[ v17 p908 ]
17:0908(119)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 119
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
COUNCIL 147
Union
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-888
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises issues
concerning the negotiability of six Union proposals. Upon careful
consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions,
the Authority makes the following determinations. /1/
Union Proposals 1 through 5-- SSI Quality Statistical Log
1. The SSI quality statistical log will be used for training
purposes only.
2. The SSI quality statistical log will not be used for TSR's
appraisals as a means to evaluate quality and/or statistics on an
individual basis.
3. The SSI quality statistical log will not be identified by
any TSR's name or unit number.
4. The SSI quality statistical log will not cause any adverse
action to TSR's performance.
5. If management wishes to gather statistical data for
reports, it will be for the office as a whole. All statistics, as
long as it does not show any individual performance, is
acceptable.
Union Proposal 6-- Telephone Audit Sheet
Management will negotiate to establish a standard of what is
a(n) Unsatisfactory Audit, Satisfactory Audit, Minimally
Satisfactory Audit, Above Satisfactory Audit, and an Outstanding
Audit for each of the TSR grade levels 4-7.
The disputed proposals in this case arose as a result of the Agency's
Los Angeles Teleservice Center initially implementing a procedure for
monitoring telephone calls between certain agency employees and the
general public concerning Social Security matters. With regard to these
proposals the Agency contends, without contravention by the Union, /2/
that higher level union and management officials in the Social
Security-AFGE national consolidated unit have negotiated a national
memorandum of agreement (MOA) /3/ concerning the telephone monitoring
process in all Social Security teleservice centers including the Los
Angeles Center represented by AFGE. Further, the Agency argues that,
except for future changes to the telephone monitoring process, the MOA
does not authorize additional negotiations at the local level on the
monitoring process itself. /4/
The Authority finds that the Union Proposals herein are inconsistent
with express provisions of the MOA and accompanying evaluation form.
Specifically, in this regard, item 4 of the MOA provides as follows:
The purpose of the Service Observation is to identify training
needs, to provide a basis for retraining, to monitor the accuracy
of information given, to improve employee performance, to provide
information for performance appraisals and to gather information
on the volume of types of calls received.
Consequently, Union Proposals 1 through 5, which would essentially
permit the use of statistical data only for training or for general
office purposes, are inconsistent with the MOA which provides that this
information will be utilized in performance evaluations. Similarly,
Union Proposal 6, which requires the negotiation of five performance
levels in the telephone audit process, is inconsistent with the
negotiated "Evaluation of Interviewing Practices" form which provides
for only three levels of performance, namely, unsatisfactory,
satisfactory and exceptional. Thus, the disputed Union proposals herein
would require bargaining beyond that permitted in Items 26 and 27 of the
MOA.
Hence, since there is no duty to bargain between the parties at the
local level under the MOA, issues as to the negotiability of the
disputed proposals herein under the Statute are not appropriate for
resolution by the Authority. The Authority therefore concludes that the
negotiability issues raised by the disputed proposals in the instant
appeal are moot. See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
1979 and U.S. Forest Service, San Dimas Equipment Development Center, 16
FLRA No. 60 (1984) (Union Provision 4).
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ 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. In this respect, while the Union initially mailed
a copy of its petition for review to the local Agency official who
alleged that the proposals were nonnegotiable, the Regional Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration and the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration, the Union subsequently served its completion of
appeal on the Agency head's designee.
/2/ The Union did not file a Reply Brief in this case.
/3/ The Agency included with its Statement of Position a copy of the
MOA and a form, entitled "Evaluation of Interviewing Practices,"
negotiated as a part of the MOA, to be used by supervisors in evaluating
the telephone interviewing practices of Agency employees covered by the
monitoring process.
/4/ Item 26 of the MOA provides as follows:
In accordance with Article 4 of the Master Agreement and 5 USC
71, the Union will be notified of future changes to the Service
Observation process. Management agrees to fulfill any obligation
to bargain on those future changes in keeping with existing
contractual and statutory authorities. Negotiations during the
term of this Agreement to add to, amend or modify this Agreement
may be conducted only by mutual consent of the parties.
Item 27 of the MOA provides as follows:
Future changes in employee working conditions that are
appropriate for bargaining that result from changes in the Service
Observation process will be bargained at the level at which the
change is initiated. The Administration will fulfill its
statutory and contractual obligations pursuant to 5 USC 71 and the
National Agreement.