After investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the dispute, which arose from bargaining over the establishment of an evening shift at Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), should be resolved on the basis of written submissions from the parties, including rebuttals. After receiving their submissions, the Panel would take whatever action it deems appropriate to resolve the impasse. Written submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

1. The Employer’s Position

    The Employer’s proposal is as follows:

The late afternoon tour of duty will be staffed by two Plant Protection and Quarantine Officers (PPQO’s). For the first calendar year of the established tour, one PPQO will work a regularly scheduled tour of duty, and the second PPQO will work on a call-back basis. At the anniversary of the first year of the late afternoon tour, the second PPQO slot will be staffed as a regular tour of duty.

A regularly scheduled tour of duty for the late afternoon tour is 1500 to 2300 hours. The Agency, however, reserves the right to change the hours of the late afternoon tour of duty to correspond with the flight schedule and industry work demands.

    The phase-in period of 3½ years proposed by the Union is excessive and does not meet the need to curtail a fiscally irresponsible practice that adversely impacts the Employer and the public, or to schedule employees’ workweeks to correspond with actual work requirements.⁽²⁾ Moreover, the Union’s proposal does not give adequate consideration to the facts that: (1) BWI has a high ratio of overtime costs to flights cleared in comparison to the rest of the Northeast region; (2) overtime reimbursement is generous;⁽³⁾ and (3) the General Accounting Office and Office of Management and Budget have criticized the Employer’s overtime practices.

2. The Union’s Position

    The Union’s proposal is as follows:

Allow a phase-in period of 3½ years. For that period, service the evening workload at the BWI airport with one officer scheduled on a shift from 1500-2300 and a second officer will be called out based on current overtime call-back procedures. At the conclusion of the phase-in period a second officer should be added to the late evening TOD [tour of duty].

The beginning of the phase-in period should commence when the FSIP makes a decision regarding this case.

During the phase-in period management may change the time of the late evening TOD (currently 1500-2300 Mon.-Fri.) to correspond with flight schedules, etc.

Under the circumstances, 3½ years is an appropriate phase-in period. For approximately 20 years, significant overtime income has supplemented the modest basic pay of the PPQ officers, whose positions are classified only at GS-7 through -11. Considering the average number of hours of overtime previously paid to officers working on weekday evenings at BWI, each PPQ officer will lose some $9,500 per year in overtime income as a consequence of the assignment of two officers to the evening shift. The proposed phase-in period is comparable to that ordered by the Panel in Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Detroit, Michigan and Local 20, National Association of Agriculture Employees, Case No. 97 FSIP 72 (July 29, 1997) (PPQ, Detroit), Panel Release No. 400.⁽⁴⁾ Furthermore, it will accommodate the needs of the Employer to reduce overtime expenditures, and employees to adjust to a significant reduction in income. The Employer has given no indication that 3½ years represents a serious handicap.

    By contrast, the Employer’s proposed phase-in period is inadequate. Although the Employer gave PPQ officers some indication in early 1995 that it needed an evening shift at BWI, the officers understood this to involve a one-officer shift. It was not until the following year that they learned the Employer was considering a two-officer shift. Moreover, it was not until early 1997 that negotiations concerning the new shift began in earnest.

    Having reviewed the evidence and arguments provided by the parties, we conclude that a compromise solution should be adopted to resolve the dispute. Given the circumstances presented, we are persuaded that a 2-year phase-in period balances the equities better than either of the parties’ proposals. In our view, regardless of whether PPQ officers face a reduction of $4,000 or $9,500 per year in overtime income, a longer adjustment period than proposed by the Employer is appropriate. Since one PPQ officer will remain assigned to the evening shift on straight time during the phase-in period, to some extent the Employer’s need to curtail overtime expenditures also should be met. In ordering a more substantial phase-in period than that proposed by the Employer, we note that it has offered no additional overtime opportunities similar to those made available to the adversely affected employees in PPQ, Detroit. The circumstances in this case are also distinguishable from those in PPQ, Detroit in that the six positions involved in that case permitted an incremental approach in which the loss of overtime could be spread over a longer period. Such an incremental approach is not feasible at BWI because only two positions are affected. With respect to the Union’s proposal, the need to take action to allay criticism of the Employer’s overtime practices militates against such a lengthy phase-in period.

    Finally, regarding the first of the two related matters, consistent with the rationale provided above, we believe that the 2-year phase-in period should begin after the issuance of this Decision and Order. On the second matter, we also find that wording recognizing the Employer’s right to change the hours of the evening shift should be limited to the focus of the dispute before the Panel, that is, the phase-in period. Accordingly, appropriate wording reflecting these conclusions shall be included in our order.

    Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and because of the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the course of proceedings instituted under the Panel’s regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel under § 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders the adoption of the following wording:

The late afternoon/evening operations at Baltimore Washington International Airport will generally be staffed by two Plant Protection and Quarantine Officers (PPQO’s). For 2 years following the issuance of this decision, one PPQO will work a regularly scheduled tour of duty, and a second PPQO will work on a call-back basis. At the end of 2 years, the second PPQO slot will be staffed as a regular tour of duty.

During the 2-year period, the regularly scheduled tour of duty for the late afternoon/evening tour is 1500 to 2300 hours. During the 2-year period, the Agency reserves the right to change the hours of the late afternoon/evening tour of duty to correspond with the flight schedule and industry work demands.

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Executive Director

April 7, 1998

Washington, D.C.

1.Although the Employer established an evening shift in July 1997, and began assigning a second officer to the shift in September 1997, it states that it will implement the phase-in by reassigning the officer currently filling the second slot to a relief slot on a day shift at one of the maritime sites. At the end of the phase-in period, a second officer will be assigned to the evening shift on straight time. Prior to establishing the evening shift, PPQ officers were called in on overtime to cover operations.

2.In this regard, 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b), a regulation relating to work schedules issued by the Office of Personnel Management, provides in relevant part:

The head of an agency shall schedule the work of his or her employees to accomplish the mission of the agency. The head of an agency shall schedule an employee’s regularly scheduled administrative workweek so that it corresponds with the employee’s actual work requirements.