United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

 

In the Matter of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C.
and LOCAL 2015, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES	Case No. 97 FSIP 67

 

DECISION AND ORDER

    Local 2015 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (Union) 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 the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. (Employer).

    After investigating the Union’s request for assistance in the above-referenced case, the Panel determined that the dispute, which concerns office assignments in the Employer’s Concessions Program Division (CPD) following an office relocation, should be resolved through written submissions, including rebuttals, with the Panel to take whatever action it deems appropriate to resolve the impasse, including the issuance of a Decision and Order. Written submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

    The Employer is responsible for preserving and protecting the scenery, resources, wildlife, and natural historic objects in all national parks for the enjoyment for visitors now and in the future. The Union represents approximately 550 bargaining-unit employees, the overwhelming majority of whom are stationed in Washington, D.C. The dispute, however, concerns only eight employees who work for the CPD in such positions as accountant, financial analyst, concessions analyst, and concessions operational analyst. The CPD oversees the concessions program by setting policy, giving guidance and, through its Concessions Program Center (CPC) in Denver, Colorado, by providing technical support (e.g., drafting contracts and conducting financial analysis) and advice to national parks regarding concessions facilities. The parties will continue to be covered by a collective-bargaining agreement which was to have expired on May 7, 1991, while a successor agreement is being negotiated.

ISSUE

    The parties disagree over how offices at the CPD should be assigned.⁽¹⁾

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Union’s Position

    The Union proposal essentially provides for CPD employees, including the CPC employees stationed in Washington, D.C., to be allowed to select their offices on the basis of seniority, with the most senior employee to select first.⁽²⁾ For unit employees, seniority is a "customary," acceptable, and fair standard to use when making office assignments. Contrary to management’s argument, requiring CPD and CPC employees to share an office would not disrupt the operations of either entity. In this regard, employees in the CPD and CPC: (1) are in "similar grades" (GS-12 or -13); (2) perform work of "similar type and magnitude;" (3) have the same need for office space; and (4) have to work on joint assignments and engage in "technical discussions" to the same degree. Thus, seating CPD and CPC employees together would not interfere with their ability to perform their work. Concerning the list of acceptable standards for assigning offices which employees developed during a meeting with a facilitator, it should not be dispositive because it was "formulated without argument, vote, or consensus." Finally, while it is true that the Union president, a CPC employee, was permitted to remain in Washington, D.C. when the CPC was moved to Denver, this accommodation was made "without conditions," and should not be used as a basis for denying him a separate office in the current circumstances.

2. The Employer’s Position

    Under the Employer’s proposal, the status quo would be maintained, i.e., the two Denver CPC employees stationed in Washington, D.C., would continue to share one office, two CPD employees would continue to share another office,⁽³⁾ and the other four CPD unit employees would continue to have their own offices. This ensures that office assignments take into account employees’ work by recognizing the separate and distinct functions of the CPC and CPD.⁽⁴⁾ At an employee meeting where office assignments were discussed, unit employees recognized office function as an acceptable "criterion" to apply when making office assignments. It is "commonplace" for office assignments to be made on such bases. Furthermore, requiring that the only two CPC employees in Washington, D.C., continue to share an office is fair because management already has accommodated them by allowing them to remain there after the CPC moved to Denver. Moreover, making office assignments based on the two entities’ different functions "ha[s] the [added] effect of minimizing any adverse impact on minorities in the office." Any change in these assignments may unduly disrupt agency operations and have an adverse impact on employee morale with no countervailing benefit to the agency or employees, except the Union president who, under the Union’s proposal, would have a private office. Finally, "assigning space on the basis of work or functional need is not without precedent," and the Union did not object to the use of this same methodology in other offices involved in this same move.

CONCLUSION

    Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented, we conclude, on balance, that the Employer’s proposal provides a better basis for resolving the parties’ impasse than the Union’s. In our view, assigning offices on the basis of function is sound because it would facilitate working relationships and collaboration among employees within separate organizational components. Furthermore, while we are unable to determine from the record the exact circumstances surrounding the facilitated employee discussion of office assignments, making them on the basis of work functions appears, at the very least, consistent with the list of criteria developed at that meeting. Finally, this approach also retains the cooperative spirit exemplified by the two employees who volunteered to share an office. Accordingly, we shall order its adoption.

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 § 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders the following:

    The parties shall adopt the Employer’s proposal.

 

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Executive Director

June 26, 1997

Washington, D.C.

 

1.As a result of the relocation, there is not enough space for each employee to have a private office; therefore, four employees have to share offices (two employees per office). With the Union’s agreement, offices were assigned in accordance with the Employer’s proposal pending resolution of the issue by the Panel.

2.The Union does not specify how seniority is to be determined.

3.When the move took place, two CPD employees volunteered to share an office. Since then, one of them has retired. The other has volunteered to share an office with a new hire who is expected to come on board within 6 months; until then he has his own office.

4.The Employer reports that the work performed by employees in the three CPD program areas (contracting, operations, and financial management) is “geared toward Service-wide policy, program direction, and oversight,” while the work performed by CPC employees is “technical in nature and includes park-specific franchise fee analyses, financial studies, etc.” Also, it argues that it is “often necessary” for CPC employees to coordinate and discuss work assignments among themselves, but “seldom necessary” for them to do so with CPD employees.