Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a federal air traffic controller who was removed from her position by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) due to negligent performance resulting in three incidents of failing to maintain required aircraft separations over an eighteen-month period. The FAA's decision was upheld by an arbitrator, who found sufficient evidence of inattentiveness leading to multiple operational errors despite prior retraining efforts. The controller contended that the FAA should have provided additional training instead of disciplinary action, arguing that past incidents should not have been considered. However, the arbitrator determined that the FAA acted within its discretion, as its corrective retraining policy is not mandatory in every situation, especially after repeated serious safety risks. The collective bargaining agreement was interpreted to allow consideration of previous incidents within a two-year period, supporting the decision to remove her. The decision aligns with the FAA's penalty guidelines, and the arbitrator's affirmation was upheld under standards akin to those of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The outcome reaffirms the FAA's discretion in prioritizing safety and operational standards over further retraining in cases of repeated negligent performance.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitrator's Standard of Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The arbitrator's decision to uphold removal is reviewed under standards similar to those used by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Reasoning: The review of the arbitrator's decision adheres to standards comparable to those applied by the Merit Systems Protection Board, leading to affirmation of the decision.
Collective Bargaining Agreement Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The agreement allows consideration of non-disciplinary measures but does not mandate avoidance of disciplinary action after repeated performance failures.
Reasoning: The agreement’s language indicates that the one-year limitation applies specifically to the performance upon which the disciplinary action is based, not a blanket prohibition on considering older incidents.
Consideration of Prior Incidentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Administration is permitted to consider prior incidents within a specified time frame when determining penalties for current performance issues.
Reasoning: The agreement allows the Administration to consider the elapsed time since previous offenses when selecting a penalty, suggesting a two-year frame for assessing relevance.
Policy on Corrective Training vs. Disciplinary Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Administration is not obligated to provide additional training following multiple serious incidents, despite policies favoring corrective retraining.
Reasoning: The Administration previously adhered to this policy with Brehmer for earlier errors; however, it was not obligated to grant further training following a third serious incident that posed significant safety risks.
Termination Due to Negligent Performancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The FAA removed the employee due to negligent performance that led to multiple operational errors, posing significant safety risks.
Reasoning: The Administration determined Brehmer's removal was due to negligent performance, pointing out her failure to detect the traffic conflict, adequately mark flight progress strips, and coordinate necessary information regarding the traffic situation, which could have led to a catastrophic accident.