The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Unpaid Overtime

Several of our members have inquired about the AFGE settlement with EPA regarding unpaid overtime.  NTEU280 was not a party to this lawsuit or to the settlement.  Therefore, we cannot answer questions about the details of the lawsuit or its settlement, and  we will refer all interested parties to AFGE for further information. 

 

It is our chapter's understanding that AFGE sued EPA for unpaid overtime for their bargaining unit employees who should have been covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including those who were incorrectly classified as FLSA-exempt by the agency.  It is also our chapter's understanding that the FLSA status of these employees has been corrected and that many employees will be receiving payment for uncompensated overtime they have already worked and for which they are entitled to compensation. 

FLSA-covered employees are generally employees who are in non-professional titles such as environmental protection specialist, management analyst, program analyst, secretary, etc.  Those in professional job titles such as attorney, scientist, engineer, economist, statistician, accountant, etc. are generally FLSA-exempt employees.  Therefore, NTEU280 bargaining unit employees are generally FLSA-exempt employees. 

 

Although FLSA-exempt, employees in the NTEU280 bargaining unit are still entitled to compensation for overtime work – specifically, under the Federal Employee Pay Act, professional employees are entitled to either our regular pay rate for overtime or compensatory time off.  Our employees are not entitled to the same overtime as FLSA-covered employees, who are typically entitled to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.  Also, FLSA-exempt employees’ overtime must be officially ordered or approved; whereas FLSA-covered employees’ overtime may include work that is “suffered and permitted.” 

 

And there is an additional wrinkle:  whether an employee is covered by FLSA is driven by the individual’s actual duties, among other factors.  Although NTEU280 bargaining units employees are in professional titles that are generally FLSA-exempt, this may not be true of each and every individual.  FLSA status may be challenged on an individual employee basis.  For example:  An individual in a professional title (e.g., economist) who actually performs mostly non-professional duties (e.g.,  duties of a program analyst) may challenge his or her FLSA status.  If such a challenge is made, there is some risk that,  if management determines that enough of the duties are no longer professional duties, the employee's job title might be changed to a non-professional title. 

 

 

 

5th Annual People's Conference on Fluoride

The 5th Annual People's Conference on Fluoride, which will be held at the Crystal City Hyatt Regency Hotel, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, on Sept. 5 - 8. Information about the conference and a detailed agenda are available at http://fluoridealert.org/content/the-5th-citizens-conference-on-fluoride/. 

Recent research on developmental neurotoxicity will be featured in the science portion of the Conference. Professor Quangyong Xiang from Fudan University (formerly Shanghai Medical University) will present his research findings that showed a decrement in children's IQ as a function of fluoride exposure. 

Dr. William Hirzy, former Senior Scientist in the Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, will discuss a risk assessment for developmental neurotoxicity based on the work of Professor Xiang and other research groups that was published by Choi et al. in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2012.  (Dr. Hirzy, a long time member of NTEU280, held various elected offices with our chapter during his career.)

There will also be a law panel which will discuss the legal implications in the United States and Canada for tort and regulatory actions that flow from recent research findings, including the 2006 National Research Council Report on Fluoride Toxicity.

 

For more information, members may contact Dr. William Hirzy. 

 

In Memory of our EPA Colleague, Adrian W. Burns

It is great sadness that we report that our EPA colleague, Adrian W. Burns, passed away on Sunday, July 27, 2014. 

 

Adrian was a widely respected Chemist at the OPP/BEAD/ Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB) Laboratory and a longtime member of NTEU280.  Adrian began his government career at the USDA and came into the EPA at the agency’s inception in 1970.  He spent his career in OPP analyzing pesticides for product chemistry. 

 

Adrian was very active in both AOAC International and CIPAC (Collaborative International Pesticides Analytical Council).  Adrian served multiple terms as the AOAC International Chair of Committee A: Pesticide and Disinfectant Formulations and also multiple terms as a member of the AOAC Official Methods Board. Adrian also served on the Board for the AOAC Research Institute. His awards included, Committee Chair of the Year, and the AOAC Fellow Award and he also served as the US representative to CIPAC. 

 

Scientific Integrity and EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy - Part One

“Scientific Integrity” and EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy

EPA will soon require an unspecified number of staff members to take an on-line training course intended to familiarize them with its Scientific Integrity Policy.  NTEU280, in an effort to educate its bargaining unit on the Policy’s laudable, as well as worrisome, elements, is initiating this blog series.  

Today’s blog entry begins with the most basic of questions – what is “scientific integrity”?  

A succinct answer to this question cannot be found in the Policy, the Principles of Scientific Integrity [1] upon which it was developed, in President Obama’s March 9, 2009 scientific integrity “kick-off” memo [2], or in the December 17, 2010 Office of Science and Technology Policy [3] memo on the subject of President Obama’s memo, although each document describes elements relating to what might go into a definition of “scientific integrity."

A good working definition for our purposes of “science” might be “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" [4].  

So what about “integrity”?  Here are a couple definitions [5]: "integrity" may be defined as “the quality of being honest and fair”; “the state of being complete or whole”

Combining the two definitions for the two words, we might have the following working definition for “scientific integrity":

Scientific Integrity:  knowledge or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation, and which are arrived at, and represented, in an honest and fair manner.

Questions for our readers

• What do you think of the proposed definition for “scientific integrity”?  Any suggestions of your own? 

• Do you think that the Venn diagram below captures all of the elements and interrelationships of “scientific integrity”?  If it falls short, what do you think is amiss?

• How does personal character come into play in scientific integrity?  Are there other qualities or devices that might be critical to the integrity of an organization’s science?  What do you think those are?  

 Please send your comments to NTEU280 (nteu280blog@gmail.com) and and note if you would like them posted in our next Scientific Integrity blog posting.  All comments will be posted without identifying information. 

[Carleton University, Department of Psychology, Ottawa, ON, Canada.  http://www2.carleton.ca/psychology/ethics/ - Accessed 09.22.2013]] 

Stay tuned for more!

---

[1] USEPA.  National Labor Partnership.  EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity.  (Release/publication date not noted)

[2] Obama, Barack.  White House. Press Release.  Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.  Subject: Scientific Integrity.  March 9, 2009. 

[3] Holdren, John P.  Office of Science and Technology.  Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.  Subject:  Scientific Integrity.  December 17, 2010.

[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science [Accessed 09.22.2013]

[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity [Accessed 09.22.2013]

Scientific Integrity Policy - Message from Chapter President to Bargaining Unit Employees

"Dear NTEU Bargaining Unit Member,

Apparently the [attached] email that was sent as a mass mailer by the Agency’s Scientific Advisor/Interim Scientific Integrity Official, Dr. Glenn Paulson, was automatically directed to some of our staff’s Microsoft 365 email junk boxes.  I’m forwarding it to you in the hope that you have a chance to read the email and attachment, the Scientific Integrity Policy.  Please be aware that NTEU Chapter 280 continues to raise certain concerns with Agency Management regarding this Policy, as well as Management’s planned Policy training, and the lack of any comprehensive Policy Implementation plan that might detail how elements of the Policy might be put into everyday practice.

Please review the attached EPA Scientific Integrity Policy (http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/epa_scientific_integrity_policy_20120115.pdf) before the scheduled Webinar on the afternoon of Tuesday, August 20 (3:30P-4:30P).  Please consider the following issues which have a particular relevance for those employees in our bargaining unit:

1.      Differing scientific opinions (section A. 3, pg 5)

The Policy has charged the Scientific Integrity Official and Deputy Scientific Integrity Officials with the task of developing a “transparent mechanism for Agency employees to express differing scientific opinions.”  If a dispute cannot be resolved in “internal deliberations” (presumably at the lowest level with one’s supervisor, or within one’s Office), then the issue is to be addressed in scientific peer review.  This skeleton of a procedure suggests that all science “informing an Agency policy decision” undergoes scientific peer review and that all at the Office level are knowledgeable about a particular scientific subject or are impartial.  In some EPA organizations, peer review for scientific product is not necessarily part of the process for all products, and in some EPA organizations, scientists and engineers report to lawyers, who may have some knowledge of science/engineering, but lack the training and education to “get into the weeds”.  For such cases, this would leave the dispute between a junior employee and his/her immediate supervisor, or other middle and senior level managers within an Office/Organization.  Not only is there a potential conflict of interest if a desired upper management regulatory outcome is at odds with the scientific evidence, but the process might be protracted and might not be documented in any transparent manner.  This approach leaves a junior employee potentially vulnerable to retaliation by middle and upper managers, and may well result in delays in resolution of the disagreement related to escalation of the dispute up the chain of command.  In effect, this is a disincentive for the employee to bring forth a differing scientific opinion. 

2.        Scientific Integrity Committee (Section V, pg 10).

The Policy’s authorities are the Scientific Integrity Official and those who comprise the Scientific Integrity Committee.  The Committee members, termed “Deputy Scientific Integrity Officials” represent each of the Agency’s Program Offices and Regions.  These individuals are not necessarily scientists or engineers, may have conflicts of interest with respect to Agency regulatory agenda, and may not necessarily understand the issues that they are charged with acting on (including a personal understanding of a defensible and credible scientific product).

Please review the Policy before the August 20 webinar, and prepare to ask questions and raise your own concerns.  Should you be interested in being engaged in an Agency-wide forum on the Scientific Integrity Policy, please contact NTEU Steward Dr. Brenda Seidman (seidman.brenda [at] epa.gov). 

Thank you.

Amer Al-Mudallal, President

NTEU Chapter 280

202-566-2789"