Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/405636420/18-FSIP-077
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:16:10+00:00

Document:
A decision by the Federal Service Impasses Panel involving a bargaining dispute between NTEU and HHS. Contentious issues include official time for union representatives and the ​use of telework by agency employees.
After exchanging proposals, the parties met to negotiate on July 9 and 10, 2018.
revised proposal for one article.
progress during this meeting, so they met again with the Mediator on July 31.
advised the Mediator and the Union that it "was not going to modify its proposals"
Agency filed this request for Panel assistance.
would not assert jurisdiction over these proposals so that they could "resolve the .
bargaining obligation disputes in the appropriate forum."
Articles. On ❑ecember 16, 2018, Mediator Blake referred this matter back to the Panel.
Submissions to the Panel on December 21, 2018.
"Contract Duration and Termination;" Article 3 — "Mid -Term Bargaining;"
"Grievance Procedures;" and Article 46 — "Arbitration."
all remaining articles that the parties were unable to resolve at Panel-ordered mediation.
leave to file these revisions or otherwise informed the Panel of its intent to submit them.
refuse jurisdiction over the six articles in question.
statutory rights (although the Union did not go into specifics).
not at impasse over Management's revisions.
not offer to alter or revise its proposals in response to the Union's arguments.
The Panel will not consider the Union's January 31- supplemental submission.
inefficient and ineffective grievances by reducing nuance and providing clarity.
investigation that could reasonably lead to disciplinary action. See 5 U.S.C.
Citing U.S. Dep't of Justice, INS, U.S. Border Patrol, 38 FLRA 701, 715 (1990).
employees and managers are equally familiar with the requirements of the CBA.
U nion's proposal is the more appropriate ❑ne.
See Kalkines v. United States, 473 F2d 1391 (U.S. Court of Claims 1973).
d iscipline but that the employee will also receive criminal immunity.
warranted to resolve the parties' dispute on this topic.
The Agency agrees to provide limited office space to the Union for rental.
effective and efficient government service independent from any Executive Order.
based upon the enjoined portions of the Executive Orders.
on information that the Union may publicly disseminate, is permissive.
actions. This argument, then, is rejected.
See OPM and AFGE, Local 32, 18 FSIP 032 at p.3 (2018).
ability to utilize other forms of paid and non-paid leave for Union activities.
provide a weekly report on its use of official time.
existing language of the CBA.
necessary, and in the public interest.
language that differs from its proposal imposed upon it, that suggestion is misplaced.
other unions within the Agency. The Agency offered no other support or figures.
See, e.g., NFFE and U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 35 FLRA 1008, 1014 (1990).
official time in accordance with 5 U.S.C. §7131(d) and applicable law.
not believe it is necessary for the Union to provide a separate training.
new hires during non-duty times.
Citing SSA and AFGE, Local 1395, 16 FLRA 232 (1984).
unions the ability to at least attend meetings involving employee orientations.
law, and Article 7 of this CBA.
The other modification will be to remove Management's proposed Section 2.C.
remove the Agency's proposed language here as well.
or face a grievance. The Agency's proposal is meant to remedy this scenario.
they negotiate a different number.
or denying annual leave requests. The Union's proposal states a supervisor "may"
significant need to retain the Union's requested language.
need sick leave; Management proposes changing this numbe r to 30 minute s.
against employees who abuse sick leave.
requirement to potentially provide medical documentation upon request may help do so.
employee to locate a "qualified and willing" replacement employee to cover that shift.
this law is defined as "to suffer or to permit to work." 29 U.S.C. §203(g).
AFGE, Local 4044 and Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 65 FLRA 264, 266 (2010).
Citing AFGE, Local 4044 and DoD, 65 FLRA 264, 266 (2010).
Management's language in order to bring this dispute to an appropriate conclusion.
made pursuant to the telework article.
returns discretion to managers in order to maintain an effective and efficient workplace.
on balance, Management's proposal should be adopted.
Citing NFFE at 1014 (1990).
proposal/position is not that Management has no duty to bargain.
from the official worksite for the purpose of this requirement).
not believe that the Agency's proposal establishes a requirement that they do so.
to the extent it restricts the Union's ability to pursue grievances.
to the union . . .
abuse the process to simply reward their friends or, worse still, award themselves.
issuing awards is the best solution to all the foregoing problems.
See AFGE v. FLRA, 712 F.2d 640, 649(D.C. Cir. 1983)(AFGE).
Management has never demonstrated a need to support any alterations.
awards. Additionally, Management 2.B lists a statute that does not exist — "5 U.S.C.
distribution as it deems necessary," impermissibly waives the Union's right to bargain.
The Panel will order the adoption of a modified version of the Agency's proposal.
Agency has not demonstrated why either of these practices should be discontinued.
concerns. Thus, overall, the Agency's proposal represents the better option.
performance awards should be tied to performance ratings rather than other factors.
Accordingly, the Panel will delete Management's Section 2.A.
as follows: "The Employer shall follow the guidelines of 5 U.S.C. §4505a, 5 C.F.R.
3.0 states Management "will establish its awards distribution as it deems necessary."
procedure. Accordingly, Management Section 4 should be withdrawn.
standards" and timelines that Management must follow under threat of grievance.
proposal is much more streamlined and efficient. As such, it should be adopted.
other existing CBAs and Management has not demonstrated a need for a change.
See AFGE, 712 F.2d at 649.
See 5 U.S.C. §7106(b)(2) and (3).
that action. Thus, Management's PIP proposal creates an internal inconsistency.
not believe this arrangement constitutes an efficient use of Agency resources.
individual employee performances without fear of confusing and elaborate procedures.
appropriately recognizes the Union's right to bargain over "changes consistent with law."
Management's language, by contrast, does not recognize this right.
U nion's proposed Section 3.
contribute to the Agency's mission and reduce potential sources of future controversy.
2017 for all non-bargaining unit employees.
period except for "rare circumstances." Existing language calls for a 90-day period.
period must be shortened. Existing Federal regulations require a "reasonable"
significantly an employee's due process rights.
timeframe. Indeed, if 30 days was not permissible, the law would say so.
resolves potential workplace deficiencies and, therefore, is more appropriate.
we reject the Union's proffered rationale.
to assign work and manage its workforce.
promotion may be offered on the basis of favoritism or other illegal criteria.
could impact the grievance article when it eventually is resolved.
The Panel will impose the Agency's language to resolve this dispute.
Citing NFFE, Local 797 and Dep't of the Navy, 29 FLRA 333(1987).
contractual framework. Accordingly, we will do so.
overburden employees who lack the manpower necessary to accomplish their duties.
the door for more grievances and other disputes.
language, therefore, is appropriate to include in the CBA.
proposal states that "career ladder" promotions are not to be considered automatic.
contractual grievances if it believes Management has not complied with the agreement.
these plans must be selected for vacancies.
an employee has been unfairly denied such an advancement.
See 5 U.S.C. §7512, et seq.
provide a written or oral reply upon receiving notice. They may have representation.
EEO process. However, the employee may elect only one of these options.
statutory rights with Management's needs for a timely disciplinary process.
The Union asserts that the parties do not have "many disputes" in this article.
nexus requirement.37 Thus, it would be appropriate to retain language on this aspect.
as the "nexus") between the misconduct and the employee's position.
use when assessing an appropriate penalty within the context of adverse actions.
See Douglas, 5 MSPR at 305.
See, e.g., Winner v. Air Force, 10 MSPR 177, 178 (1982).
specifically excludes counseling, warnings, admonishments,"and other similar actions"
procedures for challenging proposed discipline fail to establish meaningful due process.
maintain an effective and efficient workplace."
apply as a matter of law.
factors. Thus, it is appropriate to accept Management's proposal.
should be stricken: "Reprimands are not subject to the procedures of this article."
promote the efficiency of the service."
article that covers solely the latter is confusing.
employees should feel encouraged to bring safety issues to the attention of the Agency.
health and safety. Thus, their input would not be beneficial.
in 2010. During negotiations, the Union agreed to strike several sections of the CBA.
employees with certain information, such as the location of nearby facilities.
certain duties regardless of whether those employees raise health and safety issues.
procedures in place. Thus, on balance, Management's proposal should be adopted.
govern the bargaining process in the establishment of a new peer review process.
itself(Management does not provide any authority to support this position).
employees would receive no more than 4 hours of duty time for packing and unpacking.
proposal could interfere with efforts to resolve Article 3.
On the merits, the Union notes that Management is seeking to curtail telework.
proposal, therefore, is not an appropriate solution.
Citing 5 U.S.C. §7106(b)(2) and (3).
opened during negotiations due to a limitation on the number of opened articles.
seeking to get the Union to waive various rights.
provided in law and regulation is clearly illegal."
the CBA. Thus, this proposal's adoption is not warranted.
be applied equitably to all employees in all offices due to differences in office budgets.
how the program will operate.
parties' positions, as with any other impasse.
foregoing, then, the proposals should be withdrawn.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Federal Service Impasses Panel under 5 U.S.C.
§7119, the Panel hereby orders the parties to adopt the provisions as stated above.
See 5 U.S.C. §5379 et seq.; 5 C.F.R. Part 537.
Citing NTEU and Dep't of Agriculture, 68 FLRA 334, 340 (2015).

References: v. 
 §7131
 §203
 v. 
 §4505
 §7106
 §7512
 v. 
 §7106

§7119
 §5379