Source: https://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/01fs_177.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-24 12:14:39
Document Index: 693341593

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7119', '§ 6131', '§ 7119', '§ 2471', '§ 2471', '§ 6120', '§ 6131']

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF PRISONS FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES, LOCAL 4048, AFL-CIO Case No. 01 FSIP 177 | FLRA
You are hereHome DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF PRISONS FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES, LOCAL 4048, AFL-CIO Case No. 01 FSIP 177 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF PRISONS FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES, LOCAL 4048, AFL-CIO
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL In the Matter of
LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES, LOCAL 4048, AFL-CIO Case No. 01 FSIP 177
The American Federation of Government Employees, Local
4048, AFL-CIO (Union), filed a request for assistance with
the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a
negotiation impasse under the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between
it and the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Lompoc, California
(Employer or FCI).
Following an investigation of the request for
assistance, which concerns compressed work schedules (CWS)
for three departments at the FCI, the Panel determined that
the dispute should be resolved through written submissions
from the parties. Thereafter, the Panel would take whatever
action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse, which
could include the issuance of a Decision and Order. Written
submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the
Panel has now considered the entire record.(1) BACKGROUND The Employer operates a 1,000-inmate, low-security
prison facility that is collocated with a Federal
Penitentiary and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). It is
responsible for programs that include an Immigration Hearing
Center and Release Site, an Intensive Confinement Center or
Boot Camp for first-time offenders, and a Spanish-English
Drug Abuse Program. The Union represents 163 bargaining-unit
employees at grades GS-5 through -11, who work in a variety
of positions including correctional officer, counselor, case
manager, mechanical service worker, teacher, physician
assistant, legal instrument examiner, and medical record,
accounting, and legal technician.(2) The parties are covered
by a master collective bargaining agreement that expired on
March 8, 2001; its provisions will continue to apply until
its successor is implemented.
The parties disagree over whether to implement a 6-month
pilot of 4-10 CWSs in the Inmate Systems Management and Unit
Management Departments, and a 5-4/9 CWS in the Mechanical
Services/Facilities Department.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 1. The Union's Position
Under the Union's proposal, 6-month CWS pilots would be
implemented in the following three Departments: (1) Inmate
Systems Management - a 4-10 CWS for 6 of the 8 employees
with a starting time of 6:30 a.m., and off days on Mondays,
Tuesdays, and Fridays; no employees would take off either a
Wednesday or a Thursday; and 2 employees would continue to
work a 5-8 schedule; (2) Unit Management - a 4-10 CWS for 8
employees with starting times of 6:30, 7:30, and 10:30 a.m.,
and 3 consecutive off days; because these employees work a
Saturday or a Sunday, the proposed off days adjoin a weekend
day; (3) Mechanical Services or Facilities (Inside and
Outside) - a 5-4/9 CWS for 12 employees who, on 9-hour days,
would work from 6:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., and take a Friday or a
Monday off; 4 employees would remain on a 5-8 schedule.(3) In
emergencies, during training periods, and when an apparent
staffing shortage is occurring, the schedules are to be
By testing these schedules, the parties will be able to
"determine if the schedules [are having] an adverse impact
to the Agency or if changes need to be made to the schedules
which will allow them to meet the Agency's mission."(4) Two
other FCIs, one in California and one in Arizona, permit
employees who perform similar functions to work CWS.
Overall, the schedules will assist the institution with
maintaining security, and reduce "peak" hour overtime and
sick leave use. On security, the longer hours ensure that
staff is present for a greater proportion of the day. These
longer days would save money by reducing the need to hold
over or recall employees to perform duties on overtime. With
respect to sick leave, employees will be able to schedule
doctors' appointments on their off days. Furthermore,
employees may decide to use an off day to volunteer in the
community, which, in turn, would improve local attitudes
toward the prison facility. Finally, and most importantly,
the schedule "will allow the staff members to spend time
with their families."
More specifically, in Inmate Systems Management, the
proposed 4-10 CWS schedule accommodates inmate movement
days,(5) Wednesdays and Thursdays, by ensuring that CWS
participants do not take those days off. The longer days
also will facilitate processing "late arriving inmates,"
thereby saving overtime costs. The schedule permits an
afternoon open house to take care of inmates' concerns and
"issuing out" inmates' property. Such improved service to
inmates will help "decrease tensions at the facility."
For Unit Management, under the proposed 4-10 schedule,
the extra hours will allow employees to take care of
paperwork on inmates' halfway house placements and
transfers, and to prepare for team meetings. As to team
meetings, known as "teaming," where a three-person Unit
Management team addresses an individual inmate's situation,
they will continue to be held throughout the day and during
evening hours. With only one or two fewer employees
available under CWS than under the current schedule
(supervisors, the third member of these teams, would
continue to participate in evening teaming though they are
not shown on Union's proposed schedule), it is expected that
the 25-percent standard for evening teaming will be exceeded
under the new schedule. Impromptu, open door availability to
inmates the will also continue and such service is also
predicted to improve because of the extended hours.
As to the 5-4/9 CWS for Mechanical Services, the current
practice of covering another employees' crew when that
employee is away on sick or annual leave will work as well
to cover a co-worker's off day. By starting the work day at
6:30 a.m., employees would have time to review their crew
kit (information on 15 inmates for whom the employee is
responsible) and discuss supervisors' suggestions and goals
for the day. Currently, lack of such time means employees
conduct only a cursory review of their crew kits and speak
to their supervisors only briefly. When coupled with some
inmates' early arrivals and keeping inmates on the job
longer, employees will spend their 9-hour days productively.
2. The Employer's Position
The Employer proposes that the status quo, 5-day-a-week,
8-hour-per-day schedules, be maintained. The Employer is not
arguing that the three schedules the Union proposes would
cause an adverse agency impact under the Act, and it
recently agreed to a CWS for Health Service employees.
Retaining a 5-8 schedule, however, is the best way to secure
this "unique" facility where the staff is responsible for
operating a number of complex programs and handling an
inmate population that turns over an estimated three or more
times a year. These numerous programs distinguish the Lompoc
FCI from almost all other FCIs, including the two the Union
cites. At those two facilities where similar functions are
performed and CWSs are in place, employees work with female
inmates and are responsible for many fewer programs.
With respect to emergencies, even though the FCI is a
low security facility, all employees are called upon to
provide "reinforcements" to fill posts at the U.S.
Penitentiary when it is in a "lock-down" mode. The same is
true when there is a major fire threatening VAFB and
outlying missile sites, and during frequently-recurring fog
patrol periods. In such emergencies, unlike the proposed
CWSs, the regular 5-8 schedule ensures that staffing levels
are adequate. The proposed CWSs will also reduce staff
during "the staffing-intensive portions of the day," and
extend work hours to periods when inmates are unavailable;
such efforts are not warranted when they merely provide
"personal comfort for a few." Furthermore, staff will be
stretched more thinly in 6 months when 300 more inmates are
added to the population; only 10 employees are to be hired
to cover the increase.
In particular, in the Inmate Systems Management
Department, the one employee "working early hours . . . has
proven sufficient to cover the work load"; under the CWS,
too many employees would be present then. Regarding legal
instrument examiners, of the two that work at the Lompoc
FCI, under the CWS only one would be working on a Monday or
a Friday. Overtime would have to be assigned often on
Mondays and Fridays when the sole legal instrument examiner
is on leave so that their "highly specialized" and "crucial"
functions are performed. Their absences will raise overtime
costs. Similarly, in Unit Management, night and weekend
coverage, a "crucial factor in managing and communicating
with inmates," would be too limited, particularly during the
weekend when only one member of the Unit Team will be
available. The schedule would likely "preclude . . .
maintaining compliance with the policy requirement of
'teaming' . . . 25 [percent] of the inmate population during
the evening hours." If a 5-4/9 schedule is instituted in
Facilities Management, productivity will decrease because
employees will be present for 45 minutes in the morning and
15 minutes in the afternoon without any inmates to
supervise. Furthermore, increasing reliance on the doubling
of inmate work crews on a more regular basis is
"ill-advised" since staff supervision would be diminished.
In the past, crews have been taken off of jobs when their
employee supervisor is unable to observe them at least once
every 2 hours. The inmate scheduling changes the Union
suggests are not workable since such changes "would require
a shifting of staff in other departments."
Finally, employees in the three departments, who are
exposed to personal risk, receive benefits that
"substantially exceed those of regular civil service
employees": retirement after 20 years and a law enforcement
rate of pay. When "the presence or absence of five employees
on any given day could make the difference in holding or
losing control of this institution," it is not fitting to
adopt schedules that "for the most part, have been designed
for the convenience of the staff involved with minimal
thought given to the ramifications to security or
Having carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments
presented in this case, we conclude that the parties'
dispute should be resolved by adopting the Union's proposal,
as modified herein, establishing pilot CWSs in the Inmate
Systems Management, Unit Management, and Mechanical Services
Departments at the Lompoc FCI. The modification adds a
procedure for the parties' joint monitoring and evaluation
of the schedules. In reaching this resolution, we are
persuaded that the 6-month pilot is a reasonable approach
for testing the workability of the CWSs in the several
departments identified. In this regard, the schedules the
Union proposes contain certain controls to ensure the
institution's security, and to preserve established patterns
of inmate movement and teaming meetings. For example, one or
more of the schedules may be suspended when staffing levels
would otherwise be too low due to annual or sick leave use,
training, and outright emergencies that tap staff to
reinforce other urgent needs within the complex. In
addition, the schedule in Inmate Systems Management does not
permit off days on Wednesdays and Thursdays to maximize the
presence of employees when most inmate movement occurs. In
Unit Management, a review of the proposed schedule provides
some support for the Union's position that sufficient staff
members are present so that evening teaming can proceed at
or above the recommended 25-percent level; nor do Saturday
and Sunday staffing levels appear to be as low as the
Employer suggests. In Mechanical Services, the system of
doubling up, which the Employer apparently still condones
despite the problems it alleges, could be used to cover
employees' crews on an employee's off day.
While it is unclear at this point whether the advantages
the Union sets forth in favor of its proposed CWSs will be
realized, the Employer's arguments against implementing any
CWS whatsoever in these departments, in our view, consists
mainly of speculation regarding their potential ill-effects.
In circumstances such as these, where the record developed
by the parties contains no data on the actual effects that
CWSs have had on such factors as productivity, customer
service, or overtime costs, insufficient basis has been
provided for denying an experiment which would test the
Employer's predictions of dire consequences. We believe such
an outcome is consistent with the intent of the Congress in
enacting the Act, wherein it found that "the use of flexible
and compressed work schedules has the potential to improve
productivity in the Federal Government and provide greater
service to the public."(6)
Should any aspects of the CWSs prove unworkable, the
additional procedures which shall be adopted to evaluate
them are designed to facilitate collaborative efforts
between the parties to correct such problems. Further, under
§ 6131(c)(3)(A) of the Act the Employer need not await the
conclusion of the 6-month pilot period to attempt to
terminate the schedules. If intermediate steps fail to
resolve difficulties, the Employer is free to seek relief
under the conditions specified in the Act at any time after
the schedules have been implemented, should it conclude that
one or more of them is causing an adverse agency impact.
Upon making such findings, supported by evidence that the
schedule has caused adverse agency impact, the Act permits
an employer to attempt to terminate the schedule
notwithstanding the terms of any collective bargaining
agreement (or Panel-imposed resolution). The Panel "shall
rule on such impasse not later than 60 days after the date
the Panel is presented the impasse."(7) ORDER Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and
because of the failure of the parties to resolve their
dispute during the 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) of its
regulations hereby orders the adoption of the following:
1. The Union's proposal for a 6-month pilot of 4-10
compressed work schedules in Inmate Systems Management and
Unit Management, and a 5-4/9 in Mechanical Services (Inside
and Outside). In emergencies, during training periods, and
when an apparent staffing shortage is occurring, the
schedules will be suspended.
2. Procedures for Evaluating a Compressed Work Schedule: a. Prior to the implementation of a schedule, the Union
and management will meet to discuss in detail what will
be monitored with respect to the implementation of the
schedule. b. The schedule will be implemented and after the 6th month,
both parties will meet for the purpose of discussing the
effectiveness of the schedule.
c. All data to be used in monitoring the effects of the
compressed work schedule will be provided to the Union prior
to implementation (baseline data).
d. A Union representative will be given an active role in
the Employer's collection and evaluation of data used to
monitor the effects of the implemented schedule.
e. The Union and the Employer agree to meet regularly and/or
when necessary for the purpose of addressing the possible
development of any adverse affect with respect to the
implementation of the schedule.
f. The intent of these meetings is to implement corrective
action, short of revocation of the schedule, to deal with
possible adverse affects.
g. During the meeting after the schedule has been in effect
for 6 months, the Employer will provide the Union with a
copy of all information that will be provided to the FBOP
Office of General Counsel for the purpose of determining an
adverse affect, if applicable.
Washington, D.C. 1.In accordance with the Panel's procedural determination
letter, the parties' written submissions and rebuttal
statements were due on September 14 and 28, 2001,
respectively. While the Union's statements were filed on
time, the Employer failed to respond within the specified
time limit. Following telephone inquiries by Panel staff and
the Executive Director, a written statement was received
from the Employer on October 11, 2001, 13 days after the
final due date, with the explanation that, during this
period, the statement was under review by the warden. The
Union agreed to permit the Employer to submit its response
late and was given an opportunity during a conference call
held on Friday, October 12, 2001, between the parties and
the Panel's Staff to rebut the Employer's post-deadline
submission. 2.Another AFGE local represents employees at the Federal
Penitentiary. 3.Inmate Systems employees receive and discharge prisoners
and calculate the time inmates must serve. Employees in Unit
Management work directly with inmates to schedule work,
visitors, handle inmate problems, etc. Currently, their
starting times are staggered to increase the time period
when they are able to meet with inmates; the standard set by
the Employer is to hold team meetings with 25 percent of
inmates during evening hours. Mechanical Services employees
supervise inmates who perform repair and other maintenance
work at the FCI.
4.Under section 6131(c)(2) of the Federal Employees Flexible
and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982 (the Act), an
employer may allege that the implementation of a CWS would
cause an adverse agency impact. In such a case, an employer
has a burden of proof to establish an adverse agency impact
under the criteria of the Act. Those criteria do not play a
role in a weighing of the evidence in this case since it
arises under the Statute rather than the Act. Under Section
6131 (b) of the Act, adverse agency impact means: (1) a
reduction of the productivity of the agency;
diminished level of services furnished to the public by the
agency; or (3) an increase in the cost of agency operations
(other than a reasonable administrative cost relating to the
process of establishing a flexible or compressed schedule).
5.The term "movement" refers to times and activities
associated with inmates arrivals and departures at the FCI.
6.5 U.S.C. § 6120.
7.5 U.S.C. § 6131(c)(3)(C).