Local 1164, American Federation of Government Employees,⁽¹⁾ AFL-CIO (hereafter "AFGE" or "Union"), filed two separate requests for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (hereafter "Panel") to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (hereafter "Statute"), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Social Security Administration, Hanover Branch Office, Hanover, Massachusetts (hereafter "SSA" or "Employer" ).⁽²⁾ Following investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel asserted jurisdiction and directed the parties to expedited arbitration⁽³⁾ with the undersigned.

    Accordingly, on April 24, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., representatives from AFGE and the SSA met before the undersigned at the federal building in Boston, Massachusetts. Thereafter, the parties engaged in mediation efforts/arbitration proceedings, in which each side engaged in oral argument, live testimony, presented evidence, and each had the opportunity to present additional exhibits and documents. I have considered the entire record, which is now closed.

    The issues involved in this case revolve around the Employer's expansion of the leased premises (from approximately 4,400 square feet to approximately 7,400 square feet) and subsequent renovation of the Hanover facility. The Union filed its first request for assistance from the Panel on or about October 21, 1997. On or about October 31, 1997, the Union filed an unfair labor practice ("ULP") charge with the FLRA's Boston Regional office alleging that the Employer had engaged in ULPs through its failure to provide requested information and the Employer's decision to move forward with the renovations of the Hanover facility while the parties were still negotiating over the floor plan and other arrangements pertaining to the renovations. On or about December 5, 1997, the Union withdrew its request for Panel assistance when the SSA agreed to bargain over all expansion issues raised by the Union. On or about February 17, 1998, the Union filed its second request for assistance with the Panel. At the hearing, the Union indicated, without rebuttal from the Employer, that the FLRA had issued a ULP complaint against the SSA on March 31, 1998, for alleged violations concerning requested information along with the Employer's implementation of its floor plan at a time when the parties were still negotiating over certain aspects of the renovation plans. A ULP hearing is scheduled to take place on June 9, 1998.

    As confirmed at the hearing, the issues initially in dispute were as follows: (1) the location of the manager's office; (2) the number and type of handicapped entrances; (3) the location of the restrooms; (4) the size of the reception area and entrance; and (5) temporary arrangements for details of employees during the renovation process. In addressing these issues, it is significant to note that renovations for the entire facility were completed on or about the end of March 1998, and the parties provided the undersigned with a tour of the Hanover facility so that the arbitrator could see first-hand the results of the renovation project and to facilitate the arbitrator's understanding of the parties' respective positions.

    Having considered all of the evidence and arguments of the parties on these issues, I render the following analysis and conclusions. With reference to issue #5 abovedescribed, both parties agreed the issue had become moot in view of the fact that the, renovations had been completed. Accordingly, I find no need to address that issue.

    With reference to issue #4, initially at the hearing, the Union took the position that the reception area should be reduced and the front entrance door relocated so that the seven front-end interviewing ("FEI") stations of customers could be more fully spaced out and provide more privacy.⁽⁴⁾ By the end of the hearing the Union had backed off of that position. Having toured the facility and seen first-hand the placement of the seven FEI stations, the arbitrator was not convinced that privacy was sufficiently compromised to warrant the renovation of the reception area and placement of the front entrance door as requested by the Union.

Issue #3 - The Restrooms: Here again, at the beginning of the hearing, in conjunction with the tour of the Hanover facility, the Union articulated the position that the employee restrooms should be located at the southwest corner of the facility (where they had formerly been located), which in turn would provide for a more central placement of the clusters of work stations in the center of the office, and consequently more open space and additional aisle space for all employees. The Union also indicated that there had been water flow problems with the new restrooms on a number of occasions. The Employer countered that the employee restrooms were now centrally located with good access for all employees regardless of their work location in the office. While acknowledging the incidence of water flow problems, the Employer indicated that the flow was in conformance with federal regulations and that such items had been fine-tuned and no longer a problem. By the end of the hearing the Union had all but backed off of its position. Again, having toured the facility, the arbitrator finds merit to the Employer's rationale for the location of the employee restrooms, and, therefore, adopts its position on this issue.

Issue #2 - The number and type of handicapped entrances: The Union's position at the hearing was that there should be two automatic handicapped entrances to the facility, one at the front entrance for the general public and one for handicapped employees. The Employer initially indicated that the landlord had placed 51b. "pull doors" at the front entrance and an employee entrance located toward the northwest corner of the facility that were in full compliance with ADA standards. During the course of the hearing, a wheelchair bound employee testified and then demonstrated his ability to enter the employee entrance which consisted of two 51b. pull doors in an L-shape, and it appeared somewhat difficult for the employee to successfully manipulate and maneuver the entrance. In addition, the Union also pointed out that the SSA, having the charge of assisting and making determinations with reference to disabled individuals, should set the example of providing model accessibility to its disabled constituents.

    During the course of the hearing, the Employer confirmed that the cost of three automatic doors, two at the front entrance and one at an employee exit door toward the northeast corner of the facility (a straight walk-in as compared to the L-shaped entrance) would approximate the sum of eight thousand dollars, plus installation charges. By providing an automatic door at the northeast corner of the facility rather than at the northwest L-shaped employee entrance (which would require further renovations and construction), the Employer would be able to cut down on some of the costs of providing two automatic door entrances. The Union indicated a willingness to accept that proposal and the Employer reiterated its willingness to provide the two automatic door entrances as described above at the conclusion of the hearing. In sum, this arbitrator having found merit to the Union's position, and finding the Employer's proposal as described above to be a cost-effective manner of addressing this issue, the arbitrator adopts the Employer's proposal as presented at the hearing.

Issue #1 - The Location of the Manager's Office: The Union's position is that the Manager's enclosed office located toward the northwest corner of the facility⁽⁵⁾ should be torn down and relocated to the northeast corner of the facility where Bruce Pulliam, former Operations Supervisor, now reclassified to Management Support Specialist ("MSS"), resides in a non-enclosed work station. Mr. Pulliam would then be relocated to the first cluster work station nearest to the Managers office⁽⁶⁾. The Union articulated its justification as being two-fold: 1) to provide the optimum security for employees since the Manager would then be closer to the employees who would be performing FEI duties; and 2) to place the Manager in a location that would enhance her observation of the employees performing their daily tasks, including those performing FEI duties. Since the Manager appraises the employees performance and also recommends employees for awards, her office should be situated in the location that optimizes her observation of the employees. In further support of its "security" argument, the Union indicated that Ms. Jean Landis Naumann, the Manager of the Hanover facility, was now the only true management official at that location since Mr. Pulliam's reclassification to the position of MSS (on or about the middle of March 1998), and therefore it was her ultimate responsibility to provide the quickest response possible to potentially disruptive customers. Moreover, the additional time it would take for the Manager to get to the FEI area as a result of the additional distance from the northwest corner of the office, as compared to the northeast corner of the office (approximately 50 to 75 feet), could be critical in a violent situation. The Union reported one instance of a verbal phone threat of violence that had been made, but not carried out in 1997.

    In response to the employee observation assertions, the Manager pointed out that the employees performance appraisals were based on a Pass/Fail system, which diminished the need for in-depth ratings traditionally found in three to four level range rating systems. In addition, the Manager indicated that she floated around the office on a regular basis observing the employees performing their tasks, regularly received phone calls from customers with inquiries on their cases and provided feedback on employees which she could then follow-up on, that she handled Congressional inquiries and complaints regarding the employees handling of cases which could then serve as another gage for checking on the performance of the employees, and finally, that she had regular weekly meetings with the MSS, who reported on the progress of the handling of cases and workloads of employees. While the Employer did not contest the Union's position that Mr. Pulliam's supervisory authority had diminished, if not been eliminated as a result of the reclassification from operations supervisor to MSS, the Employer pointed out that the MSS, position was not in the bargaining unit represented by the Union and that Mr. Pulliam was considered to be a part of the management team. Finally, with reference to the observation of the employees from the office where the Manager was currently located to where the Union wanted it to be, the Employer also noted that with the projected installation of new systems furniture, the observation vantage point would become moot because the new furniture was composed of work stations enclosed in about five feet high partitions which would obstruct the view of the manager beyond the first partition regardless of the off ice's location.

    Having considered all of the evidence presented on this aspect of the issue, the arbitrator finds that the Manager's ability to appraise and evaluate the employees has not been proven to be sufficiently compromised to warrant the adoption of the Union's proposal.

    Turning to the Union's "security" concerns, the Employer pointed out that the Hanover facility was not in what could be categorized as a high-risk location for incidents of violence; that the office had no history of physical violence and had no more than four reported incidents of verbal abuse within the past four years. Further, that each FEI station was equipped with a "panic" alarm button⁽⁷⁾ in the event of an emergency whereby any employee could then dial 911 for police assistance; and that in the event of a physical incident, the additional distance from the Manager's office and consequent additional seconds it would take to get to the FEI area would not necessarily resolve the situation since it was not the Manager's duty, nor that of any of the employees to become physically involved in a situation.

        Having considered the evidence presented on the "security" aspect of this issue, including but not limited to the history of non-violence at this facility, the arbitrator was not convinced that the internal security practices of the Employer were sufficiently deficient and or negatively impacted by the location of the Manager's office so as to warrant adoption of the Union proposal on this issue.

    Accordingly, the Arbitrator awards as follows:

Issue #5 - Temporary arrangements for details of employees during the renovation process. The issue is moot and the Union shall withdraw its proposal on this matter.

Issue #4 - The size of the reception area and entrance shall remain as completed through the renovations and as reflected on Exhibit identified as Management 3.

Issue #3 - The location of the restrooms shall remain as completed through the renovations and as reflected on Exhibit identified as Management 3.

Issue #2 - The number and type of handicapped entrances: The Employer shall forthwith, at its cost, install three automatic entrance doors, two at the front entrance and one at the employee exit door toward the northeast corner of the facility (the straight walk-in exit door), that fully comply with applicable ADA standards and any other applicable federal rules and regulations.

Issue #1 - The location of the manager's office shall remain as completed through the renovations and as reflected on Exhibit identified as Management 3.

Gilbert Carrillo

Arbitrator

April 28, 1998

Davie, Florida

1.The Union represents 15 bargaining-unit employees at the Hanover Branch Office who work as claims and service representatives at GS-5 through -11.

2.The Employer is responsible for administering retirement, Medicare, disability, survivor, and supplemental security income (SSI) entitlement programs. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties is due to expire on March 5, 1999.

3.Under this procedure, unless a complete settlement of the dispute is reached during the hearing, the Panel-appointed arbitrator is to issue an award within two workdays of the close of the hearing.

4.As reflected on Union Exhibit identified as M18.

5.Reflected on Exhibit identified as Management 3.

6.Reflected on Union Exhibit identified as U#17.

7.A shrill alarm is heard throughout the facility that was demonstrated to the arbitrator.