United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

In the Matter of DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY GARRISON HEADQUARTERS, FORT BUCHANAN FORT BUCHANAN, PUERTO RICO
AND LOCALS 2614 AND 3118, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO(1)	Case No. 95 FSIP 98

DECISION AND ORDER

    The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Garrison, Headquarters, Fort Buchanan, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico (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 (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and Locals 2614 and 3118, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union).

    Following an investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the impasse arising from negotiations over annual fees for a fitness center that opened in 1993⁽²⁾ should be resolved on the basis of written submissions from the parties with the Panel to take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse. Written submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

    The Employer, a small military installation, provides logistical and administrative support, and security for tenant activities, reserve, and National Guard forces. The Union represents the interests of approximately 300, mainly lower graded, bargaining-unit employees in 2 locals. They work as custodial and maintenance workers, civilian technicians, and appropriated-fund activity employees. Only the civilian technicians are covered by a collective bargaining agreement; its expiration date was not reported.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

    The sole issue to be resolved concerns the amount of the annual fees, if any, that individual bargaining-unit employees should be required to pay for use of the fitness center.⁽³⁾

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Union's Position

    The Union proposes that bargaining-unit employees be permitted to use the fitness center without charge. This would be consistent with the long-term practice at the old gymnasium where employees could use the racquetball courts, free weights, Universal machine, and saunas for free. Regarding the Employer’s proposed fee structure, it does not take into account salary differences among employees: bargaining-unit employees earn, on average, $15,000 per year while managers, supervisors, and professional employees, including teachers, earn $45,000 or more per year. Lower paid employees should not be made to bear such a burden when the Employer could charge others larger amounts "to improve their bottom line." In addition, such "exorbitant fees" would discourage civilian employees from participating "in the wellness programs initiatives of the Government." Finally, in the community, fitness clubs offer low introductory rates ranging from $50 to $75 for the first year. The availability of such low rates, coupled with the "loyalty" owed to employees, support allowing them to use the fitness center for free; unit employees should not be forced to "seek a place to exercise outside the Fort."

2. The Employer's Position

    Under the Employer’s proposal, bargaining-unit employees would pay $225 per year for memberships at the fitness center. Charging a fee is justified because the new, climate-controlled facility offers state-of-art exercise equipment, multiple basketball, volleyball, and racquetball courts, individual supervision and fitness evaluations, showers, saunas, and towels; it costs $134,700 annually to operate and maintain the new center. While employees were permitted to use two now defunct gymnasiums without charge, those facilities are not comparable; they offered few activities and little, if any, service. The proposed annual fee is a fair exchange, considering the value of the amenities to employees. Furthermore, changes in the fiscal climate, reflected in Army regulations, permit morale, welfare, and recreation activities such as the fitness center to charge user fees. Under such regulations, nonmilitary user fees are to be 25 percent less than fees charged by privately-operated fitness clubs. In this regard, locally, three private sector facilities surveyed charge members $375, $400, and $450 annually, plus additional fees for special activities; the proposed $225 fee, therefore, is consistent with such regulatory guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

    Having considered the evidence and arguments presented, we conclude that the Employer’s proposal, modified to take into account differences in the salary levels of bargaining-unit employees, should be adopted to resolve the dispute. At the outset, we agree with the Employer that the amenities formerly available at the old gymnasium are not comparable to those now offered at the new center. While we find that it is appropriate to require unit employees to make some modest contribution towards the support of the fitness center in exchange for significant benefits, we also agree, as the Union posits, that a flat fee may place too heavy a burden on lower paid employees. We are persuaded, therefore, under the circumstances of this case, that a sliding scale which adjusts for differences in salary levels is fairer than a flat fee. Accordingly, we shall order that the following annual fitness center fees be established: (1) for bargaining-unit employees who are paid $22,500 per year or less, the fee shall be $125 and (2) for bargaining-unit employees who are paid $22,501 per year or more, the fee shall be $225.

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 pursuant to 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 following:

    The parties shall adopt the following compromise provision:

Annual fitness center membership fees for bargaining-unit employees shall be set on a sliding scale based on salary levels as follows: (1) the annual fitness center fee for bargaining-unit employees who are paid $22,500 per year or less shall be $125; (2) the annual fitness center fee for bargaining-unit employees who are paid $22,501 per year or more shall be $225.

 

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Acting Executive Director

February 21, 1996

Washington, D.C.

 

1.During the pendency of this case, a question concerning representation involving one of the installation’s bargaining units was resolved by the Atlanta Regional Office of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in AT-DR-50020. The caption has been amended to reflect the results of the representation case.

2.When the existing gymnasium was damaged by Hurricane Hugo in 1989, it was torn down and a new fitness center, costing almost 3 million dollars, was constructed. The Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge alleging that the Employer had unilaterally implemented a fee for use of the fitness center. Under the terms of a ULP settlement agreement, the Employer suspended and refunded the fees collected between October 1, 1993, and August 1994, and agreed to bargain over the amount of annual fees. Since August 1994, bargaining-unit employees have been permitted to use the center without charge.

3.The parties agree that annual family memberships will be $275.