Social Security Administration, Cincinnati Downtown District Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 1124

 



[ v01 p129 ]
01:0129(12)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 12
                                             APRIL 9, 1979
 
 MR. ROBERT J. ENGLEHART
 STAFF ATTORNEY
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 1016 16TH STREET, N.W.
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036
 
 MR. IRVING L. BECKER
 LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
 ROOM G-402, WEST HIGH RISE BUILDING
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21235
 
                           RE:  SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 
                                CINCINNATI DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 
                                OFFICE, CINCINNATI, OHIO, A/SLMR 
                                No. 1124, FLRC No. 78A-128
 
 GENTLEMEN:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION FILED IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 75
 (THE UNION) FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CINCINNATI DOWNTOWN DISTRICT OFFICE,
 CINCINNATI, OHIO (THE ACTIVITY).  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE
 ACTIVITY HAD VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY
 UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING A CHANGE IN THE ACTIVITY'S POLICY REGARDING
 THE CONSUMPTION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES BY EMPLOYEES DURING WORKING HOURS
 WITHOUT FIRST NEGOTIATING WITH THE UNION, AND BY EFFECTING A ROTATION OF
 EMPLOYEE WORK ASSIGNMENTS WITHOUT FIRST NEGOTIATING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT ROTATION.
 
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ADOPTED THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE (ALJ), WHO CONCLUDED THAT
 THE ACTIVITY'S CONDUCT DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19()(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER AND THAT THE UNION'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  IN SO
 CONCLUDING, THE ALJ STATED WITH REGARD TO THE NEW FOOD AND DRINK POLICY:
 
    (T)HE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE UNION WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT
 NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED
 
    CHANGE IN THE FOOD AND DRINK POLICY TO ALLOW THE UNION OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE, AND FURTHER
 
    THAT MANAGEMENT DID IN FACT NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION CONCERNING THE
 CHANGE.
 
    SIMILARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSIGNMENT ROTATION ISSUE, THE ALJ
 STATED:
 
    (T)HE UNION WAS PROVIDED FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF UNIT
 
    ROTATION . . . BEFORE . . . IMPLEMENTATION.  ALTHOUGH THE POSITION OF
 THE UNION WAS SOLICITED
 
    AT THESE LATER POINTS, AND ALTHOUGH OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION OF
 DIFFERENCES WAS PRESENTED,
 
    THE UNION DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EITHER.
 
    UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED IT MUST BE CONCLUDED
 THAT THE (ACTIVITY)
 
    FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF ITS DECISION REGARDING
 
    THE UNIT ROTATION . . .
 
    BOTH THE UNION AND TH