Vol. 7 No. 1
October 1, 1997 - January 31, 1998
The FLRA Bulletin
The Federal Labor Relations Authority
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20424-0001
- CONTENTS
- News to Know
- Update on CADR
- Authority Cases
- Court Cases
- FSIP Final Actions
- FSIP Settlement Corner
- General Counsel Advice to Regional Directors
- General Counsel's Settlement Corner
DALE CABANISS SWORN IN AS NEW AUTHORITY MEMBER
Following her nomination by President Clinton, and confirmation by the
United States Senate, Dale Cabaniss was sworn in by Chair Segal on
December 15th as a new Member of the Authority for a five-year term. Ms.
Cabaniss replaces Tony Armendariz, who resigned in March of 1997.
Before joining the FLRA, Ms. Cabaniss served as a professional staff
member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor and Health and
Human Services, where she served as the principal legal advisor to the
Chairman, Ted Stevens of Alaska. Ms. Cabaniss also served as the Chief
Counsel for the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Post Office
and Civil Service. In addition, she worked for Senator Frank Murkowski of
Alaska as his Legislative Director and Legislative Assistant. Ms. Cabaniss
received a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a J.D. from the
Columbus School of Law at Catholic University.
FLRA APPOINTS NEW DIRECTOR OF COLLABORATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION OFFICE
On December 15th, Phyllis Segal, Chair of the FLRA, Joe Swerdzewski,
FLRA General Counsel, and Betty Bolden, Chair of the Federal Service
Impasses Panel, announced the appointment of Fern Feil to be the Director
of the Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Office and
Program.
The Authority, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Federal
Service Impasses Panel established this cross-component program in January
of 1996. The program offers collaboration and alternative dispute
resolution services in pending unfair labor practice, representation,
negotiability, and bargaining impasse disputes at every step -- from
investigation and prosecution to the adjudication of cases and resolution
of bargaining impasses. The CADR program provides partnership facilitation
and training activities to assist labor and management in developing
constructive approaches to conducting their relationship. The CADR Office
has responsibility for coordinating, supporting and expanding the unified
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program.
Ms. Feil brings to the FLRA significant expertise in the use of ADR
tools and techniques, as well as her teaching ability. Ms. Feil most
recently served as Deputy Director of Mediation Services at the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), where she directed the Federal Sharing
Neutrals Program, designed and provided ADR training, facilitated
labor-management interest based negotiations and other group interactions,
and mediated disputes (most involving workplace conflicts). Through the
Sharing Neutrals Program, more than 90 mediators from 25 different Federal
agencies, mediate disputes throughout the government.
Ms. Feils previous work experience at HHS included serving as
Chief Negotiator and attorney advisor for the Administration for Children
and Families, where she led the management team in its successful first
interest based negotiation of the agency's National collective bargaining
agreement with NTEU. In addition, Ms. Feil served as Assistant HHS
Regional Counsel in Philadelphia. She is a member of the adjunct faculty
at the Department of Justice Legal Education Institute, and a member of
both the District of Columbia and New York Bars. Ms. Feil earned an
undergraduate degree in Economics from Cornell University and her J.D.
from Duke University Law School.
THE AUTHORITY INVITES COMMENTS ON UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS
The Federal Labor Relations Authority requested customer input through
amici curiae briefs on a series of specific questions arising in a group
of cases currently pending before the Authority. On November 17, the
Authority issued a Partial Decision and Procedural Order in U.S.
Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Case No.
WA-CA-40743, which decided certain issues, directed the parties to file
briefs to address questions contained in the decision, and invited the
parties to request oral argument on these issues. The parties in
Department of the Air Force, 647th Air Base Group, Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts, Case No. BN-CA-41011; U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Case No. WA-CA-50048; Social
Security Administration, Santa Rosa District Office, Santa Rosa,
California, Case No. SF-CA-50155; and U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, Case No. CH-CA-50399,
were also directed to respond to the questions described in the decision.
The responses were required to be submitted to the Authority by December
18, 1997.
This group of pending cases requires the Authority to adjudicate unfair
labor practice complaints and resolve whether section 2(d) of Executive
Order 12871 constitutes an agency election to bargain on section
7106(b)(1) matters -- so called permissive subjects -- that
can be enforced by the Authority and reviewed in subsequent court
proceedings.
The Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution program (CADR)
continues to provide services to labor and management throughout the
Federal sector under the leadership of its new director, Fern Feil. FLRA
staff used a variety of dispute resolution techniques to facilitate the
resolution of pending disputes, cultivate skills in interest-based
problem- solving and improve labor-management relationships.
The following illustrates some of the assistance provided to customers
nation-wide:
Intervening in Pending Disputes
- OGC Regional Office employees facilitated the resolution of multiple
unfair labor practice and representation issues arising from the
announced 1999 closing of a facility. The parties agreed to develop
options for the placement of employees. The unfair labor practice charge
was withdrawn and the parties relationship improved as a result of
this intervention
- An OGC Regional Office employee facilitated the resolution of a
pending unfair labor practice charge and a potential unfair labor
practice charge by helping the parties create an effective
communications mechanism that improves dispute resolution.
- CADR Office staff assisted the parties in a pending negotiability
appeal by significantly reducing the number of proposals in dispute. The
parties mutually resolved 38 proposals. The parties were able to reach
agreement in this longstanding dispute only after participating in
training on interest-based problem-solving provided by the Boston
Regional Office. As a result of services provided under the CADR
Program, only 9 disputed proposals required a formal negotiability
ruling.
- An OALJ Settlement Judge assisted parties to resolve three ULP
disputes arising from the implementation of flexiplace and emergency
call procedures, and in another case, assisted parties to resolve a
dispute concerning appropriate attire for firefighters while on standby
at the fire station on a military base.
- CADR Office staff assisted parties in resolving a negotiability
appeal concerning the contracting out of work performed by bargaining
unit employees.
Training
- Advanced Statutory Training continues to be provided to union and
agency representatives at both the national and local levels. The
training session provides the participants an opportunity to discuss the
law and strategies to interpret and apply the law to foster productive
labor-management relationships. The training covers recent Authority
decisions in the following areas: Bargaining Over Section 7116(b)(1)
Subjects; Bargaining During the Term of an Agreement - The Covered
By Doctrine; Requests for Information Under the Statute;
Bargaining Over Reorganizations and Downsizing and the Duty of Fair
Representation.
Facilitating Labor-Management Relationships
- Departments of Commerce and Health and Human Services: OGC staff
have worked with Department representatives on the use of pre-
decisional involvement, a process used to include employees in shaping
decisions which affect employees and the work they perform. In addition,
assistance has been provided to parties seeking to evaluate the
effectiveness of their labor-management partnerships.
- FAA -- CADR Office staff assisted FAA and union representatives in
developing an internal ADR program. The parties plan to incorporate the
program into their collective bargaining agreement.
- D.C. Air National Guard -- CADR Office and Authority staff provided
partnership facilitation assistance to union and management
representatives.
- U.S.D.A. -- CADR Office staff provided partnership facilitation
assistance to union and management representatives in Portland, Oregon.
These summaries of selected cases were prepared by
FLRA staff for guidance and informational purposes only, and may not be
used as an official position of, or interpretation by the Authority. The
term "Statute" throughout the text refers to the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute §§7101-7135.
Representation Cases
- In Department of the Army, Headquarters, Fort Dix, Fort Dix, New
Jersey and International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National
Association of Government Employees, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, 53 FLRA No. 39, the Authority held that where new
employees positions fall within the express terms of an existing
union certification and where their inclusion does not render the
bargaining unit inappropriate, those new employees are automatically
included in the unit, and a petition to clarify the unit is unnecessary.
The Authority determined that the fact that employees have job duties
different from those of previously- hired employees does not affect
their status as members of the existing unit. The Authority stated that
bargaining unit certifications do not become stale with the passage of
time if they continue to accurately describe the organization and the
employees within their scope. Further, the Authority stated that the accretion
doctrine does not apply to cases where the positions sought to be
included in a unit were never outside of the bargaining
unit.
Unfair Labor Practice Cases
- In American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2419 and
James J. Powers, 53 FLRA No. 69, the Authority rejected an employees
assertion that his expulsion from Union membership violated sections
7102, 7116(b)(1) and (8), and 7116(c) of the Statute. As an initial
matter, the Authority stated that it had jurisdiction under section
7116(b)(1) and (8) of the Statute to resolve the complaint because the
case concerned a violation of section 7102 rights, rather than wholly
internal union matters, and because no other provision of law was
alleged to supersede the Statute. On the merits, the Authority rejected
the argument that a union may not deny membership for any other reason
than a failure to meet occupational standards or a failure to tender
dues as set forth in section 7116(c)(1) and (2) of the Statute.
According to the Authority, that interpretation would render meaningless
the final proviso of 7116(c), which expressly permits a labor
organization to enforce discipline. However, consistent with
its precedent, the Authority stated that a union may neither discipline
an employee for filing an unfair labor practice charge nor take actions
against an employee that affects his or her status as an employee. In
addition, the Authority stated that, absent a threat to its continued
existence, a union may not discipline an employee for mere criticism of
its policies. Having considered the employees actions in the
instant case, the Authority determined that the Unions discipline
of the employee did not violate the Statute and it dismissed the
complaint.
- In United States Customs Service, South Central Region, New
Orleans District, New Orleans, Louisiana, 53 FLRA No. 67, the
Authority examined whether the Respondent committed an unfair labor
practice by refusing to furnish approximately 4 years worth of
data requested by the Union under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The
Judge decided that the Respondent did not have an obligation to furnish
data for the requested 4-year period, but did have an obligation to
furnish data for a period covering 1 year. In reviewing the Judges
decision, the Authority concluded that the violation found by the Judge
was neither alleged in the complaint nor fully and fairly litigated. The
Authority determined that it was reasonable for the Respondent to have
understood that the dispute concerned only the furnishing of information
for a 4-year period, rather than a 1-year period, because the Union had
refused to modify its request to a shorter period of time. Accordingly,
the Authority concluded that the Judge improperly found that the
Respondents refusal to furnish the information for the 1-year
period constituted a violation of the Statute. The Authority also
concluded that the requested information for the 4-year period was not necessary
within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
Negotiability Cases
- In National Education Association, Overseas Education
Association, Fort Rucker Education Association and U.S. Department of
Defense, Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fort
Rucker, Alabama, 53 FLRA No. 76, the Authority addressed the
negotiability of three proposals. The Authority concluded that a
proposal allowing teacher partners to alternate lunchroom student
supervision duties in order to provide each partner with duty free time
at lunch constituted an appropriate arrangement and, therefore, was
within the duty to bargain. The Authority found a proposal requiring the
Agency to provide 30 days notice before terminating the contract
of probationary employees, and a proposal requiring the Agency to give
due consideration to all responses or replies made by the probationary
employee, inconsistent with managements right to hire employees
under 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute and, therefore, outside of the duty
to bargain.
- In National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2148 and U.S.
Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Enforcement, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 53 FLRA No. 49, the Authority
examined the negotiability of four proposals. The Authority determined
that the first three proposals, which addressed increasing the number of
positions and the filling of vacancies, concerned the numbers of
employees or positions assigned to an organizational subdivision. Thus,
the Authority concluded that the proposals were negotiable at the
election of the Agency under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute and
dismissed the petition as to the three proposals. The Authority also
dismissed the petition as to the fourth proposal, concluding that the
meaning of the proposal was not sufficiently clear to permit
disposition.
Arbitration Cases
- In U.S. Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
Vallejo, California and Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, Local
127, 53 FLRA No. 46, the Authority examined an arbitration award
that sustained a grievance challenging an employees separation
during a reduction-in-force on grounds that the agency improperly
applied RIF laws and regulations and the agency discriminated against
the grievant during the RIF on the basis of a handicapping condition.
The arbitration award provided back pay and travel expenses to the
employee and granted attorney fees and costs to the Union. First , the
Authority determined that the agencys failure to participate in
the hearing did not preclude it from filing exceptions with the
Authority. However, the Authority stated that, consistent with its
regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5, it would not consider any evidence
that had not been before the Arbitrator. On the merits, the Authority
rejected exceptions challenging the award on fair hearing, nonfact, and
essence grounds. With respect to the agencys claim that the travel
and per diem expenses awarded by the arbitrator exceeded the allowable
amount under 5 U.S.C. § 5724a, the Authority stated that 5 U.S.C. §
5724a does not address such expenses and that the agencys reliance
on the statute was misplaced. Finally, with respect to the agencys
claim that the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§
8101 et seq., precludes an employee from receiving both workers
compensation and back pay during the same period of time, the Authority
noted that an exception to this rule exists for awards of back pay under
the Rehabilitation Act. Because the Authority was unable to determine
whether, in whole or in part, the back pay award was based on a finding
of unlawful discrimination, the Authority remanded the case to the
parties for clarification on this issue.
- In U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center,
Newington, Connecticut and National Association of Government Employees,
Local R1- 109, 53 FLRA No. 50, the Authority declined to assert
jurisdiction over the Agencys exception to an arbitration award.
The Authority noted that under section 7122(a) of the Statute, it lacks
jurisdiction to resolve arbitration awards that relate to matters
described in section 7121(f) of the Statute, including matters covered
under 5 U.S.C. §§ 4303 and 7512. In this case, the Authority
found that the grievants AWOL charge was inextricably intertwined
with his removal, a matter covered under section 7512. Because the
Authority determined that the AWOL charge could not be separated from
the ultimate determination to remove the grievant, the Authority decided
that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter. In reaching this
determination, the Authority acknowledged that its refusal to assert
jurisdiction could leave the agency without a forum to challenge the
arbitration award. However, the Authority stated that the agency could
have avoided this result by addressing the AWOL charge as part of the
MSPB settlement or by refusing to enter into the settlement agreement
unless the union agreed to waive its right to seek review of the award.
Moreover, the Authority concluded that, although there may be cases
where no forum has jurisdiction to review an arbitration award, the
advancement of Congressional policies of uniformity, discouragement of
forum shopping, and avoidance of multiple litigation, as well as the
need for clarity and predictability with respect to questions concerning
jurisdiction overrode any potential for unreviewable awards.
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees,
Local 3719 v. FLRA, No. 97- 01043 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 1998), seeking
review of 52 FLRA 1093 (1997). The district court granted the Authoritys
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a complaint
seeking review of an Authority decision in a representation case. The
Authority had affirmed a Regional Directors determination
excluding certain employees from a bargaining unit because they were
engaged in security work that directly affected national security. The
court agreed with the Authority that the court could not review such
actions under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), and that the Supreme Courts
decision in Leedom v. Kyne did not apply. The court recognized
that section 7123(a) authorizes only the courts of appeals to review the
Authoritys orders, and precludes any court from reviewing an order
of the Authority involving a representation matter.
- Robert W. Wildberger, Jr. v. FLRA, F.3d , 1998 WL 590140, No.
95-1614 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 1998), reviewing 51 FLRA 413 (1995).
The D.C. Circuit denied in part and granted in part a petition for
review of an Authority determination dismissing three consolidated
unfair labor practice (ULP) complaints against the petitioners
former employing agency. The Authority had dismissed the complaints for
lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 7116(d) of the Statute, which
bars issues that can properly be raised under an appeals procedure
from being raised as ULPs. The court upheld the dismissal of two
complaints concerning the petitioners proposed removal and a
threat. However, the court found that section 7116(d) did not bar the
Authoritys jurisdiction over the petitioners disparate
treatment complaint. Accordingly, the court remanded the disparate
treatment complaint to the Authority for a determination on the merits.
- American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2986 v. FLRA,
130 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 1997), seeking review of 51 FLRA 1549 & 1693
(1996). The D.C. Circuit dismissed, per curiam, union petitions
for review of two Authority decisions reviewing arbitration awards, on
the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction under section 7123 of the
Statute. In the cases involved, the Authority set aside arbitrators
awards granting severance pay. The court concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction under section 7123, and determined that other
jurisdictional grounds, such as that provided by the Supreme Courts
Leedom v. Kyne decision, did not apply.
- Patent Office Professional Association v. FLRA, 128 F.3d 751
(D.C. Cir. 1997), seeking review of Case No. WA-CA-50352, petition
for cert. filed, ____ U.S.L.W. ____ (U.S. Feb. 2, 1998) (No.
97-1266). The D.C. Circuit dismissed the unions petition for
review of a decision of the FLRA General Counsel declining to issue a
ULP complaint, on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction under
section 7123 of the Statute. In its decision, the D.C. Circuit
reaffirmed its ruling in Turgeon v. FLRA, 677 F.2d 937 (D.C.
Cir. 1982), where the court flatly declared that it had no jurisdiction
to review decisions by the FLRA General Counsel declining to issue ULP
complaints because such decisions do not constitute final agency orders
under section 7123. To avoid any lingering confusion, the
court indicated that the Supreme Courts intervening decision in
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), did not change the law
of the D.C. Circuit regarding the nonreviewability of the FLRA General
Counsels decisions.
- United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia v. FLRA, 132 F.3d 157 (4th
Cir. 1997), reviewing 52 FLRA 475 (1996), petitions for
cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3520 (U.S. Jan. 15, 1998) (No. 97-1184);
____ U.S.L.W. ____ (U.S. Jan. 28, 1998) (No. 97- 1243). In this case,
the Fourth Circuit considered for the third time the issue of
union-initiated midterm bargaining. The court first considered the issue
in SSA v. FLRA, 956 F.2d 1280 (4th Cir. 1992) (SSA) ,
where it held, in direct conflict with the D.C. Circuits decision
in NTEU v. FLRA, 810 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1987), that the
statutory obligation to bargain in good faith did not extend to
union-initiated bargaining during the term of an agreement. In Department
of Energy v. FLRA, 106 F.3d 1158 (4th Cir. 1997) (Energy),
relying on SSA, the court found a collective bargaining
provision authorizing midterm bargaining that had been imposed by the
Federal Service Impasses Panel to be inconsistent with law. The court
held in the present case, which involved a refusal to bargain over a
contract proposal authorizing union- initiated midterm bargaining, that
its decision was controlled by SSA and Energy. Although
recognizing the difficulties that the conflict with the D.C. Circuit
presented, the court noted that recourse for resolution must be
sought elsewhere. 132 F.3d at 162.
These summaries of selected cases were prepared by
FLRA staff for guidance and informational purposes only, and may not be
used as an official position of, or interpretation by the Federal Service
Impasses Panel. The term Statute throughout the text refers to
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute §§7101-7135.
Teachers Salaries and Compensation for Make-Up Days
- Department of Defense, Domestic Dependents Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Camp Lejeune Dependents Schools, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina and Lejeune Education Association, Federal Education
Association, NEA, Case No. 97 FSIP 104 (October 9, 1997), Panel
Release No. 402 (Opinion and Decision). The Panel directed the
parties to mediation-arbitration with Panel Member Bonnie Prouty
Castrey. When the parties were unable to resolve their dispute through
mediation, an arbitration hearing was conducted on the issues of (1)
salary for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years (SY) and (2)
compensation for make-up days. As to the first issue, the
Arbitrator ordered the parties to adopt an across-the-board pay increase
of 3 percent for the 1997-98 SY with an additional 2 percent longevity
increase for teachers having 10 or more years experience. For the
1998-99 SY, the arbitrator ordered an across-the-board pay increase of
the greater of 3 percent or the North Carolina State increase. The
Arbitrator rejected a Union proposal to place employees on the Fort
Bragg Schools pay scale and ordered continuation of all Camp Lejeune
District Schools pay practices not negotiated. As to the second issue,
the Arbitrator ordered a provision requiring the Employer to give
teachers additional compensation equal to their daily rate when they are
required to provide instruction to students on a day designated as
non-instructional.
Parking and Shuttle Bus Service
- Department of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station,
Jacksonville, Florida and Local 22, International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO; Local 512, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO; Local 1943, National Federation of
Federal Employees; Local 3, National Association of Aeronautical
Employees; Local 1, National Association of Government Inspectors and
Quality Assurance Personnel, Case No. 97 FSIP 100 (October 16, 1997)
Panel Release No. 402, (Opinion and Decision). The Panel directed the
parties to mediation-arbitration with Panel Member Gilbert Carrillo.
Mediation failed to resolve the parties dispute regarding the
number of parking spaces to be designated as reserved and the schedule
for shuttle-bus service between employee work sites and the Navy
Exchange parking lot. The Arbitrator conditionally ordered adoption of
the Employers proposal to decrease the number of reserved parking
spaces and maintain the status quo of providing shuttle-bus service to
the Navy Exchange parking lot only during the hours 0600 to 0730 and
1500 to 1630. His award was conditioned upon the accomplishment of
several measures to increase the number of open-parking
spaces and alleviate parking difficulties for employees. The Arbitrator
ordered that if the Employer failed to provide 500 additional open
parking spaces within a designated period of time, as it indicated
it could during mediation, it would be required to expand shuttle-bus
service.
Days Off Under a 5-4/9 Compressed Work Schedule
- Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Fresno
Service Center, Fresno, California and Chapter 97, National Treasury
Employees Union, Case No. 97 FSIP 102 (November 18, 1997), Panel
Release No. 403 (Decision and Order). The Panel directed the parties to
participate in an informal conference with Panel Member Dolly M. Gee to
resolve two issues relating to Compressed Work Schedules (CWS). Although
they resolved one of the issues, the other, which concerned the
procedure for restricting employees choice of scheduled off days
under a 5-4/9 CWS, remained in dispute. After considering the Panel
Members report and recommendations for settlement, the Panel
ordered the parties to adopt a modified version of the Unions
proposal. That modified proposal provided: (1) where more than 25
percent of employees on the CWS option choose a particular Monday or
Friday as their off day, the least senior employee would be scheduled
for a Monday or Friday off day in accordance with past practice; (2)
should such scheduling result in fewer employees than needed to perform
necessary work, the parties would maintain the status quo pending
resolution of the scheduling dispute; (3) if the parties cannot achieve
informal resolution of the dispute, they would invoke expedited
arbitration under their master collective bargaining agreement; and (4)
employees could voluntarily select as their off day a Tuesday,
Wednesday, or Thursday that is not identified as a critical cycle day.
Multi-skill Training Program
- Department of the Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio and
Council 214, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
97 FSIP 88 (November 12, 1997), Panel Release No. 403 (Decision and
Order). Initially, the Panel determined that the parties should resume
their negotiations on a concentrated schedule with the assistance of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to narrow or resolve the
dispute arising from negotiations over the Employers decision to
establish a multi-skill training program (MTP). Under the proposed MTP,
journeymen-level employees would be trained in additional skills and
trades to enable them to perform a wider variety of functions.
Unresolved issues included matters relating to: definitions; scope of
local negotiations; training; competitive levels; compensation; leave
and work assignment; Performance Acceptance Certification; monitoring of
the program; applicability of the program to an existing local
multi-skill agreement; conflict with other agreements; and waiver of
rights. The resumed negotiations failed to produce a complete settlement
and the Panel directed the parties to provide written submissions, after
which it would select between the parties final offers on a
package basis to the extent that they were otherwise legal. The Panel
adopted the Employers final package, modifying only a provision
which concerned a subject of bargaining permissive to the Union. The
Panel essentially concluded that the Unions final offer would
undercut the Employers stated reason for establishing the MTP: to
make the organization more efficient and competitive with the private
sector.
Numerous Issues Involving a Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement
- Department of the Army, Headquarters 10th Mountain Home Division
and Fort Drum, New York and Local 400, American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 97 FSIP 94 (January 2, 1998), Panel
Release No. 405 (Decision and Order). The Panel directed the parties to
resume negotiations, on a concentrated schedule, over all issues
remaining in dispute in their negotiation over a successor collective
bargaining agreement, with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service; if those negotiations proved unsuccessful, the
Panel would select between the parties final offers on an
article-by-article basis to resolve the matter, to the extent that they
were otherwise legal. When the parties concentrated efforts failed
to resolve the dispute, the Panel directed them to present written
submissions and rebuttal statements. The Panel ordered the adoption of
the following: (1) the Employers final offer stating a smoking
policy that generally prohibited smoking in Government vehicles and
buildings, but providing for outdoor smoking areas, smoking breaks, and
attendance at smoking cessation classes; (2) the Employers final
offer, modified to eliminate certain permissive subjects of bargaining,
specifying amounts, allocation, and administration of official time; (3)
the Employers final offer permitting the use of leave without pay,
advanced annual leave, and sick leave in the event of the death of an
immediate family member; (4) a modified version of the Unions
final offer (which avoids potential interference with managements
right to require employees to undergo fitness-for-duty exams), relating
to notification by employees of on-duty injury, medical testing of
employees, procedures for employee grievances alleging unsafe or
unhealthful working conditions, and establishment of Health and Safety
Committees; (5) the Employers final offer regarding the provision
of training and development opportunities that would promote effective
employees performance; (6) the Employers final offer specifying
actions that it would take to assist employees in improving their
performance in order that they may demonstrate acceptable performance;
(7) the Employers final offer requiring preparation of an SF-50
for employees who are detailed to a higher-graded position for more than
30 days; and (8) the Employers final offer relating to
accommodations for employees in adverse environmental conditions and
designation of emergency-essential personnel.
Termination of a 5-4/9 Compressed Work Schedule
- Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Kansas City, Missouri and Local ZKC, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association, Case No. 98 FSIP 19 (January 30, 1998), Panel Release
No. 406 (Decision and Order). The Panel ordered the parties to
participate in an informal conference with a Panel Staff member to
assist them in resolving their dispute and, if unable to achieve
resolution through that means, to submit a single written statement. The
issue at impasse was the Employers decision to terminate a 5-4/9
compressed work schedule (CWS) because, under the Flexible and
Compressed Work Schedules Act (the Act), 5 U.S.C. § 6131, the
Agency heads designee determined that it was causing an adverse
agency impact. After considering the Employers data, which
included unsubstantiated graphs and charts regarding alleged increases
in overtime costs, the Panel found that the evidence presented did not
establish that the CWS had caused an adverse agency impact under the
Act. In this regard, the Panel found that the data that the Employer
provided in support of its determination that the CWS was causing an
adverse agency impact was defective in several respects and,
consequently, inconclusive and not in accordance with the framework
established under the Act. The Panel noted that CWS was only one of many
factors influencing work schedules and that the key to addressing the
Employers perceived concerns might lie in the annual negotiations
over watch schedules that were just beginning. The Panel emphasized that
if the Employer gathers new evidence demonstrating that the CWS has had
an adverse agency impact, it again could move to terminate the schedule
and, if necessary, seek the Panels assistance. Concluding that the
Employer had not met its statutory burden, the Panel ordered the
continuation of the 5-4/9 CWS.
ABOUT THIS COLUMN
In addition to the issuance of final actions, the
Panel also fulfills its statutory obligations by assisting the parties in
their efforts to achieve voluntary settlements.
In Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
Washington, D.C. and Chapter 201, NTEU, Case No. 98 FSIP 16, the
parties reached impasse over the payment of travel and per diem expenses
for Union representatives in upcoming successor agreement negotiations;
the mediation assistance was provided telephonically by Panel Member
Edward F. Hartfield.
In Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Dallas, Texas and Chapter
260, NTEU, Case Nos. 97 FSIP 135 and 98 FSIP 1, Panel Member Bonnie
Prouty Castrey assisted the parties where the impasse involved four issues
in connection with the Employers decision to relocate about 400
bargaining- unit employees to downtown Dallas.
In Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Dallas, Texas and Chapter
275, NTEU, Case No. 98 FSIP 29, Panel Member Castrey was successful in
mediating a complete settlement, concerning the consolidation of a
newly-certified unit of bank examiners from two separate field offices to
a new location in North Dallas.
In Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. and Printing Crafts
Joint Council, AFGE, AFL-CIO, Case No. 97 FSIP 131, the mediation
efforts of Panel Member Stanley M. Fisher were instrumental in helping the
parties to reach a voluntary settlement of a dispute over their first-ever
alternative work schedule program.
ABOUT THIS COLUMN
The FLRAs General Counsel, Joseph
Swerdzewski, has final authority over the issuance of complaints under the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The General Counsels
approach in deciding whether to issue a complaint in a particular set of
circumstances influences the direction of the law. For that reason, and to
keep the parties informed of the policies being pursued by the Office of
the General Counsel (OGC), the Bulletin highlights selected cases that
were considered by the OGC pursuant to requests for case-handling advice
from Regional Directors, and summarizes guidance issued on novel legal
issues. The interpretations of the Statute relied upon in the advice and
guidance represents the OGCs position, and are not an official
position of, or interpretation by, the Authority.
THE DUTY TO BARGAIN OVER AN OFFICE RELOCATION
This case concerns a novel issue regarding when the duty to bargain
attaches to an office relocation, and more specifically, whether the
Agency failed to fulfill any bargaining obligation prior to the issuance
of the Solicitation for Offers (SFO). An SFO contains an agencys
space needs, including the technical requirements and specifications. In
this case, the Agency issued an SFO for a new centralized campus facility
without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain.
The General Counsel determined that the Regions should decide charges
alleging a refusal to bargain over office relocations based on the basic
principle that agencies cannot make unilateral decisions on otherwise
negotiable matters (including matters within their discretion) that
concern conditions of employment. Many decisions made by an agency in the
process of determining whether to relocate, where to relocate and the
specifics of the building to which the agency will relocate, although
subject to outside law and regulations and possible negotiation with other
entities (such as GSA), nonetheless would be negotiable to the extent they
are within the agencys discretion.
The General Counsel believes that agency decisions on matters that would
otherwise be negotiable should not be allowed to be made unilaterally if
that unilateral action removes that negotiable matter from the realm of
collective bargaining at some latter time. For example, if the agency
makes a unilateral decision on an otherwise negotiable matter, such as
parking requirements during the course of the procurement process, the
agency has effectively deferred negotiations until there is little
remaining to negotiate.
The OGC determined that some matters set forth in the SFO address
negotiable conditions of employment: child care center, fitness center,
cafeteria, heath unit, parking, and interior environmental considerations,
and therefore, should have been negotiated, to the extent of the Agencys
discretion, prior to issuance of the SFO. In order to present this
significant issue to the Authority, absent settlement, the Regional
Director was advised to issue a complaint alleging that the Agency
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute when it unilaterally
decided to either include in the SFO, or request that GSA include in the
SFO, matters which were otherwise within the scope of bargaining. In
addition to a traditional cease and desist order and remedial posting, the
Region is directed to seek an order requiring the Agency to bargain to the
extent of its discretion over those negotiable matters set forth in the
complaint.
EMPLOYEES STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT
RETAIN THE SAME STATUTORY RIGHTS AS OTHER UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
This case presents the issue of whether employees precluded by section
7112 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute from being
in an appropriate unit, may otherwise engage in protected activity under
the Statute. The charge alleges that during an organizational drive and
before the filing of a representation petition, Agency managers engaged in
conduct which interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in their
organizing efforts in violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.
In the absence of any legislative history or precedent under the Statute
to the contrary, the General Counsel determined that employees who are
excluded from bargaining rights under section 7112 are nonetheless
afforded the same protections under the Statute as other unrepresented
employees. To hold otherwise, would be to expand the list of employees and
agencies excluded by the Statute, which is the sole province of the
Congress and the President under section 7103(b).
The General Counsel further advised the Regions that although these
employees would not have the right to representation at formal discussions
or investigatory examinations under section 7114(a)(2) (A) and (B), they
do have the right to act as a representative and present the views of a
labor organization to heads of agencies and other officials of the
executive branch of the Government, or other appropriate authorities under
section 7102(1) of the Statute. Similarly, although these employees do not
have the right to engage in concerted activity, since protected activity
under section 7102 of the Statute is limited to assisting or refraining
from assisting a labor organization, these employees do have the right to
engage in solicitation and distribution activities during non-work times
in non-work areas.
THE APPLICATION OF COVERED BY TO A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATED AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE PARTIES COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Three cases were presented for case handling advice that involve the
issue of whether a memorandum of agreement (MOA) at the local level on a
particular subject matter entered into after the expiration of the
master labor agreement (MLA) may be the basis for a covered by
defense.
The MOA at issue resulted from the settlement of previously filed unfair
labor practice charges which were the subject of a consolidated complaint.
The MOA makes reference to the parties expired MLA by requiring counseling
or disciplinary actions taken under the terms of the MOA be taken in
accordance with the provisions of the MLA. The MOA specifically reserves
the rights of any unit employee to file grievances under the MLA if they
believe that the application of the MOA has violated any right under the
MLA. The Agency allegedly implemented changes which it defends triggered
no bargaining obligation since the subject matter of those actions was
covered by the MOA.
The General Counsel, applying the Authoritys decision in Department
of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore,
Maryland, (HHS) 47 FLRA 1004 (1993) and the decisional
approach set forth in the Office of the General Counsel Guidance on the Impact
of Collective Bargaining Agreement on the Duty to Bargain and Other
Statutory Rights (March 5, 1997), initially concluded that all three
cases involve changes in conditions of employment which are more than de
minimis and that, absent any potential covered by defense,
there would be a duty to bargain. It was also concluded that the matter in
dispute is covered by the MOA. The issue presented here which the
Authority has not yet had an opportunity to address, is whether a MOA
which was negotiated after the expiration of the MLA can constitute a covered
by defense.
The General Counsel determined that when a negotiated agreement, whether
labeled a memorandum of agreement, memorandum of understanding or
settlement agreement, is deemed to be a part of a current contract,
subject to the negotiated grievance procedure and having the same term as
the contract, the covered by doctrine applies. Thus, the
agreement becomes a part of the contract and as such may be relied upon to
support a covered by or contract interpretation defense.
In the cases presented here, however, the MOA cannot become part of the
contract since the contract is no longer in effect. Nonetheless, the
General Counsel is of the view that the policy driving the covered
by doctrine requires an approach that also gives efficacy to
agreements between the parties entered into through collective bargaining
after a contract expires. There is no reason in law or based on policy
considerations to treat agreements entered into during the life of a
contract differently from those entered into after a contract expires for
the purposes of the application of the covered by doctrine.
Indeed, the failure to apply the covered by doctrine as a
general rule to post-contract agreements could lead unions to adopt a
strategy of not renegotiating contracts, but rather conducting their
labor- management relations through a series of never-ending memoranda of
agreements to avoid the application of the covered by
doctrine. This is exactly one of the primary reasons which prompted the
D.C. Circuit and the Authority to develop the covered by
doctrine.
As stated by the Authority in HHS, the covered by
doctrine gives credence to the statutory policies of favoring the
resolution of disputes through bargaining and avoiding the disruption
that can result from endless negotiations over the same general subject
matter. The Authority further stated that upon execution of an
agreement, an agency should be free from a requirement to continue
negotiations over the same general subject matter. The Authority has
stated that upon execution of an agreement, an agency should be free
from a requirement to continue negotiations over terms and conditions of
employment already resolved by the previous bargaining. HHS,
at 1017-1018.
The General Counsel sees no reason why this policy should not equally be
applicable to all agreements, regardless of when they are entered into.
The Regions are further advised that in cases involving disputes over
agreements entered into after a contract has expired that are subject to
resolution under a negotiated grievance procedure, the covered by
doctrine is applicable. The General Counsel is of the view that the covered
by doctrine should not be applicable for disputes involving
agreements entered into after a contract expires if disputes over that
agreement are not subject to resolution under a negotiated grievance
procedure. A contrary view would leave the union with no forum in which to
challenge the agency action and would be inconsistent with the policies
which gave rise to the covered by doctrine.
STANDING TO FILE REPRESENTATION PETITIONS AND THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL
OFFICE IN ADDRESSING CHALLENGES TO AN INDIVIDUAL FILING A PETITION
A representation case was presented for case handling advice that
presents issues concerning the standing to file a representation petition,
specifically, an amendment of certification petition, and the role of the
Regions when the authority of an individual filing a representation
petition on behalf of a labor organization or agency is challenged.
The petition, which was filed by an officer of the local exclusive
representation, requested a change in affiliation to a different national
union. Shortly after the filing, the President of the local union
submitted a letter to the Regional Director, which was signed by all
members of the Executive Board, excluding the officer who originally filed
the petition, requesting withdrawal of the petition. The letter maintained
that the Executive Board is the government body of the union and that the
Board had not authorized the filing of the petition.
The General Counsel determined that petitions to clarify or amend an
existing unit or to consolidate existing units may only be filed by an
agency or labor organization. In this case, the local union is a labor
organization and as such, had standing to file the petition seeking an
amendment of its certification. Conversely, there is no support for the
proposition that a member or members of a labor organization may file a
petition to effectuate a change in affiliation if the incumbent labor
organization does not abide by the wishes of members to file such a
petition.
In the preliminary investigation in all representation cases, the Region
examines the petition and determines whether the proper party filed the
petition and whether the person signing the petition on behalf of a labor
organization or an agency appears to have authority to file. If the signer
has apparent authority, the Region should continue to process the petition
until and unless that individuals authority is challenged by the
petitioning party. If the Region determines that the individual signing
the petition does not have apparent authority or if that persons
authority is challenged, the Region should make further inquiries to
determine if the signer had authority to file the petition.
In this case, the local union official had apparent authority to file
the petition. However, once that authority was challenged by the local
union, the Region becomes obligated to investigate and decide whether the
signer had authority to file the petition. Under these circumstances, the
Region is directed to issue a notice to show cause why the petition should
not be dismissed based on lack of authority of the individual signing the
petition. If the Regional Director finds a lack of authority, the Region
should dismiss the petition, absent withdrawal by the individual who
signed the petition. The Region was advised not to approve a request by
the labor organization or the agency to withdraw the petition. Rather,
absent withdrawal, by the individual signing the petition, the petition
should be dismissed and that individual afforded an opportunity to
challenge that decision before the Authority.
ABOUT THIS COLUMN
In accordance with the OGCs Settlement
Policy, parties have entered into numerous novel settlement agreements
resolving pending ULP cases. This policy, issued in conjunction with the
Prosecutorial Discretion Policy, provides Regional Directors with the
flexibility to develop, with the parties, innovative remedies that
maximize the purposes and policies of the Statute, resolve the specific
issues and meet the needs of the parties. To encourage parties to jointly
resolve disputes consistent with principles and objectives set forth in
the Settlement Policy, selected provisions of recent settlement agreements
follow. The parties are not identified in order to maintain
confidentiality.
VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
Agency Agrees to Adhere to Compressed Work Schedule
In a pre-complaint settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the
Agency would post a notice to all employees stating that it would not
conduct any formal discussions within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A)
without notifying the Union and affording it an opportunity to be
represented at the formal discussion. Accordingly, in the event that the
Agency makes a determination concerning the termination of the Compressed
Work Schedule (CWS) Program, the Agency agreed to adhere to the provisions
of the Statute and the CWS Agreement between the Agency and the Union.
Agency Agrees to Sponsor a Joint Labor- Management Training Program
Concerning Statutory Bargaining Obligations and Rights and to Negotiate over
Changes Involving the Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacies Program
After issuance of complaint and notice of hearing, the parties agreed
the Agency would post a notice to all employees stating that the Agency
would provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over
changes in conditions of employment affecting unit employees, including
changes involving the Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacies Program. The
parties also agreed that the Agency would sponsor a joint labor-management
training program in conjunction with the FLRA concerning statutory
bargaining obligations and rights. Two one-day training sessions will be
held.
Agency Agrees to Reconvene a Step 2 Grievance Meeting and Allow the
Unions Designated Representative to Represent the Grievant
After issuance of complaint and notice of hearing, the parties agreed
that to the following: (1) the Agency recognized that the Union has the
right to designate its representatives to represent bargaining unit
employees at each step in the grievance process and (2) the Agency agreed,
upon the Unions request, to reconvene a particular grievance meeting
at step 2 and allow the Union to designate its representative to represent
the grievant at the meeting.
UNILATERAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
The following settlement agreements were approved
by a Regional Director applying the OGCs Settlement Policy over the
objection of the charging party because the settlement effectuated the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
Union Agrees to Make Employee Whole for Union Dues Which were
Improperly Withheld from her Paycheck
In a pre-complaint settlement agreement, the Union agreed to post a
notice to all members and employees stating that it would not interfere
with members statutory right to revoke their authorization for the
Agency to deduct union dues from their paychecks. In particular, the Union
agreed to make an employee whole for all dues and monies which were
withheld from her pay since the anniversary date at which time her dues
revocation form should have been effective, until the date when her dues
withholding were actually canceled.
Agency Agrees to Provide Unit Employees at No Charge Uniform Pants and
Shirts and to Bargain Over the Elimination of the Practice of Providing Unit
Employees with Uniforms and Free Laundering and to Give Retroactive Effect
to Agreements Reached
In a post-complaint settlement, the Agency agreed to post a notice
stating that before it changes conditions of employment of bargaining unit
employees, it will notify the Union of such changes and afford it the
opportunity to bargain unless implementation is otherwise allowed under
the Statute. The Agency further agreed to bargain over a previous decision
to eliminate the practice of providing uniforms to employees in the meat
department and free laundering of the uniforms and to give retroactive
effect to any agreements resulting from bargaining. Finally, the Agency
agreed, that when it decides to make either temporary or permanent changes
in working conditions of unit employees, it will notify the Union in
writing of its intent to implement such changes and to give the Union the
opportunity to negotiate the substance or the impact, as appropriate, of
such changes, in accordance with the Statute.
Agency Agrees to Negotiate Internet Use Policy and Impact and
Implementation of Electronic Mail Policy
In a post-complaint unilateral settlement agreement, the Agency agreed
to post notices stating that it will notify the Union prior to changing
conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees and negotiate to the
extent required by law. Further, upon request, the Agency agreed: (1) to
negotiate with the Union a national policy concerning the use of the
Internet, to the extent required by law; (2) restore Internet access to
bargaining unit employees who were denied access as a result of the
implementation of the Agencys policy; (3) unblock Internet world
wide web sites for bargaining unit employees; and (4) not to use
information obtained through Internet access monitoring capability as a
basis for taking disciplinary action against bargaining unit employees
until negotiations on a nationwide Internet policy have been completed.
Finally, the Agency agreed to negotiate with the Union concerning the
impact and implementation of a decision to implement Support Services
E-MAIL policy/guidance/standards.
Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.flra.gov