Local R1-32, National Association of Government Employees, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Union), filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) pursuant to the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982 (Act), 5 U.S.C. § 6120 et seq., to resolve an impasse arising from the determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts (Employer or hospital) not to establish a compressed work schedule (CWS) as proposed by the Union.

    Following an investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the impasse should be resolved on the basis of written submissions from the parties, with the Panel to take final action in accordance with § 6131(c) of the Act and 2472.12 of its regulations. Pursuant to the Panel's determination, the Employer submitted written statements,⁽¹⁾ while the Union relied on a statement and other materials contained in its request for Panel assistance. The Panel has now considered the entire record.

    The Employer's mission is to provide medical care to veterans and their dependents. Local R1-32 represents 900 bargaining-unit employees at the hospital who are in 2 nationwide units of 2,928 (blue collar) and 8,574 (white collar), respectively. The outcome of the dispute will affect two payroll specialists (or clerks)⁽²⁾ in Fiscal Service who chiefly collect and submit payroll data to the Data Processing Center; they also audit 66 timekeepers on a quarterly basis, train new timekeepers, and arrange for replacement of missing pay. The parties are covered by a national agreement due to expire in May 1995.

The dispute concerns whether the two payroll specialists should be permitted to work a 5-4/9 CWS. The issue before the Panel, therefore, is the following:

Whether the findings on which the Employer has based its determination not to establish the Union's proposed CWS are supported by evidence that the schedule is likely to cause an adverse agency impact as defined under the Act.⁽³⁾

1. The Employer's Position

    Essentially, the Panel should find that the evidence on which the Employer based its determination not to institute the Union's proposed 5-4/9 CWS establishes that the schedule is likely to cause an adverse agency impact as defined under the Act. The nature of the work that payroll clerks perform supports a need for regular working hours. In this regard, the current schedule is a better match with schedules of the majority of timekeepers who are the main sources for collecting payroll information. By contrast, the proposed CWS would reduce total time available for communications with timekeepers from 77 to 56 percent. Annual projects such as the Combined Federal Campaign and the open season for health insurance also would be harder to schedule. Furthermore, two payroll clerks need to be present to the maximum extent possible to certify or verify each other's payroll actions; this permits data to be posted expeditiously. Such regular hours also would serve to safeguard Federal funds. Finally, continuing these hours will ensure that employees are paid on time; delays in certification and verification, on the other hand, might delay employees' compensation, thereby lowering morale and harming employees' finances.

2. The Union's Position

    The Union basically proposes that the Employer be required to bargain over the 5-4/9 CWS for payroll technicians because it is not likely to have an adverse agency impact. The Act, GAO studies, and the President's July 7, 1994, directive calling for a "family-friendly" workplace⁽⁴⁾ mandate that the Employer respond positively to the Union's CWS proposal. According to one clerk who is the father of triplets, the schedule would "enable . . . employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities [and] can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism." In addition, employees should be given the same privileges that the chief of the Fiscal Service has given himself; he works a variant schedule, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.,⁽⁵⁾ so that he can play basketball at lunch and commute to his out-of-state home more easily. Furthermore, four other DVA hospitals (Albuquerque, New Mexico; Amarillo, Texas; American Lake (Tacoma), Washington; and Alexandria, Louisiana) permit fiscal employees performing identical duties the opportunity to participate in CWS. Regarding having more than one payroll clerk available at any given time, previously, an employee from another part of the fiscal section has provided help. Also, the supervisor who works the modified regular schedule could verify or certify payroll actions if needed. Since the payroll transactions are on paper, clerks do not have responsibility for "safeguarding" Federal funds. With respect to the 1 to 1 1/2 hours per day when employees would be present without supervision, both payroll clerks are long-time Federal employees; their positions require little supervision. With respect to how the schedules of payroll specialists on CWS would mesh with the schedules of other employees, extending the daily hours under CWS would actually increase rather than reduce the availability of payroll clerks to such employees. Finally, its proposal would offer considerable flexibility to deal with the Employer's concerns. Such flexibility includes: (1) a trial period; (2) removal from CWS for abuse; (3) minor adjustments without negotiations; (4) off days that will not interfere with payroll deadlines; and (5) automatic suspension of CWS for emergencies like extensive sick leave needs. Other features deal with the release of employees on snow days, balancing the demands for short-term unscheduled leave, and change of shift request procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

    Under § 6131(c)(2) of the Act, the Panel is required to take final action in favor of the head of the agency's or, in this instance, his delegatee's determination not to establish a CWS if the finding on which it is based is supported by evidence that the schedule is likely to cause an "adverse agency impact." The Act's legislative history clearly indicates that the Employer bears the burden of proving adverse impact.⁽⁶⁾

    Having considered the record before us, we find that the Employer has not met its statutory burden. In this regard, the record does not contain evidence of potential reduced productivity or services, or cost-related problems of the magnitude contemplated by the Act's definition of "adverse agency impact." The Employer's scheduling concerns are speculative because the fiscal section has never tried a CWS; under the proposed 5-4/9 CWS, employees still would be working 40 hours per week. In addition, the Administration's July 7, 1994, directive (see footnote 4) demonstrates its continuing support for such schedules even in this era of downsizing; the small size of the payroll staff, without more evidence, therefore, does not persuade us that trying a CWS is unwarranted. Furthermore, the Employer recently determined that the fiscal section would be thinly staffed when it eliminated a third employee. As a result, under normal working hours, approximately 22 percent of the time a single clerk is present. If two payroll specialists are needed at all times, it is hard to understand the Employer's recent staffing reduction. Finally, we believe that the trial period, as proposed by the Union, should test for such problems. Should experience under the schedule reveal problems, the Employer could move to terminate the schedule and seek the Panel's assistance under the Act as necessary. Accordingly, we shall order the parties to negotiate over the Union's proposed 5-4/9 CWS.

ORDER

    Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6131(c), the Federal Service Impasses Panel, under § 2472.12(a) of its regulations, hereby orders the Employer to negotiate with the Union over its 5-4/9 CWS proposal.

By direction of the Panel.

Linda A. Lafferty

Executive Director

April 19, 1995

Washington, D.C.

1.The Union's rebuttal statement was postmarked March 16, 1995, 2 days after the deadline established by the Panel and, therefore, was not considered.

2.When negotiations began, there were three payroll clerks, but an increase in automation of payroll functions led the Employer to reassign one employee to a different financial section.

3.Under § 6131(b), "adverse agency impact" is defined as:

(1) a reduction of the productivity of the agency;

(2) a diminished level of the services furnished to the public by the agency; or

(3) an increase in the cost of agency operations (other than a reasonable administrative cost relating to the process of establishing a flexible or compressed work schedule).