The Foreign Service Journal, June 2003

close, on the ground that the allotted time had been exceeded, to a chorus of boos and cries of “shame.” Some 2,241 of AFSA’s active members, from clerks to ambassadors, participated in a worldwide referendum that was completed on March 31, 1971. The results were clear-cut: 86 percent favored AFSA’s seeking exclusive representation on behalf of all Foreign Service employ- ees, and 59 percent of those voting supported the seven- point proposal. AFSA informed the Federal Labor Relations Council of the referendum results and urged the council to issue comprehensive regulations, pointing out that a grievance system was still missing. Meanwhile, the AFSA Governing Board had estab- lished a “Committee of Forty,” which I chaired, to draft a new executive order for the Foreign Service. (The com- mittee had only about a half-dozen active members besides Harris, notably Rick Melton and Jack Binns, but 40 people did attend its initial meeting.) A detailed draft E.O. was prepared, approved by the Governing Board, and presented to Under Secretary Macomber on May 25, 1971, and to a receptive AFSA open meeting three days later. AFSA and the Junior Foreign Service Officer Club then circulated a petition worldwide in support of the new E.O., which garnered 1,200 signatures, including those of seven ambassadors. Several months of discussions followed between man- agement and AFSA, assisted by labor expert Tom Byrne and JimMichael from the Legal Adviser’s office. By June, agreement was reached on the preamble, definitions, and who was in the union (almost everyone below the deputy assistant secretary level), but not on any of the core issues such as the scope of bargaining, who would decide appeals and a grievance system. Similar discussions were being conducted with AFGE. Clearly there was a long way to go. Battling for the Bayh Bill In June 1971, Sens. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., John Sherman Cooper, R-Ky., and 21 co-sponsors took the grievance bill that had been drafted by AFSA’s Legal Committee and introduced it as legislation in the Senate (S. 2023). Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., introduced it in the House (HR 9188). This sent a shock wave through the State Department, as the “Bayh Bill” would have mandated the right to a hearing, access to all relevant records, grievance rights for limited appointees and probationers, open hear- ings and, most threatening to management, final decisions made by an impartial grievance board. While Under Secretary Macomber (who had twice before headed State’s Legislative Affairs office) used his connections on the Hill to stall the measure, State insti- tuted an Interim Grievance Board in December 1971, which decided 286 cases before disbanding in March 1976. This in-house system provided limited grievance review under a management-appointed panel subject to reversal by the Secretary of State. As a major stalling tactic, the department argued that the new permanent grievance system should not be legis- lated, but should be negotiated between the foreign affairs agencies and the employees’ elected exclusive rep- resentative. AFSA responded that fundamental due process rights, such as the right to a hearing, an indepen- dent panel, access to relevant documents, the right to call witnesses, and the right of appeal, must all be statutorily protected. The Charles Thomas Legal Defense Fund, supported by AFGE, was also very active in lobbying on the Hill in favor of the bill. The terms of the debate were set. But the depart- ment’s argument was based on there being an elected employee representative in place with whom to negotiate a grievance system. Foot-dragging on union elections threatened the department with a congressionally-man- dated grievance system, which in management’s eyes was even worse than having to deal with a union. Adding pressure, on May 3, 1972, the Washington Post editorialized that “the Foreign Service continues to be Washington’s most troubled bureaucracy” and urged Congress to pass the Bayh Bill. A week later, at the urg- ings of Sens. Cooper and Bayh, the Senate added a man- dated grievance system to the Department of State’s FY 1972 authorization bill. State promptly agreed to accept grievance legislation based on its limited Interim Grievance System, with all board members to be appointed by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the union. On June 15, 1972, the State/USIA authorization bill was reported out of the con- ference committee without the grievance legislation, but with the promise that the House would hold hearings on the issues involved. The Senate then quickly repassed the Bayh-Cooper Grievance Bill as stand-alone legislation and sent it to the House for action. On July 18, AFSA President Bill Harrop, Tex Harris and Bill Salisbury testified on the grievance legislation before the House State Department Organization Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Wayne Hays, D-Ohio. F O C U S J U N E 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 25