Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v53/53-102.html
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 07:05:02
Document Index: 340553724

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7103', '§ 450', '§ 450', '§ 105', '§ 7112', '§ 3373']

53:1221(102)CU - - Phoeniz Area Indian Health Service, Owyhee Service Unit (Owyhee PHS Indian Hospital, and Elko Clinic ) and Native American Health Care Local 1386, Liuana - - 1998 FLRAdec RP - - v53 p1221 | FLRA
You are hereHome 53:1221(102)CU - - Phoeniz Area Indian Health Service, Owyhee Service Unit (Owyhee PHS Indian Hospital, and Elko Clinic ) and Native American Health Care Local 1386, Liuana - - 1998 FLRAdec RP - - v53 p1221 53:1221(102)CU - - Phoeniz Area Indian Health Service, Owyhee Service Unit (Owyhee PHS Indian Hospital, and Elko Clinic ) and Native American Health Care Local 1386, Liuana - - 1998 FLRAdec RP - - v53 p1221
[ v53 p1221 ] 53:1221(102)CU
The decision of the Authority follows: 53 FLRA No. 102 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ PHOENIX AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE OWYHEE SERVICE UNIT (OWYHEE PHS INDIAN HOSPITAL, AND ELKO
Representative/Petitioner) DE-CU-60002 _____ PHOENIX AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE OWYHEE SERVICE UNIT (OWYHEE PHS INDIAN HOSPITAL, AND ELKO
Representative/Petitioner) DE-CU-60004 _____ PHOENIX AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE OWYHEE SERVICE UNIT (OWYHEE PHS INDIAN HOSPITAL, AND ELKO
CLINIC) OWYHEE, NEVADA (Activity/Petitioner) and NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE LOCAL 1386, LIUNA, AFL-CIO (Exclusive Representative) DE-CU-60005 _____ DECISION January 28, 1998 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S.
Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.(1) I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority on the Exclusive Representative's
(Union's) application for review under section 2422.17(c)(1) of the Authority's
Regulations.(2) It involves the same central
issue, agency, and national union, with a different Activity and factual
setting, as another case issued today. Phoenix Area Indian Health Service,
Sacaton Service Unit, Hu Hu Kam Memorial Hospital, Sacaton,
Arizona, 53 FLRA No. 101 (1998) (Case Nos. DE-CU-50069/60001)
(Hu Hu Kam).(3) The central issue in both cases is whether bargaining unit
employees on special purpose Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)(4) assignments to hospitals over
which an Indian tribe has taken control remain "employed in an agency" and thus
within the coverage of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
(the Statute). 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(2)(A). The Regional Director (RD) found that the employees in this case were
not employed in an agency and, therefore, that the bargaining unit of the
Owyhee Hospital (Hospital) employees is no longer appropriate.(5) The Activity did not file an
opposition to the Union's application for review. No supplemental briefs have
been filed. For the reasons set forth below and in Hu Hu Kam, we find that
the employees are employed in an agency and that the bargaining unit is
appropriate. II. Background and RD's Decision The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(Self-Determination Act) permits Indian tribes to take over functions and
services that had previously been performed by the IHS and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq., Pub. L.
No. 93-638, as amended (1994). This transfer may be effected through several
mechanisms. In this case, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Reservation (the Tribes) took responsibility for the operation and
administration of the Hospital under a "compact" pursuant to the Tribal
Self-Governance Demonstration Project Act (TDPA). 25 U.S.C. § 450f.(6) Under a compact, a tribe takes over the function for an unspecified
time period, limited only by section 301 of the TDPA, which limits
authorization for the compacts to an 18-year period which began on
October 5, 1988. Once a compact is finalized, a tribe has an unconditional
entitlement to renewal of funding for "compacted functions" every year, subject
to the availability of appropriations. RD's Decision at 11. Under a
compact, IHS monitoring of compacted health care functions consists of: (1) a
bi-annual report to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs; and (2) a
single annual audit report. Pursuant to the TDPA, a tribe is free to request
"retrocession of compacted programs or any portions thereof," that is, a tribe
is free to decide to terminate the compact and the facility would revert to IHS
at a specified time. Id. at 13. In hiring staff for the Hospital, the Tribes had the option of directly
hiring new employees or of retaining IHS employees on IPA details. The Tribes
chose to retain all but a few of the approximately 40 to 50 employees working
at the Hospital prior to the compact. Virtually all of the Hospital's employees
are IHS employees detailed to the Hospital under special purpose IPA
assignments. The Hospital's Administrative Officer is an IHS employee on
assignment, as are the other supervisors and managers. In essence, the detailed
employees remained in their positions under the same immediate supervisors and
managers.(7) As of the hearing date, approximately 34 bargaining unit employees and
an unspecified number of supervisors and managers detailed on special purpose
IPA assignments remained working at the Hospital. They occupy their Federal
positions of record, are paid by IHS under the General Schedule pay system, and
are subject to Federal employee standards of conduct. IHS retains control over
the following conditions of employment: discipline, leave, retirement, health
insurance, life insurance, promotion, quality step increases, cash awards, and
within-grade increases. Employees who had been on dues withholding continue to
have their dues withheld. The following conditions are controlled by the
Hospital: work assignments, work location, workweek, hours of duty, leave
conditions, performance expectations, dress code and holidays. At least three
changes have been made to employees' working conditions by the Hospital:
(1) procedures to request compensatory time and overtime have been
changed; (2) the employee tardiness policy has been eliminated; and
(3) September 27 of each year has been established as a Tribal
holiday (Native American Day). The RD stated that there was no legally relevant factual difference
between the circumstances that were present in the Hu Hu Kam case and
the circumstances present here. The RD stated that "the IPA and its provisions
concerning the use of [special purpose IPA assignments] apply equally to
situations involving 638 contracts or compacts under the [Self-Determination
Act]. . . ." RD's Decision at 14 n.29. The RD found that as
a result of the Tribes' assumption of the function provided by the IHS through
the Hospital, that function has become, in accordance with the
Self-Determination Act, a Tribal function. The RD made similar findings to those made in Hu Hu Kam. The RD
found that as a result of the compact, the IHS employees detailed to the Tribes
on special purpose IPA assignments are subject on a day-to-day basis to a chain
of command that ultimately leads to the Tribes, not to IHS. The RD also found
that there is no basis to conclude that IHS and the Tribes have become joint
employers. According to the RD, the definition of "agency" for purposes of the
Statute is defined as an "executive agency" and thus could not include the
Tribes. As in Hu Hu Kam, the RD found that the Authority's precedent
Internal Revenue Service, 24 FLRA 999 (1986) (IRS) and
17 FLRA 11 (1985) (SSA) is applicable here. Consistent with
IRS and SSA, the RD found that the Union could not bargain over
the employees' conditions of employment while they were on special purpose IPA
assignments. Accordingly, the RD concluded that the employees on special
purpose IPA assignments could not continue to be considered members of the
professional and non-professional bargaining units at issue, and the RD revised
the bargaining units' descriptions accordingly. III. The Employees on Special Purpose IPA Assignments Are Employed in
an Agency Within the Meaning of Section 7103(a)(2)(A) of the Statute A. Positions of the Parties The Union has incorporated in this case the same arguments it made in
the Hu Hu Kam case. It asserts that the employees were not divested of
fundamental rights under the Statute as a result of the compact and the IPA
assignments. The Union also contends that the Agency has retained substantial
control and influence over terms and conditions of employment of the employees
within the meaning of section 7103. Neither the Agency nor the Activity filed a response. B. Analysis and Conclusions For the reasons set forth in our decision in
Hu Hu Kam, we find that the employees on special purpose IPA
assignments are employed in an agency within the meaning of section
7103(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. We conclude that IHS is an agency and that the
employees on special purpose IPA assignments remain employed in IHS. We also
find that neither the Tribes nor the Hospital constitute an agency under
5 U.S.C. § 105 and section 7103. Finally, for the reasons set forth in Hu Hu Kam, we
find that Authority precedent on IPA assignments, specifically IRS and
SSA, does not require a contrary result. Accordingly, consistent with
Hu Hu Kam, we conclude that the employees on special purpose
IPA assignments are employees of IHS, but not the Tribes or Hospital, within
the meaning of section 7103. IV. The Collective Bargaining Unit Remains an Appropriate
Unit A. Positions of the Parties The Union contends that although the conditions of employment of these
significant elements of the employees' conditions of work. The Union argues,
conditions of work under the control or influence of IHS. Neither the Agency nor the Activity filed a response. B. Analysis and Conclusions A unit is appropriate under section 7112(a) of the Statute if:
interest; (2) the unit promotes effective dealings with the agency
involved; and (3) the unit promotes efficiency of operations of the agency
involved. 5 U.S.C. § 7112(a); United States Department of the
950, 959 (1997) (FISC).(8) Determinations as to each element are made on a case-by-case
basis by balancing the relevant findings of fact set forth in the RD's decision
and order. Id. at 960. The Authority has not specified individual
factors or the number of factors necessary to establish a community of
interest. Rather, the Authority requires examination of the factors presented
on a case-by-case basis. See American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 2004, 47 FLRA 969, 972 (1993). In determining that the collective bargaining unit remains an
appropriate unit, we reiterate our conclusion in Hu Hu Kam
that the community of interest of these employees is not affected by the shift
in control over certain conditions of employment to the Tribes. Further, we
find that collective bargaining by this bargaining unit promotes effective
dealings with the Agency and its efficiency of operation. The Union's statutory representation of employees on special purpose
IPA assignments extends only to those matters over which the Agency retains
control or influence. This does not, however, eliminate the efficacy of
bargaining over the subjects which remain within the Agency's control and
influence. V. Decision The petition to clarify the unit in Case No. DE-CU-60005 is dismissed,
and the RD is directed to take appropriate action in Case Nos. DE-CU-60002 and
60004 to amend the certification of unit consistent with this
Regulations pertain to the Regulations in effect prior to March 15, 1996.
The petitions in these cases were filed before that date and the revised
Regulations do not apply in these cases. See Department of the Army,
III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, 51 FLRA 934, 938 n.6
(1996). 3. In this case, the Phoenix Area
Indian Health Service, Owyhee Service Unit (Owyhee PHS Indian Hospital, and
Elko Clinic), Owyhee, Nevada is the Activity. The Agency is the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and its component, the Indian Health Service
(IHS). 4. Under the IPA, 5 U.S.C.
governments, including Indian tribes, on special purpose IPA assignments. The
§ 3373. See part III.B.2.b. below. 5. The Union represents two bargaining
units of employees at the Hospital. One unit consists of all professional
employees of the PHS Indian Health Service, Owyhee Service Unit and the other
unit includes all nonprofessional general schedule and wage grade employees of
the Owyhee Service Unit. In Case Nos. DE-CU-60002 and 60004, Local 1386
petitioned to clarify the existing certified units as including the employees
who continued to work at the Hospital on special purpose IPA assignments. In
Case No. DE-CU-60005, the Agency petitioned to clarify the existing units
to exclude these employees. 6. In Hu Hu Kam, the parties
executed a self-determination contract, also known as a "638 Contract."
See id., slip op. at 4. 7. The Hospital is
one of three departments which comprise the Duck Valley Health System. The
other departments are the Behavioral Health Department (BHD), whose program
areas include alcohol, mental health, social services, and the day care center,
and the Preventive Health Department (PHD), whose program areas include
preventive health, community health nursing, health education, a senior
citizens' center, and a food distribution center. In contrast to the Hospital,
most of the employees of the BHD and the PHD are direct tribal hires. Only two
IHS employees have been detailed on special purpose IPA assignments to the BHD.
8. Section 7112(a)(1) states: The Authority shall determine the appropriateness of any unit. The
appropriate unit should be established on an agency, plant, installation,
with, and efficiency of the operations of the agency involved.