[ v10 p15 ]
10:0015(4)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
10 FLRA No. 4 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION MID-AMERICA PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1336 Charging Party Case No. 7-CA-502 DECISION AND ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2429.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE PARTIES' STIPULATION OF FACTS, ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS AND BRIEFS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION MID-AMERICA PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI (THE ACTIVITY) AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL, /1/ THE AUTHORITY FINDS: THE COMPLAINT, ISSUED ON MAY 13, 1981, ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) /2/ BY FAILING AND REFUSING TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL CONCERNING THE CHARGING PARTY'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE FROM FIXED SHIFTS TO ROTATING SHIFTS IN THE ACTIVITY'S FACILITY COMPUTER ROOM. WHILE THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE HEREIN " . . . IS WHETHER THE CHARGING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO INITIATE BARGAINING ON A NEGOTIABLE MATTER, WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROPOSED ANY CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF THE CHARGING PARTY'S PROPOSAL," THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED ON THE NARROW GROUND SET FORTH BELOW. ON AUGUST 30, 1979, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (AFGE), WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR A CONSOLIDATED NATIONWIDE UNIT IN CASE NO. 22-09146(UC), CONSISTING OF 211 PREVIOUSLY SEPARATE UNITS WITHIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING THE BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1336 (CHARGING PARTY) AT THE RESPONDENT ACTIVITY. /3/ PRIOR TO SUCH CONSOLIDATION, THE ACTIVITY AND THE CHARGING PARTY WERE SIGNATORIES TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 8, 1978, WHICH COVERED THE SEPARATE UNIT AT THE ACTIVITY. AFTER THE CONSOLIDATION, ON NOVEMBER 15, 1979, THE CHARGING PARTY REQUESTED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RESPONDENT CONCERNING A UNION PROPOSAL TO CHANGE TWO FIXED SHIFTS IN THE COMPUTER ROOM TO ROTATING SHIFTS. ON NOVEMBER 19, 1979, THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE. THIS MATTER WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ON AUGUST 10, 1981. ON JUNE 25, 1981, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED ITS DECISION IN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 6 FLRA NO. 33(1981). THE RESPONDENT, IN ITS BRIEF, FILED SEPTEMBER 9, 1981, CITES THIS DECISION, WHICH STATES, IN PART, THAT " . . . ONCE A LABOR ORGANIZATION IS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR A CONSOLIDATED UNIT, . . . A NEW BARGAINING OBLIGATION IS CREATED IN LIEU OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS WHICH PREVIOUSLY EXISTED REGARDING SMALLER UNITS NOW INCLUDED IN THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT." /4/ THUS, IN ITS BRIEF, THE RESPONDENT RAISES THE ADDITIONAL DEFENSE THAT IT WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH THE CHARGING PARTY CONCERNING THE CHARGING PARTY'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE FIXED SHIFTS IN THE COMPUTER ROOM TO ROTATING SHIFTS BECAUSE, AS A RESULT OF THE CONSOLIDATION, THE LEVEL OF RECOGNITION EXISTS AT THE NATIONAL RATHER THAN THE LOCAL LEVEL, AND THERE REMAINED NO OBLIGATION UPON LOCAL MANAGEMENT TO NEGOTIATE UNION PROPOSALS FOR NEW CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, THE AUTHORITY AGREES AND THEREFORE SHALL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 7-CA-502 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 2, 1982 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ THE CHARGING PARTY'S UNTIMELY FILED BRIEF WAS NOT CONSIDERED. /2/ SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) PROVIDES: SEC. 7116. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY-- (1) TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS CHAPTER; . . . . (5) TO REFUSE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER(.) /3/ IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2429.5 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT "(T)HE AUTHORITY MAY . . . TAKE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH MATTERS AS WOULD BE PROPER," THE AUTHORITY TAKES OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THIS CONSOLIDATED NATIONWIDE UNIT. /4/ THE AUTHORITY FURTHER NOTED THAT NOTHING WOULD PREVENT THE PARTIES AT THE LEVEL OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION FROM AGREEING TO AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS AT A SUB-LEVEL. ID. AT N. 2.