Source: https://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/96fs_001.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 20:40:05
Document Index: 515668183

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7119', '§ 7106', '§ 7106', '§ 7106', '§ 1', '§ 2471']

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA and LOCAL 2110, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Case No. 96 FSIP 001 | FLRA
You are hereHome DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA and LOCAL 2110, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Case No. 96 FSIP 001 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA and LOCAL 2110, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
LOCAL 2110, AMERICAN FEDERATION
Case No. 96 FSIP 1
Local 2110, American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO (Union) filed a request for assistance with
under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119,
between it and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Palo Alto Health Care
System, Palo Alto, California (Employer or Agency).
investigation of the request for assistance concerning a dispute over the
elimination of 12-hour work shifts and the establishment of 8-hour work shifts
for police officers, the Panel directed the parties to participate in an
informal conference by telephone with Panel Representative (Staff Attorney)
Gladys M. Hernandez for the purpose of resolving the outstanding issues. The
parties were advised that if no settlement were reached, Ms. Hernandez would
offers and her recommendations for resolving the issues. Following consideration
of this information, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate
to resolve the impasse, including the issuance of a binding decision.
Accordingly, Ms. Hernandez held a telephone conference with
the parties on February 26, 1996, but a settlement was not reached. She has
reported to the Panel based on the record developed by the parties. The Panel
BACKGROUND AND PRELIMINARY MATTER
The Employer operates three hospitals which provide inpatient
and outpatient health care services to veterans in Northern California. The
Union represents approximately 2,000 General Schedule, Wage Grade, and
nonappropriated-fund employees at the Menlo Park and Palo Alto facilities, which
have "multiple psychiatric wards, post traumatic stress disorder programs,
and alcohol and drug rehabilitation units."(1) These employees, who occupy a
variety of nonprofessional positions, are part of a nationwide bargaining unit
of approximately 99,000 employees. The parties will continue to be covered by a
national collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between AFGE and VA which expired
in December 1995, until a successor is implemented; successor negotiations are
The dispute affects the 14 police officers in the Employer’s
Police and Security Services Division (PSSD).(2) The PSSD, which operates around
the clock, is responsible for securing hospital buildings and grounds, and
Government and private property as well as protecting the safety of hospital
employees, patients, and visitors. Police officers have been working 12-hour
shifts -- 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. (Watch "A") and 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Watch
"B") -- since 1989; before then, they worked 8-hour shifts (11 p.m. to
7 a.m., 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.). Pursuant to VA regulations,
the Menlo Park hospital, a psychiatric facility, must have at least two officers
working each shift, and the Palo Alto hospital at least one.
Preliminarily, we address the Employer’s argument that the
Panel should relinquish jurisdiction over this case because it has no duty to
bargain over the Union’s proposal:
In general, in Commander, Carswell Air Force Base, Texas
and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1364, 31 FLRA 620
(1988)(Carswell) and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Yuma, Arizona and National Federation of
the Authority has established the obligations and limitations relating to the
Panel’s authority to resolve impasses which include duty-to-bargain issues.(3) In
this case, the Employer argues that the Union’s proposal is nonnegotiable
because it violates Governmentwide regulations, and infringes on management’s
rights to assign work, and determine its mission and internal security
practices. It has made these arguments at all stages in the Panel’s case
processing. The Union contends that the Employer’s arguments are without
merit. In this regard, there is longstanding Authority precedent finding that a
management decision to eliminate a shift and assign employees to another shift (i.e.,
changing employees’ tours of duty) concerns the number of employees assigned
to a tour of duty and, therefore, is a § 7106(b)(1) matter negotiable at the
Employer’s election.(4) Even assuming that the Union’s proposal also infringes
on a number of the Employer’s § 7106(a) rights, it nevertheless remains
negotiable at the Employer’s election in light of the Authority’s decision
in National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-184 and U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, 51 FLRA
No. 36 (October 31, 1995), Report No. 871. In that case, the Authority found
that where a proposal addresses matters that come within the purview of both
§ 7106(b)(1) and 7106(a), the former governs the negotiability of the
proposal.(5) While the Employer has not specifically elected to negotiate over the
Union’s proposal, it is nevertheless required to do so pursuant to Sec. 2.(d)
of the President’s Executive Order 12871, "Labor-Management
Partnerships," issued October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 52201-52203, Oct. 6,
1993).(6) Consistent with the guidance contained in Carswell and Bureau
of Reclamation, because there is Authority precedent establishing that
proposals substantively identical to the Union’s in this case concern (b)(1)
matters, we conclude that there is no merit to the Employer’s jurisdictional
argument. Accordingly, we will proceed to the merits of the dispute.
The parties disagree over (1) when the 12-hour shifts should be eliminated
(immediately or when PSSD is at full staffing) and (2) what the starting and
quitting times for each of the three 8-hour shifts should be.
Under the Union’s proposal, police officers would continue to work the
established 12-hour shifts until the PSSD is at full staffing, at which time
they would work one of the following 8-hour shifts: 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (Watch
"A"); 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. (Watch "B"); and 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.
(Watch "C"). Implementation of 8-hour shifts must wait until the PSSD
is fully staffed because they could not be covered "safely" at the
current staffing level. Specifically, the safety of officers would be
compromised because they would be working without "back-up." This
would be a violation of Article 24, § 1, of the CBA, which requires the
Employer to provide employees with "places and conditions of employment
which are free of recognized hazards that ... are likely to cause death or
serious physical harm to employee[s]." Contrary to the Employer’s
argument, 12-hour shifts provide "better coverage" (seven officers as
compared to four or five under 8-hour shifts) and require less use of overtime.
In fact, those were the reasons the Employer switched to 12-hour shifts from
8-hour shifts in 1989. Moreover, officers would not be more "alert"
under 8-hour shifts because they would still have to work 12- to 14-hour days to
meet staffing needs on each shift due to the staffing shortage. With regard to
the overtime comparison chart submitted by the Employer, it is a
"farce" because records of overtime use are kept for only 3 months.
This makes it impossible to get a reliable comparison of overtime use and costs
under the 8-hour shifts worked prior to 1989 and under the 12-hour shifts worked
since then. Also, the period of time used for comparison purposes is too short
to obtain reliable figures. The 6 a.m. starting time for Watch "B"
would facilitate the commute of employees scheduled for that shift by allowing
them to avoid a period of heavy traffic congestion.(7) The Employer’s proposed 8
a.m. start time for that shift, on the other hand, would pose an
"unnecessary hardship" and would be "inhumane." Finally,
adoption of the Employer’s proposal would lower morale because the Union’s
proposed starting and quitting times for the 8-hour shifts as well as 12-hour
shifts are preferred by an "overwhelming" majority of police officers.
The Employer proposes that police officers immediately begin working one of
the following three 8-hour shifts: 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. (Watch "A"); 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. (Watch "B"); and 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. (Watch
"C"). Under current staffing levels, "almost" five officers
would work every 8-hour shift as compared to the three and one-half that are
working each 12-hour shift. In addition to permitting "more coverage"
on each shift, 8-hour shifts would allow for more officers to work every 24
hours, which would be a greater deterrent to crime. Also, by working shorter
shifts, officers would be more alert towards the end of their shift and,
therefore, better able to protect themselves and other persons and property on
the Employer’s premises; this is supported by "authoritative
studies" which show that employees’ alertness and productivity decrease
after 8 hours of work. The proposed 8-hour shifts would reduce overtime use and
costs. In this regard, its overtime comparison chart shows that overtime use and
costs during a specific period covering eight pay periods would have been
reduced by more than half had employees been working its proposed 8-hour shifts,
rather than 12-hour shifts. Moreover, for internal security reasons, a change in
shift for police officers cannot coincide with a major shift change for medical
personnel. Because there is a major shift change for nurses at 7 a.m., an 8 a.m.
start time for officers on Watch "B" would "more effectively
create [the needed] off-set." Further, the dusk to dawn "high crime
period" would be "more effectively" covered by two 8-hour shifts
(two different groups of employees covering the period at different times) than
by one 12-hour shift (the same employees covering the entire period). Finally,
implementation of 8-hour shifts would allow for establishment of upward mobility
positions, which would benefit employees.
The Union’s proposal would be "disruptive" because a change in
shift at 2 p.m. falls within (1) the "peak period of visitor hours and
vendor appointments" (1 to 3 p.m.) and (2) the period of time (early
afternoon) when the highest number of security calls are received from the
emergency rooms and the psychiatric wards. It also would require a greater
expenditure of funds for overtime for a number of reasons. First, the Union’s
proposed 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. 12-hour shift and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 8-hour shift
"build in" overtime for employees who work Sundays. Because they
"cross over" to a new pay period every 2 weeks, employees work less
than 80 hours one pay period and more than 80 the next. Second, coverage of a
shift on overtime under 12-hour shifts requires payment of 12 rather than 8
hours of overtime. Third, the last 4 hours of employees’ 8-hour days under
12-hour shifts must be on overtime. The "cross over" every two pay
periods also "creat[es] fiscal and accounting problems for the Agency as
well as employees."
After carefully examining the evidence and arguments presented by the
parties, we are persuaded that the Employer’s proposal provides the better
basis for resolving this dispute. At the outset, we note that the Union’s
contention that 12-hour shifts would provide better coverage than 8-hour shifts
appears to be inaccurate. In this regard, while seven officers (under current
staffing levels) are assigned to work each of two 12-hour shifts, not more than
three or four are scheduled to work on any given day because they work only 7
out of 10 days in a biweekly pay period. In our view, the Employer’s proposed
8-hour work shifts should allow for more effective round-the-clock coverage of
the hospitals without compromising officers’ safety, while reducing overtime
costs. These benefits to the Employer, as well as to hospital patients and
visitors, outweigh the inconvenience some officers may experience in longer
commuting times. Accordingly, we shall order its adoption.
Federal Service Impasses Panel under § 2471.11(a) of its regulations
1.Employees at the third facility located in Livermore are represented by another union.
2.There is no dispute that the PSSD is not at its full staffing level (21 officers). The Employer is in the process of hiring 5 additional officers, which would bring PSSD staffing up to 19 officers in the very near future. New hires will receive training for 1 month, followed by on-the-job training.
3.Carswell allows the Panel to resolve duty-to-bargain issues raised in impasse proceedings where there is existing Authority precedent to apply; Bureau of Reclamation allows such resolution even where an employer’s negotiability arguments are different from those previously addressed by the Authority.
4.See U.S. Department of the Army, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1770, 41 FLRA 56, 60 (1991); National Association of Government Employees, Local R12-33 and U.S. Department of the Navy, Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu,
California, 40 FLRA 479, 484-85 (1991); and Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base and National Association of Government Employees, Local
R7-23, 33 FLRA 532, 542-43 (1988) aff’d on other grounds sub nom. National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 v.
FLRA, 893 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
5.See also Association of Civilian Technicians, Montana Air Chapter No. 29 v.
FLRA, 22 F.3d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
6.That provision of the Executive Order requires heads of Federal agencies to “negotiate over the subjects set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(1), and instruct subordinate officials to do the same[.]” The Employer has not challenged its duty to bargain over (b)(1) matters under the Executive Order. On the contrary, in its unsolicited brief, it states: “As to 7106(b)(1) issues, [the Executive Order] appears to change the discretionary aspect of negotiations ... to a mandatory obligation to negotiate.”
7.By way of explanation, the Union notes that 7 of the 14 officers do not live in the Menlo Park/Palo Alto area because the cost of housing is very high. Rather, most of them live anywhere from 25 to 135 miles away across San Francisco Bay, which requires them to cross any one of three bridges to get to work. Traffic congestion on those bridges is at its peak between 7:30 and 9 a.m.