United States of America 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL 

In the Matter of 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 

CHAPTERS 213 AND 228 

And 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 Case Nos. 23 FSIP 041 

ARBITRATOR’S OPINION AND DECISION

BACKGROUND

This case concerns a request for assistance filed by the United States 

Department of Energy (Agency, Management, or DOE), with the Federal Service 

Impasses Panel (FSIP or Panel) over a proposed policy meant to address office 

sharing, a.k.a., “hoteling.” The Agency filed this request pursuant to Section 7119 of 

the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (the Statute). 

The Agency is an executive department of the U.S. federal government that 

oversees U.S. national energy policy and manages the research and development of 

nuclear power and nuclear weapons in the United States. Its headquarters is in 

Washington, D.C. with its main facility located at the James V. Forrestal Building 

(Forrestal location) in Washington D.C. However, the Agency’s headquarters has an 

additional smaller location in Germantown, Maryland (Germantown location). Both 

locations have employees whom are represented by the National Treasury

Employees Union (NTEU or Union). Between two chapters, NTEU represents 

approximately 1,400 bargaining unit employees with most of them located at the 

Forrestal location. The parties are governed by a collective bargaining agreement 

(CBA) that was executed in January 2022. 
2 

BACKGROUND AND BARGAINING HISTORY 

Article 47 of the parties’ CBA covers the topic of telework. This article 

contains the following language in Section 47.09 on the subject of office sharing, 

a.k.a., “hoteling:” 

Employees whose work schedules (e.g., AWS, FWS) and/or telework 

agreement results in being out of the office for fifty percent (50%) or 

more may be subject to office/workspace sharing (“Hoteling”). With the 

exception of singular working elements provided in Section 47.09.C 

below, absent a government wide rule or regulation, DOE order or 

Headquarters wide policy which do not conflict with the contract and 

over which all bargaining responsibilities have been fulfilled, prior to 

any organization implementing a Hoteling arrangement that impacts 

bargaining unit Employees, the organization’s department head, or 

designee, will provide the appropriate Chapter President with notice 

and the opportunity to bargain a Hoteling Agreement applicable to the 

respective organization. Such bargaining will be pursuant to Article 13 

of this Agreement. The Hoteling Agreement may change the fifty 

percent (50%) threshold indicated above but may not supersede any 

other provision of this Agreement. Unless otherwise expressly agreed 

to by the parties negotiating the Hoteling Agreement, the term of the 

Hoteling Agreement will run concurrently with this Agreement. 

On August 6, 2022, the Agency issued a memorandum from its Chief of Staff 

in which the Agency announced it intended to implement an Agency wide hoteling 

policy at the headquarters level at both the Forrestal and Germantown locations. 

With regards to the Union, the memo stated: 

The requirement for Federal employees to be in the office six or more 

days a pay period to have a dedicated workspace is also included in 

Article 47 in the [parties’ CBA]. The [DOE] has notified NTEU to begin 

impact and implementation bargaining and develop a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) on hoteling at Headquarters. The MOU will 

apply to all Departmental Elements with NTEU covered employees at 

Headquarters. 

 The Union requested to negotiate over the MOU. The parties negotiated and 

exchanged several proposals from September 2022 through January 2023. In 

particular, the parties attempted to hammer out the threshold number of days an 

employee would have to be physically present within their office space in order to 

maintain a dedicated office. This disagreement came to a head in February 2023 

with the parties unable to make movement on this topic. Accordingly, the parties 
3 

proceeded to mediation with the assistance of the Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Services (FMCS). 

At mediation the Union raised additional issues, but the parties resolved 

them with FMCS assistance. However, they could not reach agreement on the issue 

of hoteling after approximately 3 hours of mediation on April 24, 2023. Accordingly, 

on the same day the Commissioner released the parties from mediation and the 

Agency promptly sought FSIP assistance. 

 On June 13, 2023, the Panel voted to assert jurisdiction over this matter and 

to resolve it via a Mediation-Arbitration. I held a virtual mediation on August 2, 

2023, and, despite the best efforts of all parties involved, resolution of all 

outstanding issues was not possible. Accordingly, on September 7 and 18, 2023, I 

conducted a virtual arbitration hearing. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs 

on October 10, 2023. The record is hereby closed and I am now obligated to issue a 

final award resolving all remaining issues. 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE 

At the arbitration portion of the proceeding the Agency attempted to offer the 

testimony of its Director of Administration (Director), who was also a member of the 

Agency’s bargaining team. The Union objected to this testimony on the grounds that 

the Agency did not timely disclose this witness in a pre-hearing exchange of exhibits 

and witness lists that I ordered the parties to submit by July 28, 2023. The Agency 

claimed it misunderstood my instructions and believed witnesses were to be 

disclosed only if those witnesses were not a part of the parties’ bargaining teams. 

After consideration I permitted the Director to testify on limited grounds on 

September 7th, granted the Union until September 18 to prepare for a cross 

examination of the Director that was conducted on the 18th, and also permitted the 

Union to provide witness rebuttal testimony on the 18th. Despite the foregoing 

accommodations, at the hearing the Union raised a standing objection to the 

consideration of the Director’s testimony. The Union does not address this objection 

in its post hearing brief; indeed, the Union directly addresses the testimony on the 

merits. Nevertheless, to the extent the Union continues to object, I will address the 

Union’s objection as part of my resolution of this matter below. 

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE AND PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS 

The only issue before me concerns the number of days an employee must be 

physically present at their duty station in Washington, D.C. or Germanton, MD 

before they are subject to the Agency’s hoteling program. The Agency argues that 

employees should be physically present 6 days per pay period in order to retain an 

office space; the Union counters that it should be only 5 days. During negotiations 
4 

the parties agreed to include the following language in their hoteling MOU 

concerning the definition of the term “hoteling”: 

Reporting onsite in the office 10 workdays a pay period is considered a typical 

work schedule. Bargaining Unit Employees whose work schedule (e.g., AWS, 

FWS) and telework agreement result in being out of the office (i.e., the 

Bargaining Unit Employee is not required to report onsite) five workdays 

(50%) or more a pay period may be subject to office/workspace sharing 

(Hoteling). Annual leave, sick leave, holidays, number of hours worked per 

day, etc. are excluded; Hoteling is based on a Bargaining Unit Employee’s 

typical schedule of reporting onsite during a pay period. Attachment A 

provides a non-exhaustive list of sample work schedules and telework 

agreements where BUEs may be subject to Hoteling in accordance with 

provision B. Based on a management-initiated or employee-initiated 

determination, if a Bargaining Unit Employee’s work schedule and telework 

agreement changes to require reporting onsite in the office for more than five 

(5) workdays in a pay period, the Bargaining Unit Employee will transition to 

a dedicated, non-Hoteling workspace.1 

 The parties agreed that bargaining unit employees could be subject to 

hoteling if they are out of the office for “five workdays (50%) or more a pay period.” 

However, the parties disagree on the meaning “(50%) or more,” and that 

disagreement resulted in competing proposed employee work schedule charts that 

would be attached to the hoteling MOU as Attachment A. These charts are meant to 

demonstrate different types of work schedules – e.g., alternative work schedules 

(AWS) – and how often employees on those types of schedules would have to be 

physically present in order to retain an office. The competing charts are displayed 

and discussed below. 

1. Agency Position 

The Agency’s position is that an employee should retain a dedicated office 

space – and therefore be exempt from hoteling – only if they are physically present 

at their office at least 6 days per pay period. To support this position, the Agency 

prepared the following chart of various types of employee work schedules as part of 

its final offer. The chart – labeled as Attachment A to the MOU – demonstrates how 

many days employees under different schedules could work in order to avoid 

hoteling: 

Attachment A2

1. Example of Straight 8 Schedule 

1

 Agency Final Offer at 1-2 (emphasis added); Union Final Offer at 1-2 (emphasis added). 

2

 Agency Final Offer at 6. 
5 

Employee may be subject to Hoteling (employee may telework an additional 3 days highlighted in 

yellow) 

Monday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 1

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite

Monday Week 2 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2

Onsite

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite

Friday Week 2 

Onsite

Employee retains their own dedicated, non-Hoteling space 

Monday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 1

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Onsite

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite

Monday Week 2 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite

Friday Week 2 

Onsite

2. Example of 5/4/9 Schedule 

Employee may be subject to Hoteling (employee may telework an additional 3 days highlighted in 

yellow) 

Monday Week 1

Regular Day Off 

(offsite)

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 1

Telework (offsite)

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

Employee retains their own dedicated, non-Hoteling space 

Monday Week 1

Regular Day Off 

(offsite)

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 1

Onsite 

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

3. Example of 4/10 Schedule 

Employee may be subject to Hoteling (employee may telework an additional 3 days highlighted in 

yellow) 

Monday Week 1

Regular Day Off 

(offsite)

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 1

Telework (offsite)

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2

Regular Day Off

Tuesday Week 2

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

Employee retains their own dedicated, non-Hoteling space 

Monday Week 1

Regular Day Off 

(offsite)

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 1

Onsite 

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2

Regular Day Off 

(offsite)

Tuesday Week 2

Telework (offsite)

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

The Agency’s arguments rely heavily upon the testimony of the Director. He 

testified about two areas concerning hoteling: costs and disruptions. 
6 

As to costs, the Agency’s argument begins with the premise that each 

dedicated workspace costs the Agency approximately $100 per day, or about $25,000 

per year.3 Further, assuming employees use on average .83 or 1.33 days of leave per 

pay period,4 the Agency maintains that employees who are in the office six days per 

pay period would have dedicated workspaces that are utilized only approximately 

47% of the time per period. This 47% figure, however, does not account for items 

like unscheduled leave, work travel, and training. Thus, even under the Agency’s 

proposal there would be minimal office usage. By contrast, the Agency estimates 

that adopting the Union’s position would result in only a 35% or 45% space 

utilization.5 Adopting the Union’s position would require the Agency to need two to 

three times more total office seats and would result in an extra $25,000 to $50,000 

per year per seat despite lower total office usage. The Agency also notes that in 

2022 the Agency “released 194,431 square feet of leased space, saving 

approximately $9.7 million annually.”6 The Agency is further looking to decrease its 

physical footprint and increase staffing: the Agency cannot provide physical office 

space in the same manner it did prior to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

 As to the topic of disruption, the Director testified that hoteling in itself is not 

inherently disruptive. Indeed, he testified that a number of hoteling offices include 

private offices with doors and large cubicles. And, noises would be mitigated 

because less employees are on site due to various workplace flexibilities such as 

telework. Additionally, employees may request to work in dedicated hoteling 

workspaces. These spaces have equipment and supplies, and noise issues are 

promptly addressed. 

 In addition to the above considerations, the Agency notes that the Federal 

government is under widespread pressure to address space utilization issues. 

Currently, the Agency’s space utilization is under review by the General Services 

Administration, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the National 

Capital Planning Commission. For 2023, the GAO concluded that the Agency was 

utilizing only 25% of its capacity.7

 In its post hearing brief, the Agency vigorously rejects the Union’s position. 

The Agency characterizes the Union’s position as one that is based upon employee 

preference rather than empirical data. For example, one of the Union witnesses was 

one of the two local Union chapter presidents who testified about a survey the 

Union administered to its bargaining unit concerning 5 or 6 day preferences. The 

Agency concedes that employees found 5 days preferable, but it also contends that 

3 See Agency Brief at 5. 

4

 In its post-hearing brief, the Agency used both of these figures to claim average per pay period leave usage of 

employees. See Agency Brief at 5, 6. The Agency did not explain this difference. 

5 See Agency Brief at 6. 

6

Id. at 7. 

7

 Agency Brief at 6. 
7 

the survey did nothing more than collect preferences and offered no analysis about 

whether 5 days is actually “appropriate.” Further, the Agency felt the questions 

posed in the survey were unclear and occasionally contradictory. 

 The Agency also took issue with testimony offered by one of the Union’s 

attorneys who testified about contract language involving hoteling from other 

NTEU-represented Federal agencies. The Agency notes that the Union provided no 

testimony linking those agreements to the Agency. Moreover, the Union attorney 

was unable to provide specifics, such as the expiration date of those agreements or 

when they even went into effect. And, at least two proffered CBA’s undercut the 

Union’s claims. The Union offered an Environmental Protection Agency-NTEU CBA 

that states employees “will” share office space; by contrast, the Agency’s proposal 

states that they “may” share space.8 The Agency also notes that the Union offered 

an NTEU-Federal Communications Commission agreement that has the exact same 

requirement as the Agency.9

2. Union Position 

The Union’s position is that employees should be permitted to retain 

dedicated office space so long as they are physically present at their office for at 

least five days per pay period. The Union offers its own version of Attachment A to 

the MOU: 

Attachment A10

1. Example of Straight 8 Schedule 

Employee may be subject to Hoteling (employee may telework an additional 3 days highlighted in 

yellow) 

Monday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Thursday Week 1

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

(Offsite)

Thursday Week 2

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

Employee retains their own dedicated, non-Hoteling space. 

Monday Week 1 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Offsite

Thursday Week 1

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

8 See Agency Brief at 10. 

9 See id. The Agency also rejects the Union attorney’s reliance upon a chart the Union offered at the hearing 

concerning different types of employee work schedules. See id. at 9. According to the Agency this chart is 

immaterial because it only addresses work schedule types, not how many days an employee must be physically 

present in the office space. 

10 Union Final Offer at 6.
8 

Monday Week 2 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

2. Example of 5/4/9 Schedule 

Employee may be subject to Hoteling (employee may telework an additional 3 days highlighted in 

yellow) 

Monday Week 1 

Regular Day Off 

(offsite) 

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

Offsite

Thursday Week 2

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

Employee retains their own dedicated, non-Hoteling space. 

Monday Week 1 

Regular Day Off 

(offsite) 

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Offsite 

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2 

Telework (offsite)

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

3. Example of 4/10 Schedule 

Employee may be subject to Hoteling (employee may telework an additional 3 days highlighted in 

yellow) 

Monday Week 1 

Regular Day Off 

(offsite) 

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2 

Regular Day Off 

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

Offsite

Thursday Week 2

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

Employee retains their own dedicated, non-Hoteling space. 

Monday Week 1 

Regular Day Off 

(offsite) 

Tuesday Week 1 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 1 

Offsite 

Thursday Week 1 

Onsite 

Friday Week 1 

Onsite 

Monday Week 2 

Regular Day Off 

(offsite) 

Tuesday Week 2 

Telework (offsite) 

Wednesday Week 2 

Onsite 

Thursday Week 2 

Onsite 

Friday Week 2 

Onsite 

The only difference from the Agency’s proposed Attachment A is that, for 

each work schedule illustrated, employees are able to retain their office so long as 

they are within that space five days in a pay period. 

The Union begins its argument in its brief by outlining the standard of 

review it believes should be used to resolve this dispute. Citing a prior FSIP 

arbitration decision, the Union claims that imposition of proposals should be 
9 

governed by “demonstrated need” and “comparability.”11 Moreover, examining the 

Statute, the Union argues that FSIP decisions should also be guided by: (1) a desire 

for balanced decisions in the form of “amicable settlements;”12 (2) an adoption of 

“modern and progressive” work practices13; and (3) principles of “effective and 

efficient Government.”14 All of these taken together demonstrate the necessity of an 

equitable and effective labor relationship between Federal agencies and unions, and 

that any entity seeking to disrupt a status quo should have the burden to 

demonstrate why that change should occur. 

 Applying the above framework, the Union contends that its proposal and 

position is comparable to other Federal agencies. At the hearing the Union 

presented testimony about contractual language from other agencies involving office 

sharing, and those agreements established in person requirements of 2 to 4 days or 

less.15 Thus, the Union claims the Agency’s 6-day approach would be a departure 

from Federal precedent. 

 The Union also argues its proposal is more equitable for employees on 

different types of AWS’s. For example, under the Agency’s proposal, an employee on 

a 4/10 compressed work schedule (CWS)16 would have to be physically present 60 

out of 80 hours in a pay period in order to retain an office; by contrast, under the 

Union’s proposal an employee on a 4/10 CWS need only be present 50 hours in a pay 

period. The Union rejects the Agency’s suggestion that employees could request a 

different AWS or abandon AWS altogether: many employees selected particular 

AWS’s to address their particular circumstances and abandoning such schedules 

now would be overly burdensome. 

 The Union also conducted a survey of its workforce and discovered that 90% 

of respondents indicated a preference for a 5-day policy versus a 6-day one. 

Respondents cited concerns about losing dedicated office space because, among 

other things, they would not have a dedicated space to store files or whiteboards. 

Although the Agency offered solutions – such as storing items in the building’s gym 

locker room – employees rejected those suggestions as too cumbersome and 

inconvenient. The Union maintains employee concerns should not be dismissed. 

 The Union rejects the Agency’s arguments in favor of its proposal as based 

upon “conjecture rather than concrete evidence.” The Union maintains the Agency 

failed to meet its burden to prove that the Union’s proposal would produce more 

burdensome costs or would otherwise be more inefficient. Although the Director 

11 Union Brief at 4 (citing Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Kansas City, Kansas and Local 907, American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 12 FSIP 79 and 12 FSIP 81 (2012)).

12 Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. §7101(a)(1)(C)). 

13 Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. §7101(a)(2)). 

14 Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. §7101(b)). 

15 See Union Brief at 6. 

16 Under this type of CWS an employee is on duty 4 days each work week for 10 hours a day. 
10 

offered testimony about costs and figures associated with alleged space savings, the 

Union contends that his methodology is unclear as neither he nor the Agency 

offered supporting data. The Agency never provided empirical data or a precise 

forecast: instead, it provided only anecdotal data. 

Additionally, the Union found that the Director’s position lacks consistency 

with the emerging philosophy of the Federal government. The Director determined 

in 2022 that the “sweet spot” for office utilization should be a 6-day in person 

requirement because, among other things, it accounted for decreased office usage 

due to increased telework. Yet, in 2023 the federal Government has called for an 

increased in person footprint on two separate occasions: Office of Management and 

Budget guidance issued in April 202317 and an August 2023 White House directive 

to Cabinet heads to increase in person attendance in the fall of 2023. The position of 

the Federal government to move towards an increased in person presence undercuts 

the Director’s 2022 “sweet spot” analysis that relied upon enhanced telework. The 

Director also testified that the Agency has received inquiries about subletting its 

office space. Given this expressed interest, in conjunction with a potential 

diminished Federal government reliance upon telework, the Union believes it is 

prudent to ensure employees have as many dedicated office spaces as possible. 

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and their submissions, I conclude 

that it is appropriate to impose the Union’s language in full to resolve this dispute. 

The Agency initiated this matter by proposing the implementation of a hoteling 

policy. As the Agency instigated the process, it is appropriate to place the burden 

upon the Agency to demonstrate the necessity for the adoption of its position, i.e., a 

6-day in person requirement. The Agency’s efforts on this front were lacking. 

 The Agency offers several rationales in support of its position, the most 

prominent of which is a reliance upon financial data. To wit, the Agency argues that 

its proposal is necessary because any other option results in a significant financial 

hardship upon the Agency. In support, the Agency places a heavy emphasis on the 

testimony of the Director and the figures he provided at the hearing to buttress his 

conclusions. As discussed above he testified that a single dedicated workspace costs 

the Agency $25,000 per year and, as such, leaving office spaces open creates costly

unutilized office spaces. Yet, both the Agency and the Director failed to provide any 

sort of empirical data or methodology to establish how the Director arrived upon his 

financial figures. Indeed, at the hearing I questioned the Director about the 

foregoing and he was unable to offer any sources for his computations. Similarly, 

the Agency failed to provide supporting data in either its submitted documents or 

its briefing. Bereft of any information, I am essentially invited to speculate as to 

17 Union Brief at 9 (citing OMB Memorandum M-23-15, Measuring, Monitoring, and Improving Organizational 

Health and Organizational Performance in the Context of Evolving Agency Work Environments (Apr. 13, 2023)). 
11 

how the Director and the Agency arrived at the figures discussed above. I am 

unwilling to accept this invitation. 

 Moreover, the difference in the parties’ proposals is that of 1 day. Yet, it is 

not apparent how, or even if, the Agency’s calculations factor in this relatively 

minor difference. To be sure, the Agency claims that the Agency’s 6-day 

requirement results in a 47% space utilization rate whereas the Union’s 5-day 

requirement produces a 35% to 45% utilization rate. However, it is unclear what, if 

any, financial disparity this difference creates. More importantly, the Agency’s own 

range of numbers show a possibility of a difference between 47% and 45% space 

utilization rate, or a simple 2% difference. Thus, even the Agency’s own figures – 

which again, are unsupported – demonstrate similarity to the Union’s position. This 

similarity further undercuts the Agency’s rejection of the Union’s proposal. 

 In addition to the foregoing deficiencies, I also note that the Agency offered 

little in the way of explanation regarding how its proposal is intended to be 

implemented within its facilities. The Agency consists of dozens of Departmental 

Elements, or divisions. Yet, the Agency offered no specific information about when, 

or even if, any hoteling policy would go into effect for each division. Would it go into 

effect Agency wide upon the execution of the hoteling MOU? Or would divisions be 

permitted to piecemeal implementation at staggered times they deem appropriate? 

Although information presented at the hearing seemed to indicate implementation 

throughout divisions would not be a uniform approach, the Agency presented no 

conclusive information. If implementation is indeed piecemeal and/or delayed, does 

that not leave the Agency’s avowed cost and spacing concerns in place at some level 

for some unspecified amount of time? This lack of clarity does not assure me that 

imposition of the Agency’s proposal is a must rather than a want. 

 At the hearing and in its post hearing brief the Agency offered a vigorous 

rebuke of the Union’s arguments that the Union offered in favor of its proposal. I 

need not address the merit of the Agency’s attempts to rebut the Union’s claims 

because the Agency has not satisfied its own initial duty to demonstrate why its 

proposal warrants imposition. The parties offered no other options aside from the 6 

and 5-day options, and no other alternatives are apparent to me. Yet, the nature of 

the parties’ hoteling MOU calls for some language involving defining hoteling. 

Accordingly, I find it appropriate to conclude that the Union’s proposal should be 

imposed to resolve this dispute.18 In reaching this conclusion, I take no position on 

future actions concerning Agency space utilization or office space. Rather, this 

award is limited to the topic of the implementation of the Agency’s proposed 

hoteling policy. 

18 Based upon this conclusion, I find it unnecessary to resolve any Union objection concerning my consideration of 

the Director’s witness testimony. 
12

DECISION 

Having carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented in this 

case, as the Statute requires, I hereby order the imposition of the Union’s proposal 

to resolve this dispute.

/Wynter Allen/ 

Wynter Allen

Panel Member

October 19, 2023