NBPC press release on rock assaults

Rock Assaults are Deadly Force, says Border Patrol Union

El Paso, TX – June 9, 2010 – Since biblical times, rocks have been used as a crude but effective weapon to injure and kill humans. On June 8, 2010, when Border Patrol Agents were assaulted at the U.S./Mexico border by several individuals armed with rocks, they were forced to defend themselves and their fellow agents.

Border Patrol Agents are not trained, nor paid to withstand violent assaults without the ability to defend themselves. Rocks are weapons and constitute deadly force. If an agent is confronted with deadly force they will respond in kind. No agent wants to have to shoot another human being, but when an agent is assaulted and fears for his life then his hand is forced.

The government of Mexico has done their usual grandstanding where they hurled baseless accusations at the Border Patrol agents, made claims of racism, and portrayed the deceased criminal as an innocent boy who had never done a thing wrong in his life. None of these statements have any merit. Mexico bears quite a bit of responsibility whenever one of its citizens dies along the border due to its allowing criminal organizations free-reign and its refusal to police its northern border.

While the loss of this teenager’s life is regrettable, it is due solely to his decision to pick up a rock and assault a United States Border Patrol Agent. We stand behind the actions of the agents who did their duty in El Paso, and are confident that the investigation into his incident will justify their actions.

Original release: http://www.nbpc.net/images/PressReleases/09jun2010elpasoshootpr.pdf

AFL-CIO and Arizona’s SB 1070

The National Border Patrol Council Opposes AFL-CIO’s Position on SB – 1070

Thursday, 20 May 2010

The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) strongly opposes AFL-CIO’s position on provisions of 8 USC § 1357 (g) (also known as 287(g)) and Senate Bill 1070, which was passed by the Arizona legislature and amended by House Bill 2162. Although the NBPC is an affiliate of AFL-CIO, the NBPC was not consulted by AFL-CIO regarding the letter to Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security.

The NBPC contends AFL-CIO’s request to terminate 287 (g) agreements in Arizona is irresponsible and lacking any factual basis to support their request. The claim that the federal government will be “complicit in the racial profiling that lies at the heart of the Arizona law” is outlandish. SB 1070 specifically prohibits racial profiling: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color, or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.”

In the future, the NBPC urges AFL-CIO to consult with affiliates before taking a position in direct opposition to an affiliate. AFL-CIO should reconsider their irrational policy of supporting lawbreakers (illegal aliens) and initiatives that oppose efforts to enforce immigration laws. Instead, AFL-CIO should consider supporting workers who have a legal right to be employed in the United States.

WHTI Policy Clarification and Comment

On March 5, 2010, leadership of Local 2366 met with Representatives of Del Rio Sector and discussed the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) policy issued on November 25, 2009.

The Union had several concerns over measures which were outlined in the November policy. Specifically, the Union objected to differential treatment given to off-duty Border Patrol Agents and employees versus non-Border Patrol citizens. We objected to the detention of off-duty Border Patrol employees, who had satisfied immigration and entry requirements, solely so members of Border Patrol management could interview the off-duty employees regarding WHTI non-compliance. Further, we felt that possible disciplinary measures taken against WHTI non-compliant employees was not just unfair, but beyond the Service’s power to implement.

At the meeting with Sector, the Union was able to alter and clarify the WHTI policy to the point that the Union now feels comfortable with the final result. The agreed upon policy, now preserves an employee’s rights whilst meeting the objectives of management. A brief analysis of the new policy is outlined below.

1. The Service has stressed the importance of obtaining, and maintaining, the appropriate travel documents when one is entering the United States.

2. Border Patrol credentials do not meet WHTI compliance and will not be accepted at the Ports of Entry (POE). In addition, Border Patrol employees may create a nexus by attempting to use their work credentials as a travel document while off-duty. Some of the documents which meet WHTI standards include:

a. United States Passport

b. United States Passport Card

c. ­­Trusted Traveler program cards like NEXUS, SENTRI and FAST/EXPRES

d. Enhanced driver’s license or enhanced identification cards

e. Other options are also available for members of special groups such as, Native American Indians, Legal Permanent Residents, and members of the military

(http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/vacation/ready_set_go/land_travel/docs/whti_compliant.ctt/whti_compliant.pdf)

3. If a Border Patrol employee is not in compliance with WHTI they may be reported to the Border Intelligence Center (BIC).

The Union and the Service both felt that this activity is within the rights of management so long as the off-duty employee is not adversely impacted. For example, the off-duty employee should not be unnecessarily detained once they have satisfied the entry requirements and inspection.

4. A member of management may report to the POE to meet with the Port Director, or his designee, to determine the facts of the WHTI non-compliance. Again, the off-duty employee will not be detained for this investigation.

5. The employee may later be requested to write a memorandum detailing the incident when he or she is next on-duty.

Employees will not be asked or directed to execute a memorandum off-duty. The only circumstance where this would be allowable is when the Service is willing to pay the employee overtime. Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) is never allowed when an employee is told to come in to work when they would otherwise be off-duty. AUO is meant to be un-schedulable, unforeseeable, non-administrative and a continuation of duties.

There are a number of rights that management has which are expressed in WHTI policy and, it should be noted that, short of the memorandum request, the entirety of the investigation will take place without the employee’s presence or assistance. Under the new WHTI policy, neither the employee’s rights nor off-duty time will be adversely impacted.

Finally, the Union feels that there is no nexus between an employee failing to provide approved WHTI documents and that individual’s position in the Service. We have made it very clear to the Service that we object to any discipline or adverse action which may be proposed due solely to WHTI non-compliance.

If you have any questions, or experience any difficulty due to this policy, please contact your station steward.

Weingarten Rights

Weingarten Rights

Right to Union Representation for Bargaining Unit Employees of the US Border Patrol

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Federal employees have the right to union representation at investigative interviews. NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251. These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employees have the right to union representation at an interview when the employee reasonably believes his or her statement may result in disciplinary action.[1]

An interview occurs when the Service questions an employee to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct. This interview not only applies to verbal communication but also to any kind of self-documenting that may be requested by the Service that could be self incriminating (i.e. memorandums.)

If an employee has a reasonable belief [2] that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from the discussion, the employee has the right to request union representation. Management is not required to request union representation under Weingarten rights for the employee; it is the employee’s responsibility to request it.

Protection under Weingarten is afforded when two conditions are met:[3]

[1] Section 7, 29 U.S.C. 157 of the NLRA Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)

[2] 195 N. L. R. B. 197, 198 n. 3. In NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co

[3] Further supported by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the National Border Patrol Council, Article 31, Section B (1)

1. An employee reasonably believes that disciplinary action may be the result of his/her examination.

2. The employee requests representation.

Both conditions have to be met for the employee to invoke his Weingarten rights.

What are some situations where an employee could invoke his/her Weingarten rights?

1. A meeting with one of the Service’s representative in an administrative investigative interview. Who are our employer’s representatives?

a. Office of Internal Affairs (Administrative cases)

b. Office of Professional Responsibility (Administrative cases)

c. Office of Inspector General (Administrative cases)

d. Management Inquiry

2. When a memorandum is requested by the Service to explain the employee’s actions or what he/she witnessed.

3. A meeting with management where an employee is expected to defend his/her conduct or furnish any kind of information that could lead to future discipline.

b. When the employee makes the request for a union representative to be present, management has three options:

1. It can stop questioning until the representative arrives.

2. It can call off the interview or,

3. It can tell the employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily gives up his/her rights to a union representative (an option the employee should always refuse.)

As always, if you have any questions regarding your rights, please contact one of your station’s union stewards.