Borderline

BORDERLINE NEWSLETTER

Borderline

By CBPO Marc Casella

Speak up or don’t expect action

I’d like to address an issue that really needs to be resolved. That issue is that if you see a problem that needs to be addressed whether it’s with management or coworkers you need to speak up and speak up when the problem first appears. If you do not speak up then don’t expect there to be any corrective actions taken.

Recently, an issue has come up here in Nogales where an employee who we’ll call “Becky” was counseled for her behavior. This otherwise level headed employee seems to have an anger management issue that has reared its ugly head here at the POE and it appears that this “Jekyll and Hyde” personality has been affecting her coworkers for quite some time now. Well, after being counseled by management for this behavior one of our Supervisors called another employee who we’ll call “Joanna” into the office and told her that she is “concerned” for her (Joanna) because “Becky” has it out for her (Joanna) and that it’s personal. Apparently “Becky” believes that “Joanna” is the reason that she was counseled and “Becky” is none too pleased. So “Joanna” goes to her NTEU representative (as well she should) and explains this situation and states that she is concerned because she doesn’t know what “Becky” is going to do to her. So her NTEU rep asks her for something in writing which she readily provides along with some names of other people who have had problems with “Becky” or who have witnessed her seemingly bipolar personality. So as a good rep would do, he followed the leads that were provided by “Joanna” and much to his surprise he finds that not only are there several other victims of her unstable behavior but in at least 3 other cases “Becky’s” anger turned physical in the form of pushing, shoving and chest bumping her coworkers! Astounded by this new found information the NTEU rep took this to the supervisors for action. After talking to the APD, the supervisors claim that because she was counseled for her behavior as a whole that she could not be disciplined for her actions that took place prior to counseling. The fact that “Becky” got physical with her coworkers will be noted in case there are any future incidents. The reason for this is that only one of these incidents was ever reported to management and they feel that since she was counseled for her behavior as a whole that those past incidents are covered by this counseling and therefore if they take further action then it will be perceived that she is being disciplined twice for the same problem. This response does not surprise me as most port management seems to be reactive instead of proactive and as much as I despise having to agree with them in the slightest, they are right. They can’t discipline her twice for the same issues. However, based on the supervisor’s statements of concern to “Joanna” it appears that a hostile work environment has been created for “Joanna” and that needs to be addressed by management, but of course it isn’t so an EEO will be considered. After all, now “Joanna” feels that “Becky” is out to get her, she doesn’t know if it will get physical again or not, and now “Joanna” feels anxious when she is forced to work with “Becky”. In addition, another female employee who was also pushed around by “Becky” in the past feels that “Becky” will come after her as well. So now we have two employees who are forced to work in fear whenever “Becky” is on shift.

So the real questions here are; where did the system fail? Why is a seemingly mentally unstable employee allowed to continue working here and terrorizing her coworkers? Fortunately the answer to both questions is the same. The system failed because her coworkers were too weak, timid, scared, nervous or intimidated to report her and therefore there was little to no documentation of the events which leads to her continued employment. Now I understand that most people don’t like confrontation (which I find to be quite odd considering our jobs) or they don’t want to make waves but when issues like this arise it is absolutely necessary to inform someone about what transpired whether it’s a supervisor or a union rep, and it needs to be done in a timely manner. If not, these incidents will go uncorrected and other employees like “Becky” will emerge since they will feel that they can push people around with impunity. This will undoubtedly set the stage for future and potentially more dangerous/violent encounters. Perhaps when that does happen and someone does get seriously hurt both management and employees alike will wake up and realize that their actions or inactions are what failed to prevent it. Then maybe, just maybe somebody will take the initiative to become proactive. Until next time, stay safe.

CBPO Casella has been with CBP since February of 2004 and is a proud and active member of the NTEU. To contact CBPO Casella with your stories, comments or questions, email him at mcasella@nteuchapter116.org. Use “Borderline” in the subject line. Any requests by contributors to remain anonymous will be honored.

Disclaimer: Borderline is a bi-weekly article written by CBPO Marc Casella exclusively for NTEU chapter 116. Any copying, printing, reposting, retransmission or other unauthorized distribution or use without the express written consent of the NTEU Chapter president and CBPO Casella is strictly prohibited by law. The NTEU Chapter 116 and CBPO Casella assume no responsibility for any misrepresentations or falsifications made by outside contributors.

Borderline

By CBPO Marc Casella

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

That was the message that was sent from Roberto Paez, member and proposing official of the discipline review board (DRB) on September 11, 2009 when he proposed the removal of a CBP Officer in Nogales, AZ for failing to query every pedestrian that entered the Dennis DeConcini POE one April afternoon. Mr. Paez stated “While you were working the pedestrian lane at the DeConcini POE, you failed to conduct primary name queries on travelers presenting machine readable documents, despite an agency policy mandating such queries”. The DRB went on to say “You were clearly on notice of the requirement to conduct name queries on all passengers presenting themselves for entry into the United States”. Notice the word “all” in there. He then references a muster from June of 2008 which states “In order to fulfill your responsibilities and complete the core elements of a land border primary inspection you…” to include “Query traveler information in the available primary system… The ultimate goal is absolute screening of all travelers entering the United States”. That muster references CBPO Directive #3340-040A. Of course, it should come as no surprise that the DRB left out the part of the directive which states “…to the extent that it is operationally feasible, as directed by local CBP management”. In a memo provided by one of the Watch commanders it states that “The policy for the Nogales Port of entry is to screen all travelers entering the United States from Mexico in accordance with CBP Directive 3340-040A”. There’s that nasty word “all” again. Another watch commander stated in his memo that “[The Officer] was assigned to pedestrian and was on lane number one”

There are two things wrong with that statement. First, the officer was not on lane number one because lane number one is never opened. It doesn’t even have a working computer! Perhaps some of the thirteen’s should hone there observational skills as they seem to be getting a little rusty. The second thing that is wrong with his memo is that the Officer in question wasn’t even assigned to the pedestrian entrance on that day; he was assigned to the permit counter! He just happened to be walking by the pedestrian entrance and he noticed that it was overcrowded and understaffed, not exactly a surprise when you’re talking about Nogales. So the Officer decided of his own volition that he would go in and open another pedestrian lane and help alleviate the congestion. Well, as most seasoned veterans do he was being selective and scanning only those whom he felt warranted it.

Then along came management who of course did not immediately confront the officer or question him as to whether or not the card reader was even working, but instead they noted his actions and reported it up the chain of command. Low and behold (to no one’s surprise) five months later there is a proposal to remove this Officer from service.

So what is the lesson that we should take from this incident? It is quite clear to me that there are two distinct lessons here. First, never voluntarily help out management or the service in any way shape or form. They absolutely do not appreciate your extra effort. Also, let’s not forget that your extra effort may cost you your job. Second, it is obvious that local management believes that all travelers must be queried so why take a chance and risk your job? It seems to me that no matter who tells you that it’s ok to not scan 100% of travelers that apply for entry into the United States, it obviously is not! Even if it is a supervisor or a chief that tells you, ask for it in writing otherwise just keep scanning everybody! Man, woman, infant or elderly leave no document un-swiped lest it be your removal that is proposed! And if they try to throw insubordination at you, remember the NTEU has documented proof that the agency will indeed try to fire you if you don’t scan everybody!

So is it really insubordination to refuse an order from a supervisor that you know may very well get you fired? I guess we’ll find out. But keep in mind, I guarantee you that if a manager tells you not to query everyone because the wait time is too long and you let the wrong person in, when they catch that person later and they find out he came through your lane and you didn’t swipe his document I guarantee you that the manager who told you not to query everyone is going to get amnesia. They say “it” rolls down hill and guess who’s at the bottom. That’s right, you! You, me and anyone else under the GS-12 pay grade. For those of you who don’t want to believe me all I can say to you is this; when you’re sitting in the room with IA; remember, you are entitled to union representation but you must request it. Until next time, be safe.

CBPO Casella has been with CBP since February of 2004 and is a proud and active member of the NTEU. To contact CBPO Casella with your stories, comments or questions, email him at mcasella@nteuchapter116.org. Use “Borderline” in the subject line. Any requests by contributors to remain anonymous will be honored.

Borderline

By CBPO Marc Casella

“I’m an Idiot, listen while I explain why”

Stewards, have you ever been in an IA interview and your member just won’t listen to you? Regardless of how many times we tell him or her to shut up and answer only the questions that are asked of them, they just keep on talking. They prattle on and on about what they didn’t do or what they didn’t know and all they’re really telling the investigator is “Hey, I’m an idiot, listen while I explain why”. Why won’t the members ever listen to their representatives? After all, it’s what we’re there for. We have sat through countless interviews with both subjects and witnesses alike and yet the members feel that they still know how to approach the situation better than us. I really don’t understand it other then to say that for some reason people have this subconscious urge to explain themselves in great detail when they feel that they are innocent. Unfortunately, more often than not these people are not innocent and they manage to talk themselves into more serious situations than they were in before! Like when the IA Agent asked “What is your association with (Insert name here)”? To which the member responded by saying “He’s a friend of mine. But I ran him in TECS and he’s clear so it’s ok if I associate with him…Right”? Now those of you who know me are aware of the fact that I have neither the time nor the energy to make something like that up. For those of you who don’t know me, take the others word on it. Well, it stands to reason that with Rhodes Scholars like that in our membership that we would need to come up with a few new ways to keep block heads like that from committing career suicide. Apparently the old way of reasoning with them is no longer effective. So how do we keep our members from digging their own graves? What a wonderful question, I’m glad you asked. Since it’s apparently illegal to “hit” them with a cattle prod (well, I know now) I’ve found a few other, less assaulting, techniques that I’d like to recommend.

First, there is a method that I learned while working deep cover for the CIA in Laos, or maybe it was Cambodia, perhaps it was Saudi-nam. Anyway, we would surgically cut our “operatives” vocal chords prior to deployment (in case they got caught) and insert audio speakers in their throats. A small transceiver would be surgically implanted into their abdomens so we could hear their captor’s questions and dictate the proper disinformation in response through wireless microphones. All while sitting comfortably in our tents while sipping on a “mai thai” and listening to our favorite Barry Manilow songs. This may be just a bit extreme for use on some of our members but then again we do represent some people that probably should have succumbed to natural selection by now.

This second idea requires a little practice but when mastered its really quite effective. Try throwing your voice like a ventriloquist. I highly recommend “Ventriloquism for Dummies” to help get you on your way. Of course you will have to rub peanut butter on you member’s gums before going into the interview. This way while he is trying to lick it off, his lips are moving which will help put your act over and most importantly, he or she will not be talking!

If all else fails try bringing coffee for everyone. Of course the trick here is that yours is the only one that isn’t drugged. When the investigators, and your member wake up, the questions will already be answered on their little G-lap top. When asked what happened just tell the agents that this guy (your member) was such a bore that his inane babble put everyone to sleep even himself!

If even after all of that, the member still can’t help but spill his deepest darkest secrets, then give him the number to CBP Chaplain David Wlazlak cause he or she is going to need to appeal to a higher power then we can to save their jobs. Until next time, stay safe.

Borderline

By CBPO Marc Casella

Probationary Employees and their rights

This has been a hot topic since I entered on duty and I’m sure it goes back longer than that. The most frequent questions that seem to arise are: Can they (management) fire a probationary employee for no reason? Can probationary be represented by the NTEU? Is it true that probationary employees have no rights? The simple answers are no, yes, and no. If that’s all you need to know then stop reading now, go into the bathroom with a bottle of Jack and gaze into the mirror while you try to convince yourself that you’re a valued member of the department and that your service matters. For those of you that need a little more, read on.

We’ll start with the first question; Can they (management) fire a probationary employee for no reason? This little gem of stupidity has been passed on to new hires around the country since 1789. I have even been told that instructors at FLETC have been engaged in the act of spreading this nasty little rumor as well. The plain truth of the matter is that nobody can fire an employee without cause. There are laws that protect against just that very thing. So why tell a new hire that they can be fired for absolutely no reason at all? It’s really quite simple. A scared employee is an obedient employee. If an employee thinks that he can just be sent packing at any time for any reason then he is not going to make waves. He is going to come in do his job and keep his mouth shut. He won’t do anything stupid like join unions or complain when his rights are violated.

This brings us to our second question; Can probationary employees be represented by the NTEU? Of course they can. The NTEU won the right to be the sole bargaining unit for all of CBP. The largest area of confusion with this issue comes from the fact that anyone hired after July 2004 is not covered by any “legacy” contract. This does not mean that new hires do not have or are not entitled to representation. It simply means that the NTEU must represent these employees using the old agency policies, procedures and methodologies. Good luck trying to find any information on the above mentioned policies, procedures and methodologies. Let me know how you make out with that.

I guess this brings us to the third question; Is it true that probationary employees have no rights? Anyone who believes that this is true needs to join the others with the bottle of Jack in the bathroom. Of course probationary employees have rights. They have the same rights as anyone else. Perhaps some of you have heard about things like the civil service reform act or the Department of Labor. No? How about the Federal Labor Relations Authority? Well maybe some of you need to stop reading the magazines that are sold behind the counter and start reading some material that might help you understand your rights. There are many resources available out there that define what rights an employee has. Sorry Joey, most of these materials don’t have pictures. Maybe you can get your daughter to read them to you.

Anyway, it’s obvious that management counts on the fact that most new employees are uninformed about what their rights really are and they like to use fear tactics to keep them from asking too many questions about their rights. And why shouldn’t they? It’s really quite effective. Heck, if I were a manager I would tell all of the new hires that they were fired in the morning and that they had better give me a good reason to change my mind by the end of the shift! I’m almost positive that there is a law against that somewhere but hell, they won’t know! Now go get the drunks out of the bathroom or you’re all fired. Until next time, stay safe.

Borderline

By CBPO Marc Casella

Days off? Not on our watch!

As of recent, managers at the Nogales, POE have been routinely attempting to violate the National Agreement (NA) by ordering officers to work on their regular scheduled days off (RDO). Article 22 section 6 of the NA states: “Employees on a scheduled day off or on approved annual leave, shall not be required to work overtime during such periods unless operational and manpower requirements so dictate. Such free time will begin at the conclusion of the employee's last scheduled tour and continue until the start of his next scheduled tour.” The key phrase in this section is that the free time starts at the end of your regularly scheduled shift and continues until the beginning of your next regularly scheduled shift. In other words, if you work 0600-1400 for the pay period with RDO’s of Wed/Thurs, your RDO starts at 1400hrsTuesday afternoon and doesn’t end until 0600hrs Friday morning. Therefore, you cannot be forced to work OT during that time span (2 hour emergency holdover excluded) Management of course, does not seem to understand this concept. Of course that might have something to do with the mandatory frontal lobe lobotomy that all managers receive at supervisor school. Regardless of the reasons for the violation it is imperative that this action not be allowed to take place. The NTEU has a responsibility to the bargaining unit to protect their days off. Our members are already overworked as it is; to allow management to force them to work on their days off is nothing short of barbaric. I think that we all understand that the ports on the southwest border are understaffed to say the least, but when we are forced to work because of gross mismanagement or because the ports want to burn up funds at the end of the quarter then that’s where we need to draw the line!

Nogales has successfully defended its members RDO’s on at least two occasions in the last couple of months and we are about to have to do it again. Management keeps spewing the same old nonsense about “needs of the service” and “operational necessity” but what do these phrases really mean and how do they apply to our situations? You can ask five different people about what those phrases mean and I bet you’ll get five different answers.

Management would love to have all vehicle and pedestrian lanes of traffic opened and have secondary filled with inspectors. But if they can’t have that they order people out until they can. The whole time they claim “needs of the service” or “operational necessity”. They apparently have no regard for employees and their lives outside of the confines of our ports. So it falls on us, the NTEU, to protect our members and their them on the nose with it and say “No!” Sometimes you have to open the contract and rub their noses in it for them to realize that they did something bad. But for the most part, just filing the grievance will suffice.

It seems like management generally does not want this issue to go to arbitration. I believe that this is mainly because of the fact that they will probably lose but I also firmly believe it’s because they will be required to define the terms “needs of the service” and “operational necessity” which is one thing that they definitely do not want to do. But until that day comes where CBP is forced to define these terms, it is important that stewards and members alike remain vigilant and take an active role in stopping management from abusing their authority.

Remember, there are more members then there are stewards so don’t assume that a steward automatically knowrights by challenging management and taking them to arbitration if necessary. With some managers you actually have to roll up a newspaper and swats that you or a coworker has been victimized by management. It is up to each and every employee to exercise their voices so that they may be heard. So if you have been a victim of management or if you have witnessed management abusing your coworker contact a steward and remember, details are what wins/loses a case. Until next time, stay safe.

MEETING INFO

A meeting was held on April 24, 2009, in Sierra Vista, Arizona. Executive Board members on site were President, Joey Martin, Vice President, Rudy Di Bene and Secretary, Ivan Gonzalez. Officers from the ports of entry from Douglas, Naco, Lukeville and San Luis, Arizona were present. Stewards on site were Kendale Whicker, Dale Hammond, Doug Annino, Scott Durfee and Robert Fennell.

Meet and greet commenced at 6pm, dinner was served at 6:30pm and the meeting was called to order at 7pm.

Meeting began with the rules of order being laid out and with the President's, Vice President's and Treasurer's report. One item was put to vote and was passed unanimously.

After the reports, the floor was opened for all members present. A good dialogue ensued with all members involved.

We would like to take this time to offer a special thank you to Kendale Whicker and his supporting staff in making all the arrangements for this meeting. A job well done and we could not have done this without your help!

Also, thanks to the Country House Restaurant for having to put up with us and meeting all of our needs.