Source: https://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/99fs_155.html
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 17:33:01
Document Index: 686876615

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6120', '§ 6131', '§ 7106', '§ 6131', '§ 6131', '§ 6131']

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATION - SAN ANTONIO FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS and LOCAL 28, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO Case No. 99 FSIP 155 | FLRA
You are hereHome DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATION - SAN ANTONIO FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS and LOCAL 28, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO Case No. 99 FSIP 155 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATION - SAN ANTONIO FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS and LOCAL 28, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO
STATION - SAN ANTONIO
Case No. 99 FSIP 155
LOCAL 28, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL
Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a request for assistance with the
7119, between it and the Department of Defense, Military Entrancing Processing
Station - San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, Texas (Employer or MEPS).
impasse, which arose from negotiations over an initial collective bargaining
through the issuance of an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why the Panel should not
order the adoption of the following wording to resolve the dispute:(1)
The parties agree to permanently
adopt these procedures absent the agency declaring adverse agency impact. If the
agency declares adverse agency impact during the trial period or at the
completion of the trial period the parties agree to negotiate as appropriate.
After considering the entire record,
including the parties’ statements of position, the Panel would issue a binding
decision to resolve the dispute. The parties submitted written statements of
position, and the Employer proposed alternative wording, pursuant to this
procedure. The Panel has now considered the entire record.
The Employer is responsible for processing all
applicants and basic training recruits for the Armed Services "on the day
they report to the [MEPS]." MEPS – San Antonio is one of 65 MEPS Centers
around the country. The Union represents 23 General Schedule employees who give
physical examinations to applicants, operate and maintain computer systems, and
provide administrative support. MEPS - San Antonio also has approximately 26
others on its staff, including several management officials, some 20 uniformed
military personnel, and a doctor or registered nurse. The Union was certified as
the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit in October 1998.
The parties disagree over whether the Employer
should be permitted to terminate their previously agreed to 5-4/9 compressed
work schedule (CWS)(2)
while the Panel determines if the Employer has met its
burden of proof under the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work
Schedules Act of 1982 (Act), 5 U.S.C. §§ 6120-6133.(3)
The Union believes that "the previously agreed
to" wording should be adopted. Permitting management "to unilaterally
terminate [C]WS at the conclusion of the trial period would violate the
statute." Further, "it is in the interests of both parties to adhere
to the statute as it pertains to this issue."
In the event adverse agency impact is declared at
the end of the trial period, employees revert to previous hours of work pending
a decision from the FSIP. The agency will make every effort to comply with an
employee’s desired work hours. However, both parties stipulate, that
supervisors still retain the right to set-up or change work schedules to avoid
an impact on daily operations.
Congress has mandated that MEPCOM "would have
the sole responsibility to ensure that only the highest caliber men and women
would be accepted to serve as part of this country’s national defense."
As a result, "there is very little room for error in completing this
mission." The same-day processing requirement, along with the fact that its
daily operations are at the "total mercy" of the recruiting services,
are the main reasons that CWSs "have not been instituted in operational
areas of any MEPS nationwide." In addition, there are many phases in the
processing of applicants and recruits, and "immense" coordination
requirements. A "bottleneck in one phase" of the process "can
domino into catastrophic delays." Thus, because of MEPS - San Antonio’s
"unusual mission," the Employer’s proposal should be adopted instead
of the Panel’s OSC wording. Finally, its "operational challenges"
are similar to those of another agency in a recent decision where the Panel
terminated a CWS at the conclusion of a trial period.(4)
After carefully reviewing the evidence and arguments
presented by the parties, we conclude that the Employer has failed to
demonstrate why the wording in the OSC should not be adopted to resolve the
dispute. In essence, the Employer contends that its mission is so unique that
extraordinary safeguards are warranted when it comes to the issue of CWS. In our
view, however, its arguments are more appropriately raised in the context of a
case under the Act than under the Statute.(5) Moreover, given the various statutory
rights that the Employer already possesses concerning CWS, additional safeguards
appear unnecessary. Thus, under § 6131(a) of the Act, "notwithstanding . .
. any collective bargaining agreement," if the agency head determines that
the parties’ previously agreed to 5-4/9 CWS is causing an adverse agency
impact, the Employer may reopen the agreement to seek termination of the
schedule;(6) if the parties reach an impasse over the issue, the Panel "shall
rule on such impasse not later than 60 days after the date the Panel is
presented the impasse."(7) In addition, the Employer’s right under 5 U.S.C.
§ 7106(a)(2)(D) of the Statute "to take whatever actions may be necessary
to carry out the agency mission during emergencies" presumably also would
continue to apply while the CWS is in effect. Accordingly, we shall order the
adoption of the wording in the OSC.
The parties agree to permanently adopt these
procedures absent the agency declaring adverse agency impact. If the agency
declares adverse agency impact during the trial period or at the completion of
the trial period the parties agree to negotiate as appropriate.
1.This wording was part of an “agreement” over the same issue in a previous case, Case No. 99 FSIP 131, which later became a matter of controversy between the parties. As an alternative to litigation in other forums, the Union filed the instant request for assistance, and the Panel determined to assert jurisdiction and resolve the parties’ dispute on its merits. In addition, the phrase “these procedures” in the OSC wording refers to preceding portions of Article 17 of the parties’ initial CBA which have been agreed to and are not before the Panel. 2.Under a 5-4/9 CWS, employees work eight 9-hour days, one 8-hour day, and have one regular day off each pay period. The parties in this case have agreed to implement the CWS for a trial period of 90 days. 3.The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that the Employer bears the burden of demonstrating that an existing CWS has caused an adverse agency impact. S. REP. NO. 97-365, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. at 16. 5 U.S.C. § 6131(b) defines adverse agency impact as:
4.Department of the Navy, Trident Refit Facility, Kings Bay, Georgia and Local Lodge 2783, District 112, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, Case No. 99 FSIP 60 (May 11, 1999), Panel Release No. 420.
5.In fact, it was in the context of the requirements of the Act that the Panel decided the previous case cited by the Employer in support of its position.
6.5 U.S.C. § 6131(a)(2). 7.5 U.S.C. § 6131(c)(3)(C).	Federal Labor Relations Authority