|
In the Matter of DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY
|
|
|
and LOCAL 1429,
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
|
Case No. 04 FSIP 42 |
ARBITRATOR'S
OPINION AND DECISION
The
Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania,
(Employer) and Local 1429, National Federation of Federal Employees, Federal
District 1, IAM&AW, AFL-CIO (Union), filed a joint request for assistance
with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation
impasse under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C.
§ 7119. After an investigation of
the request for assistance, which arises from bargaining over the Employer's
decision to eliminate the paid lunch period during weekend overtime assignments,
the Panel directed the parties to mediation-arbitration by telephone conference
with the undersigned. Accordingly,
on March 11, 2004, a mediation-arbitration proceeding was held with
representatives of the parties. During
the mediation phase, various options for settling the dispute were discussed,
but a voluntarily resolution was not achieved.1/
In reaching this decision, I have considered the entire record in this
matter, including the parties' final offers and oral statements of position.
BACKGROUND
The Employer operates a depot where maintenance and overhauling of missile
systems, such as the Patriot Missile, and heavy-duty vehicles, such as the
Humvee, are undertaken. The Union
represents 750 bargaining-unit employees who work as electrical, heavy mobile
equipment, and ordnance equipment mechanics; painters; sheet metal machinists;
and welders; their grades range from WG-5 through –13.
The parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is extended annually
under an automatic rollover provision; it was originally due to expire on
February 8, 1997.
ISSUE
AT IMPASSE
The
parties essentially disagree over whether unit employees on 8-hour weekend
overtime assignments should take a 30-minute unpaid lunch or be permitted, based
on majority vote within each work unit,2/
to take the morning and afternoon breaks back-to-back at midday.
POSITIONS
OF THE PARTIES
1. The Employer's Position
The
Employer is proposing that the current weekday schedule, which includes an
unpaid ½-hour lunch period, be followed during weekend overtime periods.3/
This schedule is more desirable because employees are accustomed to it.
By contrast, the varying schedules that employees might select under the
Union’s proposal would be administratively burdensome to monitor and
inefficient should employees not return from their midday breaks within the 20
minutes allotted. Furthermore,
“employees need their breaks and lunch through the week and [] on an overtime
weekend, especially after they have worked 40 or more hours during that week.”
2. The Union's Position
The
Union proposes that:
Employees
working an 8-hour overtime day be given the opportunity in each individual cost
center, by majority vote, to combine the morning rest break (10 minute) and the
afternoon rest break (10 minute) into one 20-minute rest break in the first half
of the shift. Individual cost
centers that adopt this proposal would forego their 30-minute unpaid lunch
period.
Taking the two 10-minute breaks together would be more “productive” because “two start and stop times will be eliminated,” thereby reducing work interruptions. In addition, the majority vote would ensure that the entire work unit would be on the same schedule, making it easy to administer. Other benefits include increasing employees’ willingness to volunteer for overtime assignments, and “provid[ing] a morale boost for [employees] who will have more time with their families on a weekend.” Finally, since both the snack bar and base restaurant are closed on weekends, employees do not need the 30-minute unpaid lunch period the Employer is proposing.
CONCLUSION
Having carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented in this case, I conclude, on balance, that the parties should adopt the Union’s proposal to resolve their dispute. The chief concern the Employer raises is that employees in those cost centers and workgroups that choose to take the 20-minute break might not return promptly to the worksite, thereby creating an administrative burden. At this point, when employees on weekend overtime will no longer be granted a paid lunch, I am persuaded that it is reasonable to permit them to select, by majority vote, whether to cumulate their two 10-minute breaks in the middle of the day or take a ½-hour unpaid lunch. Furthermore, Article 10, Section 12, of the parties’ CBA permits breaks to be combined so long as “the total time will not exceed 20 minutes or be used to shorten the work day.” As the parties have agreed to reopen the matter in 1-year, should groups that opt for the 20-minute midday break abuse that practice, the Employer would be free to reopen the agreement to disallow the practice.
DECISION
The parties shall adopt the Union‘s proposal.
John
G. Cruz April
28, 2004 1/ The parties did agree that 1
year from the date of this decision, either party may unilaterally reopen
the subject for bargaining. 2/ There are approximately 30 work units or groups at the Depot; each
consists of 15 to 30 employees under one supervisor. 3/ Employees working
overtime had been taking their lunches on the clock as the result of a
Labor-Management Partnership Council agreement; that agreement began with
two divisions in the Directorate of Maintenance and expanded, by practice,
to other work areas. The
parties now agree that, because certain solvents and/or delicate electronic
equipment are used, eating cannot be permitted in work areas, and employees
cannot take an on-the-clock lunch. Article
10, Section 4, of the CBA provides for a 30- or 45-minute unpaid lunch
period. Section
12 of the same Article permits employees some flexibility regarding breaks.
For instance, they can vary the length of each break, or combine them
“for one 20-minute break,” so long as the total break time is limited to
20 minutes.
Arbitrator
Irvine,
California