Source: http://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/01fs_184.html
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 07:37:04
Document Index: 500626487

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7119', 'art 551', 'art 551', '§\n551', 'art 551', '§ 551']

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS WASHINGTON, D.C. and COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 33, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Case No. 01 FSIP 184 | FLRA.GOV
Authority Chairman and Members Find Types of Cases, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, Guidances, Policies, Manuals, ULP Process, Forms, Representation, ADR Services, and Training.Federal Service Impasses Panel Find Jurisdiction, Statute, Work Schedules Act, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Solicitor, Administrative Law Judges, IG & Others Find General Information about these Offices and Contact Information.training & alternative dispute resolutionFind FLRA Training Information and ADR Services. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS WASHINGTON, D.C. and COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 33, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO United States of America
LOCALS 33, AMERICAN
Case No. 01 FSIP 184
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C. (Employer
or FBOP) filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel
Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Council
of Prison Locals 33, AFGE, AFL-CIO (Union).
of the request for assistance, arising from negotiations over an agency-wide
program statement on smoking, the Panel determined that the dispute should be
resolved (1) through the issuance of an Order to Show Cause,(1) followed by
(2) an informal conference with a Panel representative for the purpose of (a)
clarifying any matters raised in their responses to the Order to Show Cause
and (b) assisting them in resolving any outstanding issues in their impasse
over smoking policy. The parties were advised that if no settlement were
reached, the Panel representative would report on the status of the impasse,
including the parties’ final offers, and make recommendations for resolving
the issues. The parties were further advised that after considering the report,
the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate, which could include
Pursuant to the Panel’s determination, written responses were submitted to the Order
to Show Cause, after which Panel Representative (Staff Attorney) George
Birch met with the parties on October 15, 2001, at the Panel’s offices in
Washington, D.C. The parties were unable to resolve any issues. The parties each
submitted their final offers and supporting statements on the disputed issues.
Mr. Birch has reported to the Panel, which has now considered the entire record.
protect society by confining offenders in controlled environments of prison and
community-based facilities that are safe, humane, appropriately secure, and that
provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in
becoming law-abiding citizens. The Employer has approximately
100 institutions nationwide. The Council of Prison Locals 33 represents
approximately 22,000 employees in a nationwide consolidated unit, who occupy a
variety of positions, including correctional officers, counselors, case managers
and secretaries. The parties’ master collective bargaining agreement (MCBA)
has expired, but they have agreed to extend its terms and conditions until a
The parties essentially
disagree over whether: (1) indoor smoking should be prohibited within the FBOP;
(2) outdoor smoking areas should be designated at all FBOP facilities and
conform to certain minimum standards; and (3) the Employer should reimburse
employees participating in smoking cessation programs for the cost of NRT.
The Union’s proposal includes the following
The following areas will be designated as
indoor smoking areas at all medical referral centers, including housing units,
and at minimum security institutions, including satellite camps and intensive
confinement centers, including housing units, and at all low, medium, high, and
administrative institutions, including housing units.
a) All single and/or
multiple person offices. Ventilation equipment of sufficient capacity will be installed (if not already in place) to insure that non-smoking staff are not exposed to second-hand smoke. This equipment when installed will also aid in
the removal of airborne pathogens as well.
b) All control centers, towers, guard huts
(upper and lower compound, rear gate, entrance and exit posts, recreation yard,
etc.), perimeter patrol vehicles. If necessary and not already in place
ventilation equipment of sufficient capacity will be installed (if not already
in place) to insure that non-smoking staff are not exposed to second-hand smoke.
c) All housing units regardless if the unit is
designated as a non-smoking unit for the inmate population.
d) All training centers will have an indoor
designated smoking area for use by staff to be utilized when the outside
temperature is at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or lower.
e) All staff lounges.
f) All Unicor factories and warehouses.
g) All institution powerhouses and facilities
departments shop areas.
h) All institution commissaries and
i) In those areas where staff may not
necessarily have an office (such as, but not limited to, Food Service,
Education, Recreation Building, Housing Units (to include Special
Housing Units) an indoor designated smoking area will be created.
j) Due to the unique configurations and
physical layout of Bureau facilities this list is not all inclusive and
additional areas may be negotiated by the Union and Management at the local
The Panel should not mandate that all indoor
smoking be prohibited, primarily because unit employees work in a unique prison
setting. In this regard, many employees are locked in their work area for their
entire shift without an opportunity to take a break to smoke outdoors. Moreover,
the Union’s proposals for indoor smoking are consistent with Executive Order
13058, Protecting Federal Employees and the Public from Exposure to Tobacco
Smoke in the Federal Workplace: (1) they would ensure that indoor smoking
areas meet exhaust and pressure requirements,(2) and (2) some of the proposed
indoor smoking areas constitute "residential accommodations" excepted
from coverage of the Order.(3) In view of the unique
prison setting, the proposed indoor smoking areas also are excepted from coverage
of the Order by section 2(e), which authorizes that "[t]he head of any agency
may establish limited and narrow exceptions that are necessary to accomplish agency missions." Further, its proposed indoor smoking areas are consistent with 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart N, which pertains to smoking areas in FBOP facilities.(4) Finally, if the Union’s approach is adopted, exposure to second-hand smoke would be de minimis, and "until cost studies are done the cost would be de minimis should alterations be made to current structures."
The Employer urges the Panel to adopt the
wording in its Order to Show Cause and "prohibit all indoor
smoking within [FBOP] facilities."(5) Such a prohibition is consistent with the spirit of Executive Order 13058, "which has the clear intent to provide a workplace free from second-hand smoke," and proposed 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart N. Contrary to the Union’s contention, none of the Employer’s facilities constitutes a residential
accommodation within the meaning of the Executive Order that would except
the facility from the general prohibition on indoor smoking. In addition, the "enormous" expense of conforming indoor smoking areas to the
requirements of the Executive Order would be "very detrimental" to the Employer’s budget. In this regard, its Health Systems Administrator estimates that the cost of providing a "negative pressure room . . . is between $8,000 and $25,000 per room." The Union’s proposal would require between 4 and 18 indoor smoking areas, in housing units alone, at each of the FBOP’s 100 institutions nationwide. Finally, the FBOP
"is attempting to transition to a smoke-free environment, and intends to prohibit inmates from smoking." In such circumstances, permitting staff who are "locked into units, or otherwise confined to their posts, to smoke indoors" would create a "legitimate security risk."
evidence and arguments presented by the parties on this issue, we are persuaded
that the impasse should be resolved by permitting indoor smoking at FBOP
facilities only in perimeter towers and perimeter patrol vehicles when occupied
by one person. Preliminarily, as reflected in our Order to Show Cause in
this case, the Panel’s goal when resolving impasses involving smoking policy
has been, first and foremost, to ensure that the interests of nonsmokers in
having a safe and healthy workplace are met. In balancing the equities, the
Panel also has sought to provide reasonable accommodations for smokers. In the
current circumstances, we acknowledge that FBOP staff work in a unique setting,
and that the Employer’s attempt to transition to a smoke-free environment in
its facilities would adversely affect numerous employees unable to use outdoor
designated smoking areas because of the nature of their duties. In our view,
however, the adverse affect on an undetermined number of smokers(6) does not justify the cost of providing indoor
smoking areas sufficient to protect the health of nonsmokers. In this regard,
the Union’s contention that the expense of its proposal should be viewed as de
minimis until cost studies prove otherwise must be rejected.
Generally, parties share the burden of establishing the record upon which an
impasse is resolved. Even if the Employer has exaggerated its cost estimates for
individual indoor smoking areas, the total number of such areas that would have
to be created under the Union’s approach renders it an unsuitable alternative
for resolving this impasse.
Given the circumstances which make this dispute
so intractable, the Panel has searched hard for any options which would
appropriately balance the parties’ apparently irreconcilable interests. In
this connection, the record reflects that during the negotiations which led to
the filing of the Employer’s request for assistance, it offered to permit
indoor smoking at its facilities in perimeter towers and perimeter patrol
vehicles when such locations are occupied by one person. Although such
accommodations would provide relief only for a limited number of smokers, we
conclude that these exceptions to a total ban on indoor smoking are warranted,
would not compromise the health of nonsmokers, and comport with the requirements
established in Executive Order 13058. Accordingly, we shall order the adoption
of wording consistent with the rationale provided above to settle this aspect of
On the specific issue of outdoor smoking,
the Union’s proposal is as follows: All outside areas are smoking areas for staff
except as outlined in a) below.
a) Smoking is not allowed in any area which has
or may contain any combustible or flammable liquids, gases, vapors, or solid
waste. Sufficient non-combustible ashtrays and other provisions for the safe and
sanitary disposal of hot ashes and other discarded tobacco products will be
Outside shelters will be provided for staff
smoking outside during inclement weather. At a minimum these shelters will be
equipped with heating and air conditioning and be able to provide suitable space
for up to six persons. They will contain windows on three sides, a roof, and a
door and they will be placed in at least the following areas: recreation yard,
upper and lower compound, and training center. Due to the unique configurations
and physical layout of Bureau facilities this list is not all inclusive and
additional areas may be designated by the Union and Management at the local
The Panel should adopt a modified version of
the wording in its Order to Show Cause because simply imposing the
"generic language would necessitate" that the Union again invoke its
right to negotiate with the Employer over appropriate arrangements for outdoor
smoking areas "which in this case we have already done." Moreover, its
proposal is consistent with its right under the MCBA to negotiate minimum
standards at the National Level over issues that have nationwide impact, as it
has done "in hundreds of previous negotiations on National Program
Issuances," and leave further negotiations up to the local level. The
minimum standards it has proposed in this case are reasonable. For example,
outdoor shelters on the recreation yard, upper and lower compound, and at each
facility training center, should have windows because "of the constant need
to maintain visual contact with inmates in these areas." Its wording on
heating and air conditioning is designed to address the fact that the Union
represents employees "in every geographical area of the United States,
Puerto Rico, and Hawaii," including locations which "routinely have
outside temperatures during the winter months of -20 below zero" or "100-125 degrees during the summer
months." Finally, the Union "strongly opposes" the co-mingling of
inmates and staff in these smoking shelters, and "proposes separate outdoor
smoking areas for inmates." Requiring the shelters to be shared with
inmates would place "staff in an unsafe working condition and would present
security and other concerns as well."
Prior to designating an outdoor smoking area,
the Warden will review the institution’s physical layout and function, with
a. Hazardous environmental factors. Smoking is
not allowed in any area which has or may contain any combustible or flammable
liquids, gases, vapors, or solid waste.
b. Ventilation and human density during the
area’s use. The smoking area’s size and configuration must accommodate
sufficiently the number of individuals using it; smoking is not allowed near
building entrances, exits or windows consistent with subsection a. of this
c. Housekeeping, sanitation, and protection of
property. In outdoor areas where smoking is permitted, the institution will
provide sufficient non-combustible ashtrays and other provisions for the safe
and sanitary disposal of hot ashes and other discarded smoking products.
d. Types of physical barriers and security.
Designated smoking areas will be constructed to facilitate quick, voluntary
evacuation and allow staff to provide proper security.
e. Activities undertaken in the area. Smoking
is not permitted in areas used for physical exercise when the possibility of
exposure to second-hand smoke exists.
f. If outside shelters are provided, the
location, size, and composition of these shelters should be negotiated with the
The FBOP "has a unique situation" in
that it has proposed regulations governing smoking policy in 28 C.F.R. §
551.162 that would grant its wardens, with the concurrence of a regional
director, the discretion to choose not to designate any smoking areas for
general use. As such, the wording in the Panel’s Order to Show Cause on
the issue of outdoor smoking areas "would be inconsistent with the wording
proposed in the C.F.R." In essence, if the Panel declines to follow the
wording in the proposed regulations and decides instead to require that outdoor
smoking areas be designated at all of its facilities, "all aspects of
outdoor shelters should be negotiated at the local level." The local
parties "are best able to determine what is feasible for their institution,
not persons not familiar with the construction of a particular
institution." The Union’s proposal illustrates the importance of
authorizing the local parties to handle the issue of outdoor smoking areas in
its entirety. It states that outdoor smoking areas should be made available in
the upper and lower compounds and recreation yards of each institution, yet
there are a number of FBOP facilities where none of these areas exist.
After careful review of the record
presented by the parties on the issue of outdoor designated smoking areas, we
shall order the adoption of the wording in the Order to Show Cause, with
the additional proviso that such areas shall be for the exclusive use of
employees. In our opinion, neither party has established that the circumstances
of this case require a significant departure from our general approach in cases
of this type. On the one hand, we believe that the "minimum standards"
proposed by the Union would result in more shelters than necessary, and in the
excessive expenditure of resources. In this regard, while the Union states that
its proposal is intended to address the variations in climate where FBOP
facilities are located, read literally, it would require that all outside
shelters be heated and air conditioned, regardless of geographical location. The
Employer’s proposed regulations, which would grant wardens the discretion to
choose not to designate any outside smoking areas for general use, is also
defective. As explained previously, the wording in our Order to Show Cause
mandates the designation of outdoor smoking as part of a balanced approach that
restricts indoor smoking. The Employer has failed to substantiate the need for
unfettered discretion in deciding whether any outdoor designated smoking areas
A review of the parties’ positions on the
merits of local negotiations over outdoor designated smoking areas suggests that
it is necessary to clarify the intent of the wording in the Order to Show
Cause on this matter. In particular, the Union appears to believe that its
adoption would entitle it to demand a new round of local negotiations over
appropriate arrangements for outdoor smoking areas, while the Employer urges the
Panel to order that all aspects of outdoor shelters be negotiated at the local
level if we determine that the wording in the Employer’s proposed regulations
is unwarranted. The intent of the wording to be imposed, however, is to permit
the Employer to designate outdoor smoking areas which it believes meet the
requirements specified therein, i.e., reasonable accessibility to
employees and a measure of protection from the elements. No further negotiations
are required. As we have explained in numerous previous cases where identical
wording has been imposed, any local disputes over the accessibility or adequacy
of a designated area may be resolved through the parties’ negotiated grievance
procedure.(7) In our view, it would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement
of an effective and efficient Government to authorize local bargaining over
outdoor designated smoking areas at the FBOP’s approximately 100 facilities
where the matter has already been exhaustively negotiated at the national level.
Moreover, the Panel does not have the resources to handle the potential impasses
that may result. Finally, because we are persuaded for safety reasons that
employees should not be required to share designated outdoor areas with inmates,
the wording also shall specify that such areas are for the exclusive use of
The Union has proposed a smoking cessation
program that would require the Employer, among other things, to provide "a
6 to 10 week supply of nicotine replacement patches" or inhalers. Thus, its
final offer differs from the wording in the Order to Show Cause, which
would require the Employer to provide one-time payment to each employee who
participates in NRT for an 8-week supply of either skin patches or nicotine
chewing gum. The Union also requests that the wording in this portion of the Order
to Show Cause be changed to: (1) provide for a smoking cessation program of
180 days instead of 60 days; (2) drop the condition of "workload
permitting" for attendance on official time; and (3) include wording
mandating the Employer "to allow every staff member wishing to participate
to so do." In addition, the Panel should "retain control over this
issue until the program is completed."
The Panel’s "standard" wording
should be changed because the Employer will use the "workload
permitting" condition as a basis for routinely denying staff the
opportunity to participate in a smoking cessation program. In this connection,
the Union has filed numerous local grievances and one at the national level
regarding the Employer’s practice of repeatedly vacating posts and working
with much less staff than authorized by Congress. By dropping that condition,
and expanding the time during which smoking cessation programs would be provided
to 180 days, the Employer "would have no problem allowing all staff to
participate." Finally, in response to any contention that appropriated
funds may not be expended for purposes of providing NRT, "the Comptroller
General of the United States (B-231543, dated February 3, 1989) held that under
5 U.S.C. 7901, Federal agencies have the authority to use appropriated funds to
pay the costs incurred by employees participating in agency-sponsored smoking
cessation programs."
The Employer proposes to "provide a
smoking cessation program for all interested staff. However, the agency will not
reimburse staff for [NRT]." Smoking is "clearly a personal
choice," and NRT is a "personal convenience method/item used for the
cessation of smoking." In addition to the fact that FBOP "is not
appropriated money from Congress to medicate staff in any fashion similar to
convenience items," from a health perspective there are liability issues if
it dispenses NRT without an understanding of the employee’s health status.
Upon thorough examination of the parties’
supporting evidence and arguments on the issue of whether the Employer should
pay for NRT in connection with its smoking cessation program, we conclude that a
slightly modified version of the wording in the Order to Show Cause
should serve as the basis for resolving their impasse. The modifications are
intended to ensure that the Employer would pay for NRT only if such costs are
not covered by an employee’s health insurance, and to clarify the intent of
our initial wording. Both parties acknowledge that unit employees may be
employed in, or restricted to, a nonsmoking area for extended periods of time.(8)
We are persuaded that in such unique circumstances, where the Employer is movingto severely restrict indoor smoking and access to outdoor designated areas may be of limited value, the Employer should be obligated to pay for therapies which may be effective in getting interested smokers to quit
the habit. Given the lack of evidence in the record on the number of employees who smoke, or whether their health insurance would cover the benefit, any concerns regarding the costs of providing NRT for an 8-week period would appear to be
speculative. As to the Employer’s liability and health concerns, nothing in the
wording to be ordered precludes it from requiring health information from smokers before they receive NRT.
Finally, the Union’s requests that the
wording in the Order to Show Cause be changed to delete the condition
"workload permitting," and to provide for a smoking cessation program
of 180 days, must be rejected. Permitting the Employer to determine when
interested smokers can be released from work to attend smoking cessation classes
ensures that its right to assign work is not adversely affected. In addition, as
we shall clarify in the Order below, it is not our intent to specify the
duration of the Employer’s smoking cessation program, but only to provide a
reasonable period of time during which employees who smoke are provided an
opportunity to sign up for the program. In our view, 60 days provides a
reasonable period of time for this purpose.
of its regulations, orders the following:
The parties shall adopt the following wording: Indoor smoking shall be permitted only in
perimeter towers and perimeter patrol vehicles when occupied by one person.
The Employer shall designate outdoor smoking
areas which (a) are reasonably accessible to employees and (b) provide a measure
of protection from the elements. The designated outdoor smoking areas shall only
be used by employees.
3. Nicotine Replacement Therapy The parties shall adopt the following wording:
For a period of 60 days, interested employees
shall have the opportunity to sign up for a smoking cessation program, provided
by the Employer at no cost to the employees, who shall be on administrative
leave, workload permitting, to attend smoking cessation classes that are
scheduled during their work time. This program will include nicotine replacement
therapy (NRT), using skin patches or nicotine chewing gum. To the extent not
covered by health insurance, the Employer will provide a one-time payment to
each employee who participates in the NRT, for an 8-week supply of either skin
patches or nicotine chewing gum. In addition, the program will include
informational literature about the benefits of quitting smoking and counseling,
1.The parties were ordered to show cause why the following wording adopted by the Panel in other cases should not also be mandated to settle their impasse:
1.	All indoor smoking shall be prohibited.
3.	A smoking cessation program shall be provided for a period of 60 days, at no cost for interested employees,
who shall be excused from work on official time, workload permitting, to attend smoking cessation classes that
are scheduled during their work time. This program will include nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), using skin patches or nicotine chewing gum. The Employer will provide one-time payment to each employee who participates in the NRT, for an 8-week supply of either skin patches or nicotine chewing gum. In addition, the program will include informational literature about the benefits of quitting smoking and counseling, as needed.
2.Pursuant to section 2(a) of the Executive Order, the Order’s general policy
prohibiting indoor smoking “does not apply in designated smoking areas that are enclosed and exhausted directly to the outside and away from air intake ducts, and are maintained under negative pressure (with respect to surrounding spaces) sufficient to contain tobacco smoke within the designated area.”
3.Section 2(b) of the Order provides that it does not apply “to any residential accommodation for persons voluntarily or involuntarily residing . . . in a building owned, leased or
rented by the Federal Government.”
4.Section 551.163(b) provides, as follows:
At all low, medium, high, and other administrative institutions other than medical referral centers, the Warden . . . may, but is not required to, designate a limited number of indoor smoking areas where the needs of effective operations so require, especially for those who may be employed in, or restricted to, a nonsmoking area for an extended period of time.
In May 1999, the Employer proposed a substitute part 551, subpart N, which would delete the current wording of § 551.163(b). The proposed rules, however, have not yet been finalized.
5.During the negotiations that preceded its request for Panel assistance the Employer proposed to permit indoor smoking areas “in perimeter towers and perimeter vehicles when occupied by only one person,” and that “[i]f other indoor smoking areas are considered by the Warden, the location of