Narrative:

While not related to a specific aircraft incident; I observed a perceived safety event within my area of operation yesterday. There was widespread convective activity affecting ZAU yesterday. The controller at sector 45 was getting busy with some complexity brought on by the weather. I was training at the sector next to sector 45. I overheard the supervisor talking to himself in the middle of the aisle saying 'come on [person X]; come back first'. I questioned him as to what he was talking about; and the supervisor said he needed a radar assist controller (d-side) for sector 45; and wanted [person X] to come back to the area first before [person Y]; so he could assign [person X] the d-side and not [person Y]. [Person Y] is known for always complaining about d-side assignments. [Person Y] came back to the area first; did not check in with the front line manager (flm) (although the flm was aware of his return to the area); and just ran to the break list. He asked the sector 47R if she wanted a break and she said yes. He took the position relief briefing and the sector. The relieved controller unplugged; at which [person Y] the flm asked her to sit on the sector 45 d-side 'for just a few minutes'. She followed orders.it is very disturbing that (according to my perception) the flm is aware that an individual likes to complain about work assignments other than a radar position; and choses to avoid the duty of assigning a task to the individual which may not be popular. What's even worse; was that the help was needed at the 45 position; which was confirmed by his immediate assignment of the relieved controller to the radar approach position. This flm made his concerns about the work assignment perfectly clear when he was talking to himself within earshot of me in the middle of the area.additionally; after the assignment; [person Y] made a sarcastic comment about how 'the boss man made the right call' by assigning someone else to the d-side. When I questioned his comment; his response was dismissive; but he made the claim that he was no good at the d-side anyways; and she was better. It is perfectly acceptable for a flm to take personal factors into consideration when making team pairings or work assignments. However; in a professional environment we all have to be ready and willing to work together and cooperate as a team when the need arises. Yesterday was one of these instances. There was weather and complexity in the area and it was known that the flm wanted a d-side. He chose to not recall anyone; and worse; chose not assign the duty to someone simply on the basis that they are a known and habitual complainer. The flms need to be held accountable to safely staff the operation before all else.if an individual admits in the open that they are 'no good' at an operational position; there is another opportunity for flm action. That is an assignment of skill enhancement or remedial training. The national training order provides very specific avenues to address these deficiencies. This is not the first [person Y] e (or the last i'm sure) that our area has experienced a delay in needed assistance at the hand of a [person Y] id flm. The individual mentioned in this example has been a part of another very noteworthy situation in which an individual needed a d-side; and a flm failed to appropriately staff the position. This is a safety event and a safety problem that needs to be addressed with training and accountability through our management ranks.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A ZAU Center Controller reported that sectors were not being staffed in accordance with guidelines.

Narrative: While not related to a specific aircraft incident; I observed a perceived safety event within my area of operation yesterday. There was widespread convective activity affecting ZAU yesterday. The controller at sector 45 was getting busy with some complexity brought on by the weather. I was training at the sector next to sector 45. I overheard the supervisor talking to himself in the middle of the aisle saying 'come on [Person X]; come back first'. I questioned him as to what he was talking about; and the supervisor said he needed a radar assist controller (d-side) for sector 45; and wanted [Person X] to come back to the area first before [Person Y]; so he could assign [Person X] the d-side and not [Person Y]. [Person Y] is known for always complaining about d-side assignments. [Person Y] came back to the area first; did not check in with the Front Line Manager (FLM) (although the FLM was aware of his return to the area); and just ran to the break list. He asked the sector 47R if she wanted a break and she said yes. He took the position relief briefing and the sector. The relieved controller unplugged; at which [Person Y] the FLM asked her to sit on the sector 45 d-side 'for just a few minutes'. She followed orders.It is very disturbing that (according to my perception) the FLM is aware that an individual likes to complain about work assignments other than a radar position; and choses to avoid the duty of assigning a task to the individual which may not be popular. What's even worse; was that the help was needed at the 45 position; which was confirmed by his immediate assignment of the relieved controller to the Radar Approach position. This FLM made his concerns about the work assignment perfectly clear when he was talking to himself within earshot of me in the middle of the area.Additionally; after the assignment; [Person Y] made a sarcastic comment about how 'the boss man made the right call' by assigning someone else to the d-side. When I questioned his comment; his response was dismissive; but he made the claim that he was no good at the d-side anyways; and she was better. It is perfectly acceptable for a FLM to take personal factors into consideration when making team pairings or work assignments. However; in a professional environment we all have to be ready and willing to work together and cooperate as a team when the need arises. Yesterday was one of these instances. There was weather and complexity in the area and it was known that the FLM wanted a d-side. He chose to not recall anyone; and worse; chose not assign the duty to someone simply on the basis that they are a known and habitual complainer. The FLMs need to be held accountable to safely staff the operation before all else.If an individual admits in the open that they are 'no good' at an operational position; there is another opportunity for FLM action. That is an assignment of skill enhancement or remedial training. The national training order provides very specific avenues to address these deficiencies. This is not the first [Person Y] e (or the last i'm sure) that our area has experienced a delay in needed assistance at the hand of a [Person Y] id FLM. The individual mentioned in this example has been a part of another very noteworthy situation in which an individual needed a d-side; and a FLM failed to appropriately staff the position. This is a safety event and a safety problem that needs to be addressed with training and accountability through our management ranks.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.