Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, BRSI, Northeastern Program Service Center

 



[ v01 p160 ]
01:0160(19)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 19
                                             APRIL 9, 1979
 
 MR. IRVING L. BECKER
 LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
 ROOM G-402, WEST HIGH RISE BUILDING
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21235
 
                           RE:  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, 
                                AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY 
                                ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN 
                                PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR 
                                No. 1150, FLRC No. 78A-181
 
 DEAR MR. BECKER:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW AND
 REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION, AS
 SUPPLEMENTED, AND THE UNION'S OPPOSITION THERETO, IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1760 (THE UNION) FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT
 AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER (THE
 ACTIVITY).  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE ACTIVITY
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY REFUSING TO PERMIT A
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND A MEETING BETWEEN AN ACTIVITY MANAGER AND
 CERTAIN BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WHEREIN THE EMPLOYEES WERE INFORMED OF
 THE ACTIVITY'S DECISION TO TRANSFER CASES FROM ONE OFFICE COMPONENT TO
 ANOTHER;  AND BY REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION OVER THE PROCEDURE
 TO BE FOLLOWED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DECISION, AS WELL AS OVER THE
 ADVERSE IMPACT OF SUCH DECISION ON THE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ADOPTED THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE (ALJ) WHO CONCLUDED, IN
 PERTINENT PART, THAT THE ACTIVITY DID NOT COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATION TO
 BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH AND THEREFORE VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER WHEN, AFTER THE UNION SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO MEET AND
 CONFER, THE ACTIVITY REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION ABOUT THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN EFFECTUATING ITS DECISION TO TRANSFER CASES
 AND ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SUCH DECISION ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.  /1/ IN REACHING THIS DETERMINATION, THE ALJ REJECTED THE
 ACTIVITY'S ARGUMENT, IN RELEVANT PART, THAT THE SHIFTING OF CASES HAD NO
 SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES AND THEREFORE
 DID NOT RAISE AN OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN, STATING:
 
    (THE UNION) WAS REASONABLE IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER OF
 (ONE-THIRD OF THE OFFICE
 
    COMPONENT'S) CASES TO (ANOTHER OFFICE) MIGHT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT
 ON THE (AFFECTED UNIT)
 
    EMPLOYEES . . . AND THAT THEREFORE,