15:0525(110)CA - HHS, SSA, Baltimore, MD and Chicago, Illinois Region and AFGE -- 1984 FLRAdec CA
[ v15 p525 ]
15:0525(110)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 110
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND AND CHICAGO, ILLINOIS REGION
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case Nos. 5-CA-832
5-CA-834
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations.
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including the
parties' stipulation of facts, accompanying exhibits, and the parties'
contentions, /1/ the Authority finds:
On August 30, 1979, the American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO (the Union) was certified as the exclusive representative of the
Respondent's professional and nonprofessional employees at, but not
limited to, Respondent's Chicago, Illinois Region.
During the week of October 6, 1980, Eleanor Jordon, Respondent's
Operations Supervisor at the Chicago, Illinois Region, held a discussion
with six employees of the Rapid Process Unit (RPU). The discussion,
lasting no longer than five minutes, was initiated by Ms. Jordon when
she went to the area in which the RPU employees work. Ms. Jordon did
not sit down and the RPU employees remained at their desks. The subject
of the discussion was changes regarding the teleclaims referral process.
At the meeting the RPU employees expressed their opinions as to a
proposed alternative teleclaims referral process. The meeting was held
without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to be
present.
On or about November 12, 1980, at a routinely held Service
Representatives' Unit (SRU) meeting, Ms. Jordon raised the subject of
telephone practices and procedures. Ms. Jordon brought to the attention
of SRU employees a complaint from a member of the public about having to
wait a long time on the phone before receiving assistance. She advised
employees that if calls were going to take longer than five minutes, the
employees should take the individual's name, phone number, and the
nature of the problem and call the individual back rather than have the
person wait on the phone. Ms. Jordon and the SRU employees then
discussed the reasonableness of the five minute guideline. This meeting
also was held without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity
to be present.
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1),
(5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
(the Statute) /2/ by conducting formal discussions within the meaning of
section 7114(a)(2)(A) /3/ of the Statute on or about October 6, 1980 and
on or about November 12, 1980 with bargaining unit employees without
providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to be present.
Regarding the meeting which occurred during the week of October 6,
1980, with employees of RPU, the Authority concludes that the General
Counsel has not met his burden of proving that the meeting was a "formal
discussion." /4/ Thus, the stipulated facts establish only that the
meeting was not scheduled in advance, was a brief discussion at the
desks of the employees involving the Operations Supervisor and six
employees of the unit and lasted only five minutes. However, other
factors which are necessary to enable the Authority to determine whether
the discussion was "formal" in nature are not contained in the
stipulated record, for instance: whether the Operations Supervisor is a
first-level supervisor or is higher in management; whether the meeting
was mandatory or attended by the full complement of employees in the
unit; whether a formal agenda was established for the meeting; or
whether records or notes of the meeting were kept. Therefore, as to the
meeting which occurred with RPU employees, the Authority finds that the
General Counsel has failed to establish that the Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply with
section 7114(a)(2)(A).
Similarly, the Authority finds that the record does not contain
enough specific evidence about the meeting which occurred on or about
November 12, 1980, with employees of SRU to enable the Authority to
determine whether the meeting was "formal" in nature. Thus, there is no
showing, for instance, of whether management representatives other than
Ms. Jordon attended the meeting; how long the meeting lasted; how the
meeting was called; whether a formal agenda was established for the
meeting; whether employee attendance was mandatory; or whether records
or notes of the meeting were kept. Therefore, the stipulated record is
inadequate to sustain the General Counsel's burden of establishing that
the Respondent held a "formal" meeting in violation of section
7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in Case Nos. 5-CA-832 and
5-CA-834 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 10, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 916
Union
and
OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS
CENTER, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
Activity
Case No. O-AR-715
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator John P. Owen filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 9, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Agency
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 236, LOCAL 2578
Union
Case No. O-AR-775
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Ira F. Jaffe filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Agency has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 9, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Respondent's brief which was untimely filed has not been
considered.
/2/ Sec. 7116. Unfair labor practices
(a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair labor
practice for an agency--
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;
. . . .
(5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
labor organization as required by this chapter;
. . . .
(8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of
this chapter.
/3/ Sec. 7114. Representation rights and duties
. . . .
(a)(2) An exclusive representative of an appropriate unit in an
agency shall be given the opportunity to be represented at--
(A) any formal discussion between one or more representatives
of the agency and one or more employees in the unit or their
representatives concerning any grievance or any personnel policy
or practices or other general condition of employment(.)
/4/ With regard to some of the factors considered by the Authority in
determining whether a meeting constitutes a formal discussion, see
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
Bureau of Field Operations, San Francisco, California, 10 FLRA 115
(1982). See also Department of Health and Human Services, Social
Security Administration, Bureau of Field Operations, San Francisco
Region, 10 FLRA 120 (1982); Veterans Administration Medical and
Regional Office Center, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 13 FLRA No. 70 (1983); U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 15 FLRA No. 89 (1984);
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Depot Tracy, Tracy, California, 14
FLRA No. 78 (1984).