Caltech Faulted for Unfair Labor Practices at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
“National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol has found the California Institute of Technology engaged in unfair labor practices at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA. Caltech administers JPL under contract with NASA. In 2011, Caltech issued letters of highest level disciplinary reprimand to five JPL employees because they used JPL’s internal email system to discuss the implications of a recent Supreme Court ruling on the working conditions at JPL. The five employees had been plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case.”
Full NLRB decision (worth reading by all NASA employees)
“I reject JPL’s contention that it had no choice but to comply with NASA’s directives. I start by pointing out that HSPD 12 was not specific as to how the Government was to implement the directive. Other departments in the Government, according to the employees, implemented it a manner less invasive of the privacy of their employees. And the NASA badging requirements morphed and evolved, apparently in response to the concerns voiced by 30 the employees. Finally, there is no evidence that JPL itself could not have sought to influence NASA to address some of the concerns of its employees. NASA and JPL chose the manner in which they implemented HSPD 12 and some employees concertedly complained and sought to change it. The employees have a Section 7 right to do so.”
“By issuing written warnings to Robert Nelson, Dennis Byrnes, Scott Maxwell, Larry D’Addario, and William Bruce Banerdt because they engaged in protected, concerted activities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.”
Keith’s note: Of course NASA and JPL will appeal this decision. It would be interesting to see how much they will pay the lawyers (and who pays for those lawyers) who seek to oppose the rights of employees.
Previous postings on HSPD-12
Having read the law judges decision, I can’t help but think about a couple of matters, one being the culture and attitudes in general within NASA (including JPL) management. The management culture is very much averse and prejudicial to anyone making waves. Which is extremely odd, as in this case management and leadership should be so much about process, and managing processes and people. Here it appears the knee-jerk reaction of the leadership went and showed it’s true colors. Major SCREW-UP in even thinking management had a case for disciplinary action. This should have been an opportunity for their management to engage with the HSPD12 concerns of the workforce.
Another thought about the judges decision though, which seems to be pretty straight-forward, and all about fairness, is the similarity I see to other legal decisions about the use of public resources. It’s the old fairness issue akin to who can use the classroom after hours. The chess club? Yes. The Boy Scouts? Yes. Of course when a use is requested that the school administrators do not like (subjectively, devoid of any process), and lawsuits ensue, many similar situations have just taken up negative learning – and all such activity is curtailed, 100%. The Pyrrhic victory. Some people hate being shown up. The result is the potential of a “prom cancellation” is held over people’s heads. Play by our rules, don’t even ask, or we’ll just make life difficult for EVERYONE, and you, not us, will take the community heat.
Beware.
I see the point of the employees fully, and think the supreme court decision as well just missed totally the boat (these decisions are often so narrow, favoring in their narrowness the organizations that can make life difficult forever for the little guy).
Yet one should now expect an allergic reaction to this labor judges decision from JPL management, and be prepared for a drawn out rear guard action.
Some people hate to lose. NASA management, very much so.
“Some people hate to lose. NASA management, very much so.”
Caltech retaliated against their employees, not NASA.
We actually don’t know whether NASA was involved in the retaliation. Caltech cited complaints about the e-mail, but refused to say how many or from whom. In the NLRB hearings (which I attended), Caltech’s lawyers and witnesses emphasized their position that Caltech relies solely on NASA for funding (not true, but that was what the JPL witnesses said) and that the e-mail had jeopardized that relationship, which suggests that NASA may have been included in the decision about the discipline.
You are absolutely correct that JPL and NASA will keep dragging this issue out as long as they can because, as you say, they hate to lose. And the taxpayers foot the bill. The reprimands were a childish move.
“In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity” – Winston Churchill
JPL won the main HSPD-12 case. So this action was a very obvious act of retaliation. The thing I find really surprising about this extremely incompetent piece of management is that the high ups signed it. Basic rules of survival have the directors giving themselves plausible denial-ability by say inspecting something in Alaska during the meetings and when the memos are being written.