Source: https://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/04fs_018.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 15:29:34
Document Index: 113379722

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5343', '§ 532', '§ 7119', '§ 2471', '§ 2471', '§ 532']

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS and LODGE 2049, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO Case No. 04 FSIP 018 | FLRA
You are hereHome DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS and LODGE 2049, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO Case No. 04 FSIP 018 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS and LODGE 2049, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
LODGE 2049,
Case No. 04 FSIP 18
The Department of the Army, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas
Lodge 2049, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO (Union or Machinists).
After investigation of the request for assistance, concerning Article 17,
Environmental Differential Pay (EDP), which arose during negotiations over a
successor collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), the Panel determined that the
parties should meet with Panel Member Mark A. Carter to assist them in resolving
any outstanding issues. Thereafter,
if any issues remained unresolved, the parties were informed that the Panel
would take whatever action it deems appropriate to resolve the matter, which
Pursuant to this procedural determination, Member Carter convened an informal
conference with the parties on March 18, 2004, at the Employer’s facility in
Corpus Christi, Texas. During the
course of that meeting, it was clarified that the parties did not dispute
rolling over the wording in Sections 2, 4, and 5, of the current article, so
those provisions present no issues for the Panel to resolve. The parties, however, remained deadlocked over two other sections. The Panel has now considered the entire record, including the parties’
final offers and post-conference statements of position.
overhaul, repair and modify rotary-winged aircraft for the U.S. Armed Forces. The bargaining unit consists of approximately 270 Wage Grade
employees (non-professionals), who hold positions such as machinist, toolmaker,
electrician and welder; employees work in an industrial setting. The parties’ most recent CBA, which was to have expired on April 15,
2003, was extended until September 2003, to provide additional time to negotiate
a successor CBA. The parties
disagree over whether their CBA remains in full force and effect or now has
expired, inasmuch as they did not negotiate a successor agreement within the
1997, the Union and two other labor organizations which represent employees at
the Employer’s facility, Local 2142, American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE) and Local 797, National Federation of Federal Employees, filed
a grievance in an effort to obtain EDP for Wage Grade employees who worked with
hazardous levels of asbestos. The
outcome was an arbitration award issued on March 24, 2000, which granted
employees back pay, dating to 1991, for having been wrongly denied EDP for
asbestos work. On appeal, the
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) upheld the arbitrator’s award, except
that portion dealing with the payment of attorney’s fees, which was vacated
and remanded to the arbitrator. See
Department of the Army, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2142, et al.,
56 FLRA 1057 (2001).[1]/
Within the past year, there has been legislation enacted by Congress
involving EDP for exposure to asbestos hazards at Department of Defense (DoD)
facilities. In this regard, 5 U.S.C.
§ 5343(c) requires the Employer to use the Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for determining EDP
entitlement for asbestos exposure. That
law addresses asbestos exposure and does not concern other contaminants. The Congress determined that the Employer would be prohibited
from paying out EDP where the asbestos exposure in the workplace did not exceed
the OSHA promulgated Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). The Employer seeks to modify the bargaining agreement to comport with
this legislation and its articulation of public policy. The Employer also seeks to institute the same OSHA PEL standards for
entitlement to EDP for exposure to other workplace contaminants. The Union argues that the changes are redundant and unnecessary.
The parties disagree over whether
the EDP article should include a standard for determining when employees are
entitled to receive EDP for working with contaminants within the OSHA
1: Presently,
no employee in the bargaining unit is being paid Environmental Differential Pay
(EDP).
Union may bring to the attention of the Employer situations which it feels
should be investigated for possible Environmental Differential Pay. Following its investigation, the Employer will notify the Union in
writing of its findings and determination. Any further consideration of the matter will be accomplished through the
negotiations between the President and an additional Union representative and
proposal would preserve contract wording that has served the parties well in the
past. It does not establish a
standard for assessing whether a workplace hazard justifies the payment of EDP,
because there is no need to specifically reference any particular standard. In this regard, in 1997, when the parties disagreed over whether
employees should receive backpay for working with hazardous levels of asbestos,
the matter was submitted to a grievance arbitrator who determined that the
appropriate standard to be used is the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM)
Government-wide standard found in 5 C.F.R.§ 532.511, Subpart E, Appendix A. The arbitrator’s determination to use the OPM standard was not an abuse
of discretion as the award has been upheld on appeal. The proposed wording has worked well in the past because,
upon receiving the award, the Employer acted in earnest for the first time to
monitor and correct the hazardous asbestos condition in the workplace. Under the proposal, the Union would have a right to grieve in the event
that the parties disagree over whether EDP should be authorized; utilization of
the negotiated grievance/arbitration system has been and continues to be an
appropriate mechanism to resolve such matters. Since a new law determines the standard for granting EDP for asbestos at the
Employer’s facilities, there is no need to have contract language that mirrors
the law inasmuch as the legislation prevents the use of any standard other than
the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL), at least with respect to the receipt
of EDP for working with asbestos. In
the event that subsequent legislation restores EDP rights to employees for
asbestos work, employees would be able to avail themselves of the change because
they would not be saddled with contract wording that specifies a required
standard. The fact that another
union that represents a different bargaining unit at the installation has
voluntarily agreed to the Employer’s proposed EDP standards is an insufficient
basis for rejecting the Union’s proposal. That unit, represented by AFGE, Local 2142, includes General Schedule
employees, while the Machinists represent Wage Grade employees who are more
likely to be affected by hazardous materials in the workplace. With respect to other workplace hazards, no standard should be referenced
in the contract article because resolution of EDP issues belongs in the
grievance/arbitration forum.
Employer will make every effort possible to ensure that employees are not
exposed to any hazardous situations while performing their duties. In accordance with section 5343(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code,
employees will be eligible for environmental differential when exposed to a
working condition or hazard that falls within one of the categories approved by
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Payment
will only be made when the level of exposure exceeds the standard set by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and/or the American
Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), whichever standard has
the lowest exposure level in accordance with AR 40-5, paragraph 5-3(3). This applies to all workplace hazards.
should be investigated for possible Environmental Differential Pay (EDP). Their concern will be addressed in writing and will include the location
of the situation, nature of exposure, and other factors necessary for inclusion
as a payable category. Following
its investigation, the Employer will notify the Union in writing of its findings
and determination. Should a
situation arise in which a qualifying hazard cannot be practically eliminated
and an EDP is authorized by the Employer, payment shall be made in accordance
with CFR 532.511, Subpart E, Appendix A. Work
situations determined to be in compliance with the OSHA standards and/or the
threshold limit values established by the ACGIH, are deemed to have practically
eliminated the hazard and are not eligible for EDP. This includes situations where the hazard has been practically
eliminated through use of personal protective equipment and engineering
proposal would establish a standard for determining entitlement to EDP for all
workplace hazards which are compensable under OPM regulations, including
asbestos. The proposed wording
would eliminate the ambiguity of the existing contract language that, in the
past, has left to the discretion of arbitrators the standard to be used for EDP
entitlement on an ad hoc basis. Furthermore,
the wording makes reference to, and is consistent with, public policy as
established by Congress in the new legislation signed by the President in
November 2003, which requires DoD agencies to use OSHA PEL standards in
determining when EDP should be paid for asbestos work. The proposal likely would reduce the number of grievances filed by the
Union over EDP since there now would be certainty as to which standard is to be
used. The language proposed is
similar to that voluntarily agreed to by AFGE, another labor organization which
represents a much larger bargaining unit of Wage Grade and General Schedule
employees at the facility; having uniform standards among the various bargaining
units for determining EDP entitlement would eliminate disparities and confusion
regarding the practices the Employer is to follow.
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by the
parties on the issues, we conclude that the dispute over the EDP article should
be resolved on the basis of the Employer’s final offer in Section 1, and a
“hybrid” version of the parties’ proposals in Section 3. With respect to Section 1, we are persuaded that the resolution of the
issue should include contract wording specifying the standard to be used for
determining when employees are entitled to EDP. The absence of a standard in the parties’ most recent CBA has left the
matter to the discretion of arbitrators. In
our view, the Union’s proposal ignores the public policy established in the
recent legislation that has taken the matter of EDP entitlement at DoD
facilities for exposure to asbestos out of the hands of arbitrators by requiring
that the OSHA PEL standard be utilized. While
we recognize that the Employer’s proposal would apply the OSHA PEL standard to
all hazards approved by OPM, we favor this approach because the establishment of
a standard for entitlement to EDP, which both parties can empirically measure,
will reduce the litigation between the parties and is consistent with public
policy. Finally, using the OSHA PEL
standards would be consistent with the practice adopted by the Employer and
another labor organization at the Employer’s facility that represents a much
larger bargaining unit, not to mention its non-bargaining unit employees. In regard to Section 3, the wording proposed by the Employer is potentially
confusing because it appears to suggest that EDP would be authorized when a
hazard has not been “practically eliminated,” the standard used by the
arbitrator in the previously referenced arbitral proceeding. In our view, the provision should be clarified to reflect more accurately
the Employer’s intent that the OSHA PEL and/or ACGIH standards are to be used;
clarifying this provision may eliminate grievances over its interpretation. Furthermore, we find the portion of the Employer’s proposal in Section
3 which establishes the criteria for the Union to initiate an investigation of a
potentially compensable hazard to be somewhat onerous, and inconsistent with
what the Employer appears to require of another labor organization when it
desires to initiate an investigation of a working condition that may require the
payment of EDP. Accordingly, we
shall order the parties to adopt the wording set forth below as Section 3 of
their EDP article.
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119,
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)
The parties shall adopt the Employer’s proposal for Section 1. The following wording shall be adopted in Section 3:
should be investigated for possible environmental differential pay (EDP). The Union shall address its concern to the Employer in writing, either
electronically or by paper. Following
and determinations. When EDP is authorized by the Employer, payment shall be made in accordance
with 5 C.F.R. § 532.511, Subpart E, Appendix A.
[1]/ On remand,
the arbitrator issued a modified award pursuant to the FLRA’s decision. Subsequently, the modified award was challenged by the Employer and,
in United States Department of the Army, Corpus Christi Army Depot,
Corpus Christi, Texas and AFGE, Local 2142, et al., 58 FLRA 87
(2002), the FLRA ordered yet another remand to the arbitrator, this time
concerning the payment of attorney fees to non-attorney staff.