---

 1 FLRA No. 20
                                            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:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 
                                   EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL 
                                   SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, 
                                   NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE 
                                   CENTER, A/SLMR No. 1158, Case 
                                   No. 0-AS-2
 
 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, IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE, INSOFAR AS RELEVANT, 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 THAT THE ACTIVITY
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY REFUSING TO MEET AND
 CONFER WITH THE UNION REGARDING THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
 CONNECTION WITH THE DETAILING OF A TASK FORCE OF EMPLOYEES FROM ONE
 OFFICE COMPONENT TO ANOTHER, AS WELL AS OVER THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF SUCH
 A DETAIL ON THE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  IN SO
 CONCLUDING, HE STATED:
 
    (T)HE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TASK FORCE, WHICH NECESSITATED THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES) TO
 
    PERFORM SCREENING IN A DIFFERENT WORK AREA, CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN
 THE (ACTIVITY'S) PAST
 
    PRACTICE AFFECTING THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  UNDER
 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
 
    (ACTIVITY) WAS OBLIGATED UNDER THE ORDER TO AFFORD THE (UNION) NOTICE
 AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 
    MEET AND CONFER ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN EFFECTUATING ITS
 DECISION TO ASSIGN A TASK
 
    FORCE OF (EMPLOYEES) TO CLEAR UP THE BACKLOG OF SCREENING WORK IN A
 UNIT OTHER THAN THEIR OWN,
 
    AND ON THE IMPACT OF ITS DECISION ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 BY FAILING TO FULFILL
 
    THESE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ORDER, I FIND, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE,
 
    THAT THE (ACTIVITY) VIOLATED (S)ECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
    IN YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY, YOU ALLEGE THAT
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION HEREIN RAISES A MAJOR POLICY ISSUE AS
 TO WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE APPLIED "TO DISTINGUISH THOSE SITUATIONS
 WHERE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE UNIT OCCURS AND REQUIRES BARGAINING FROM
 THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE ONLY A 'DE MINIM(I)S' IMPACT ON THE UNIT OCCURS."
 IN A SUPPLEMENT TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW, YOU ADDITIONALLY ASK, ". .
 . WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN AGENCY OR ACTIVITY HAS AN
 OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER WITH A LOCAL UNION OVER PERSONNEL POLICIES
 AND PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS AND, ONCE IT HAS
 BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER AT A
 PARTICULAR LEVEL, TO WHAT TYPES OF PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND
 MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS DOES THIS OBLIGATION OBTAIN?"
 
    IN THE AUTHORITY'S OPINION, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY'S DECISION /1/ DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES WHICH INCORPORATES BY
 REFERENCE SECTION 2411.12 OF THE COUNCIL'S RULES.  THAT IS, THE DECISION
 OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY DOES NOT PRESENT ANY MAJOR POLICY ISSUES, AND
 YOU NEITHER ALLEGE, NOR DOES IT APPEAR, THAT HIS DECISION IS ARBITRARY
 AND CAPRICIOUS.
 
    THUS, YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION
 PRESENTS A MAJOR POLICY ISSUE AS SET FORTH ABOVE CONSTITUTES ESSENTIALLY
 MERE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
 ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IN THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE BY FAILING TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE UNION
 OVER THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN EFFECTUATING ITS DECISION TO
 ASSIGN A TASK FORCE OF EMPLOYEES TO CLEAR UP THE BACKLOG OF SCREENING
 WORK IN A UNIT OTHER THAN THEIR OWN, AS WELL AS THE IMPACT OF ITS
 DECISION ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE
 PARTICULARLY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S FINDING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
 THE TASK FORCE CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN THE ACTIVITY'S PAST PRACTICE
 AFFECTING THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, NO
 BASIS FOR REVIEW IS THEREBY PRESENTED.  /2/
 
    SINCE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION DOES NOT PRESENT A MAJOR
 POLICY ISSUE AND YOU NEITHER ALLEGE, NOR DOES IT APPEAR, THAT HIS
 DECISION IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, YOUR APPEAL FAILS TO MEET THE
 REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 TRANSITION RULES WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE SECTION 2411.12 OF THE
 COUNCIL'S RULES.  ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IS HEREBY
 DENIED, AND YOUR REQUEST FOR A STAY IS LIKEWISE DENIED.  /3/
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
    CC:  H. COLLENDER
 
    AFGE
 
    /1/ IN YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW, YOU REQUEST THAT THE INSTANT CASE BE
 CONSOLIDATED FOR CONSIDERATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
 WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 1101, FLRC NO.  78A-136 AND DEPARTMENT OF
 HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI,
 NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 1150, FLRC NO. 78A-181,
 AS ALL THREE CASES INVOLVE "VIRTUALLY THE SAME ISSUE." HOWEVER, IN VIEW
 OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE AGENCY'S APPEAL IN FLRC NO. 78A-136 (DECISION
 LETTER DENYING REVIEW ISSUED MARCH 1, 1979) AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON SUCH REQUEST FOR
 CONSOLIDATED CONSIDERATION.
 
    /2/ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, FLRC 78A-136, SUPRA
 N. 1.
 
    /3/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE WAS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE
 BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR
 APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH
 WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE
 STATUTE RATHER THAN THE ORDER.
 
 
 

---