Forward email" link at the bottom of this email
to share our News Alert with a colleague.
Sign up for the free email newsletter at deweypub.com/email
    SecurityMetrics Credit Card Safe