United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

 

In the Matter of DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK	Case No. 98 FSIP 121
and CHAPTER 53, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

DECISION AND ORDER

        The Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Brooklyn District Office, Brooklyn, New York (Employer) filed a 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, between it and Chapter 53, National Treasury Employees Union (Union).

    Following an investigation of the request for assistance, which concerns noise abatement for printers, the Panel determined that the dispute should be resolved on the basis of a single written submission from each of the parties.⁽¹⁾

After receiving their submissions, the Panel would take whatever action it deems appropriate to resolve the impasse, including the issuance of a binding decision. Written submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.⁽²⁾

BACKGROUND

        The Employer’s mission is to assess and collect taxes. The Union represents approximately 280 bargaining-unit employees who are part of a nationwide consolidated unit. They work in positions such as revenue officer and agent, taxpayer service representative, and tax auditor at grades GS-5 through -13. The parties are covered by a master collective-bargaining agreement, known as NORD V, which was implemented on July 1, 1998. This dispute, which affects revenue officers in the Garden City, New York, post of duty, a part of the Employer’s Brooklyn District, arose during bargaining over the implementation of a lap top computer program called the Integrated Collection System (ICS).⁽³⁾ Following the Panel’s assertion of jurisdiction, the parties were able to reach a voluntary resolution concerning the number of revenue officers who would be assigned to the upgraded workstations and have ergonomic chairs for their work areas; furthermore, the parties have agreed that, in order to minimize the noise from the dot matrix printers in employee work areas, the printers either shall be relocated with other equipment or surrounded by acoustical screens which help absorb noise.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

        The sole issue in dispute is whether the Employer should seek the cooperation of the General Services Administration (GSA) to timely implement the parties’ plan for alleviating the noise from computer printers.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Union’s Position

        The Union proposes that "Management [] make every reasonable effort to get [GSA] to comply with implementation of the agreement within 45 calendar days." This wording is needed to place the onus on the Employer to take necessary steps to timely implement the agreement. According to the Union, the provision would help avoid a recurrence of a recent situation where the Employer failed to timely or properly implement another agreement with the Union concerning building renovations; in that matter, the Employer blamed GSA for the implementation problem and the Union has had to file a grievance to remedy the situation. The proposal is not an attempt to make GSA a party to the agreement, as the Employer contends, but, rather, is intended to prompt the Employer to take affirmative steps to have GSA cooperate in implementing the agreement within the agreed upon 45-calendar-day period.

2. The Employer’s Position

    The parties’ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning noise abatement for printers should not contain any wording which would require the Employer to take steps to ensure GSA’s cooperation in the implementation of the agreement. The MOU proposed by the Employer, which mirrors the Union’s except for the disputed provision, represents the entire verbal agreement between the parties in resolution of the problem caused by noisy printers. The Union’s belated insistence on an additional provision may constitute bad faith bargaining since the parties already had a verbal agreement without it. The Union’s proposal would be unenforceable since, in essence, it would require GSA to implement the agreement within 45 calendar days; since GSA does not have a collective-bargaining relationship with the parties, it cannot be compelled to take any action with respect to implementation. It is the Employer’s responsibility to implement the agreement, not GSA’s, and management intends to comply in a timely manner. The provision, moreover, could invite grievances if the Union deems management’s efforts are insufficient to ensure GSA cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS

        Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the dispute can best be resolved on the basis of a modified version of the Union’s proposal. In our view, it is reasonable to compel the Employer to make efforts to elicit GSA’s assistance, if it is needed to timely implement the parties’ noise abatement plan. This is particularly true in view of the difficulties the parties may have had in the past in implementing agreements where GSA’s assistance was necessary. It is unclear from the parties’ submissions, however, the extent to which GSA’s cooperation may be needed to implement the parties’ noise abatement plan. Moreover, a teleconference with the parties and a Panel representative to clarify the parties’ position in this regard did not produce any elucidating information as to whether the Employer would have to rely on GSA to erect acoustical screens around printers or relocate printers to the agreed upon areas. Therefore, we shall modify the Union’s proposal to require that, only in the event that management requires GSA’s assistance to implement the agreement within 45 calendar days shall the Employer make reasonable efforts to secure GSA’s cooperation. If assistance in this regard is not required, the Employer need not take any action with respect to GSA.

ORDER

        Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations 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 5 C.F.R. § 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders the following:

    The parties shall adopt the following wording:

In the event that the assistance of the General Services Administration (GSA) is needed to procure and/or install acoustical screens, and/or relocate the printers to the agreed upon areas, management will make every reasonable effort to secure GSA action within 45 calendar days.

 

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Executive Director

January 28, 1999

Washington, D.C.

 

1.Written submissions is the second procedural determination by the Panel in this case. Initially, the Panel determined that the dispute, which at that time (August 18, 1998) concerned two additional issues (larger workstations and ergonomic chairs), should be resolved through an informal conference with a Panel representative, which was scheduled for September 24, 1998. Prior to the informal conference, the parties voluntarily resolved these two issues. The Panel granted the parties’ joint request to postpone the informal conference for 30 days to give them an opportunity to resolve the issue concerning noise abatement for printers. Shortly after this postponement, the Panel was administratively advised that it was unlikely the parties would be able to meet for at least a month to pursue voluntary efforts to resolve the matter. This gave rise to a second procedural determination by the Panel to resolve the remaining issue based on written submissions from the parties.

2.Subsequent to receipt of the parties’ written statements of position, a representative of the Panel convened a teleconference with the parties for the purpose of clarifying information contained in their submissions.

3.ICS lap top computers facilitate paperwork, generate forms and allow case assignments to be placed directly in the computer.