22:0868(92)NG - AFGE Local 3231 and SSA -- 1986 FLRAdec NG
[ v22 p868 ]
22:0868(92)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
22 FLRA No. 92
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 3231
Union
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1023
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal
filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). The petition concerns
the negotiability of three proposals submitted during the course of
impact and implementation bargaining on the merger of the Bridgeport,
Ohio Branch Office and the Wheeling, West Virginia District Office of
the Social Security Administration.
II. Procedural Issues
The Union's petition for review originally contained six proposals.
In its Response to the Agency's Statement of Position the Union withdrew
its request for review as to three of these proposals and a portion of
Proposal 1. Accordingly, the three proposals and the portion of
Proposal 1 are no longer in dispute and will not be considered further.
In addition, since the Agency withdrew its allegation of
nonnegotiability as to a portion of Proposal 3, the Union's appeal as to
that portion of the proposal is now moot. Finally, the Agency's
contention that the Union's petition for review should be dismissed for
failure to timely serve the head of the Agency cannot be sustained.
While the Union initially mailed a copy of its petition for review to
local management and the headquarters of the Social Security
Administration, the Union subsequently served a copy of its petition and
response on the Agency head's designee.
III. Union Proposal 1 (Portions remaining in dispute)
Hours -- Office hours are from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
Employees may use the first hour of the day, 8:00-9:00 AM, for
training and manual maintenance.
A. Positions of the Parties
The Agency contends that because the first portion of this proposal
prescribes specific office hours, it involves the technology, methods
and means of performing work under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.
The Agency contends that the second portion of the proposal, permitting
employees to use the first hour of the day for training and manual
maintenance, interferes with management's right to direct employees
under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. The Agency also contends
that by prescribing certain assignments at specific times of day, the
second portion of the proposal interferes with management's right to
assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.
The Union argues that the Agency has not made a showing that the
first portion of Proposal 1 violates the Statute. The Union contends
that the second portion of the proposal does not interfere with
management's right to assign work.
B. Analysis
In Department of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, 16
FLRA 1104 (1984), the Authority held that an agency had no obligation to
bargain over a change in hours that a Commissary store would be open.
The Authority reasoned that since a part of the agency's mission was to
provide commissary services for various personnel, the decision about
the store's hours was mission-related and thus nonnegotiable pursuant to
section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. Since a part of the mission of the
Agency in this case is to provide services to the public, a decision
regardint the particular hours when a Social Security field office is to
be open to the public is mission-related. Thus, based on Lowry Air
Force Base the first portion of this proposal which would establish the
specific hours the Social Security Office will be open to the public is
also outside the duty to bargain.
The Union claims that while the second portion of the proposal is
intended to continue the historic practice in Social Security field
offices of employees using the first hour of the work day for reading
assigned materials, it does not contemplate employees being able to
refuse other work assignments during this hour. This statement of
intent is inconsistent with the express language of this portion of the
proposal which permits employees, at their option, to spend the first
hour of the work day performing training and manual maintenance to the
exclusion of any other tasks. Thus, this portion of the proposal is to
the same effect as Proposal 1 found outside the duty to bargain in
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2094, AFL-CIO and
Veterans Administration Medical Center, New York, New York, 19 FLRA 1027
(1985). The Authority held that as Proposal 1 in that decision required
management to refrain from assigning employees normal duties during
specified time periods, it precluded the assignment of other work at
those hours and thus violated management's right to assign work under
section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. Based on the reasons and cases
cited in Veterans Administration Medical Center, since the second
portion of Proposal 1 in this case also requires management to refrain
from assigning employees certain duties during a specified time period
it is outside the duty to bargain.
As to the Agency's assertion that this portion interferes with its
right to direct employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute, we
note that the Agency has not provided any support for its claim. We
need not reach this issue in view of our finding above that this portion
of the proposal interferes with the Agency's right to assign work under
section 7106(a)(2)(B) and is accordingly nonnegotiable for that reason.
C. Conclusion
The first portion of Proposal 1 violates management's right to
determine its mission under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute and the
second portion of Proposal 1 violates management's right to assign work
under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.
IV. Union Proposal 2
The attached pages are workflow procedures for the Wheeling
District. Changes will be made in writing and management will
make any appropriate notifications.
A. Positions of the Parties
The Agency contends that because this proposal concerns workflow, or
the means used to perform the work, it involves the technology, methods,
and means of performing work under 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. In
addition, the Agency contends that the proposal interferes with
management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the
Statute.
The Union contends that the proposal requires management to give the
union written notice of change in the manner work is accomplished within
the office, and that the proposal does not concern the substance or
content of office work procedures. As such, the Union argues that the
proposal is a procedure negotiable under section 7106(b)(2) of the
Statute.
B. Analysis
The term "workflow procedures" refers to a written document prepared
by management which sets out workflow or work procedures within the
office. The Agency has not in any manner indicated how requiring
written notice of a change in work procedures interferes with the
technology, methods and means used by the Agency for accomplishing or
furthering its work under section 7106(b)(1). Nor has the Agency
established how providing written notice to employees of changes in work
procedures would prevent it from assigning employees or assigning work
especially since nothing in the proposal can be construed to prevent the
Agency from making changes and requiring compliance with them. Thus,
this proposal constitutes a procedure by which the Agency exercises its
management rights and is negotiable under section 7106(b)(2) of the
Statute. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 1999 and Army-Air Force Exchange Service, Dix-McGuire Exchange,
Fort Dix, New Jersey, 2 FLRA 152, 155 (1979), enforced sub nom.
Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2d
1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945,
(1982).
C. Conclusion
This proposal is not inconsistent with the Agency's right to
determine the technology, methods, and means of performing work, under
section 7106(b)(1) or inconsistent with the Agency's right to assign
employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) or with the Agency's right to
assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). Rather, the proposal
constitutes a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(1).
V. Union Proposal 3 (Portion remaining in dispute)
Reassignment Procedures
Adequate training needed for satisfactory performance in the
new speciality will be provided on duty time.
A. Positions of the Parties
The Agency argues that by requiring management to provide specific
training during duty time, Proposal 3 interferes with management's right
to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The Union
argues that this proposal represents an "appropriate arrangement" under
section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute for employees who are adversely
affected by management's exercise of its authority.
B. Analysis
The employees subject to this proposal are claims representatives.
There are two specializations within the claims representatives
position, namely, Title II (T-2) involving the processing of claims
concerning retirement, survivors and disability claims and Title XVI
(T-16) involving the processing of claims for Supplemental Security
Income. According to the Agency, employees are trained "intensively" in
one of these specialties with only limited training in the other
specialty. Employees are then assigned to perform duties in the area in
which they received more intensive training. The proposal concerns
employees who because of the office merger will be assigned duties in
the specialty area in which they previously received only limited
training.
This proposal is to the same effect as the portion of a proposal
requiring management to assign formal training to employees to enable
them to perform in a position "of equivalent significance and grade
value" in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
1923 and Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, 9 FLRA 899 (1982). The Authority found that portion of
the proposal to be inconsistent with management's right under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute to assign work. Thus, based on the reasons
and cases cited in Social Security Administration, this proposal, which
also requires the Agency to provide certain specified training,
conflicts with management's right to assign work. See also National
Federation of Federal Employees, Local 108 and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Arkansas State Office of the Farmers Home Administration,
14 FLRA 19 (1984).
We turn now to the question of whether the proposal constitutes an
appropriate arrangement within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3) of the
Statute. We assume that the proposal was intended to ameliorate an
adverse effect perceived by claims representatives who, because of the
office merger, are assigned duties outside the area in which they
previously received intensive training.
Although the proposal would obligate the Agency to provide adequate
training it does not specify the time or manner in which training will
be provided. Management can determine the type of training to provide,
that is, formal classes or on-the-job training, and further, when such
training is to be provided. Nor does the proposal condition the
Agency's right to assign duties or evaluate employees' performance of
the duties on the Agency's first having trained the employees. Rather,
the proposal merely provides that at some point the Agency should
provide such training as is necessary for employees to satisfactorily
perform their assigned duties. The Agency specifically acknowledges
that "(i)n practice, employees do not cross over from (one specialty to
the other) without training." Agency Statement of Position at second
page.
The negative impact of this proposal on management's right to assign
work is not so significant as to outweigh the disruption to an employee
caused by being assigned duties outside the area in which he or she
received intensive training and the benefit conferred by the proposal of
an opportunity for employees to receive adequate training so that they
may perform the new duties satisfactorily. See National Association of
Government Employees, Local R14-87 and Kansas Army National Guard, 21
FLRA No. 4 (1986). Therefore, we find that this proposal does not
excessively interfere with management's right, under section
7016(a)(2)(B) to assign work.
C. Conclusion
The Authority finds that Proposal 3 would not excessively interfere
with management's rights under section 7106(a)(2)(B) and thus, that the
proposal constitutes an appropriate arrangement for employees adversely
affected by the exercise of management's rights within the meaning of
section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute.
VI. Order
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review as to
Proposal 1 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
the Agency shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the parties)
bargain concerning Union Proposals 2 and 3. /*/
Issued, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1986.
/s/ JERRY L. CALHOUN
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ HENRY B. FRAZIER III
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(*) In finding Union Proposals 2 and 3 within the duty to bargain,
the Authority makes no judgment as to their merits.