[ v15 p918 ]
15:0918(173)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 173
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE
Respondent
and
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE COUNCIL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Charging Party
Case No. 3-CA-1839
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
Director's "Order Transferring Case to the 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
stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits, and the parties'
contentions, the Authority finds:
The Respondent, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), is
responsible, inter alia, for ensuring that passengers entering the
United States at airports are in compliance with certain immigration
laws. The function is performed by the Respondent's officers through
inspection of passengers and their documents at points of entry at the
airports. Similar inspections are conducted at the airports and other
entry locations, regarding baggage, packages and cargo, by the Customs
Service and the Department of Agriculture.
Regarding past practices under which passengers would be subject to
separate inspection procedures by officers of all three agencies, it was
decided that it might be feasible to train individual officers in all of
the inspection requirements and procedures so that one officer could
perform the necessary inspection functions for all three agencies. The
objective, aside from ensuring that the necessary inspections were
performed, was to expedite the entry process.
In 1978, the Respondent conducted certain experiments with these
procedures at Dulles International Airport, Washington, D.C. and certain
other airports. The National Immigration and Naturalization Service
Council, American Federation of Government Employees (the Union), was
notified. The Union is constituted as a Council of local affiliates
representing the Respondent's employees at various locations throughout
the United States and it has represented these employees in a nationwide
unit of exclusive recognition since 1968. At the Union's request, the
parties engaged in consultations and discussions regarding these
experimental changes in practice and the likely effects on employees,
but there was no bargaining.
Based on the experiments, which continued, and following discussions
by the Respondent with the Customs Service and the Department of
Agriculture, it was decided in 1978 that the new inspection procedures,
called "one stop," should be implemented at all airports. Shortly
thereafter, the Union was advised of this decision and of the need for
training INS officers. An agreement was completed by INS, Customs, and
Agriculture for the implementation of "one stop," and the Respondent
provided a copy to the Union. The changes were discussed by INS and the
Union at a regularly scheduled national consultation meeting. Following
this meeting, the matter was discussed by the Union President and the
Commissioner of INS. The Union was offered the opportunity to meet with
the Respondent's labor relations personnel at the national level to
discuss its concern regarding the implementation of the new procedures.
During these discussions, the Union expressed its views regarding the
rights of passengers entering the country and the need to ensure that
the appropriate inspections were performed. It disagreed with the
decision to implement the new procedures and it expressed concerns about
the impact on the Respondent's employees. However, it did not meet with
the Respondent's labor relations personnel and the record does not
indicate that it presented proposals to the Respondent which addressed
these latter concerns.
The implementation of the new procedures nationally occurred in
stages. /1/ When implementation was scheduled for airports in Atlanta,
Georgia and Houston, Texas as of September 20, 1980, the Union was
notified. In July 1980, the Union demanded negotiations, at the
national level, on the impact of the new procedures at Atlanta and
Houston. The Respondent responded that such negotiations were more
appropriate at the local level and that such negotiations should be
undertaken with management officials at the District Office level who
were responsible for operations at Atlanta and Houston. The Respondent
argued that the parties had procedures in their national agreement under
which matters implemented by local management officials should be
negotiated by the parties at the local level, /2/ and it assured the
Union that its District officials would be responsive. The Union
asserted that, because the level of exclusive recognition was at the
national level, it had the right to require bargaining over the
implementation at Atlanta and Houston at the national level. The
parties adhered to their respective positions at all times thereafter.
Consequently, the implementation at Atlanta and Houston was completed
without negotiations at either the local level or the national level.
The complaint alleges that the respondent violated section 7116(a)(1)
and (5) by failing and refusing to negotiate at the national level.
Based on the stipulated record, the Authority finds that the Union
was provided with advance notice of the experiments concerning the new
procedures and the decision to implement the new procedures nationally.
It was presented with opportunities to negotiate the impact and
implementation of the new procedures at the national level in 1978 and
thereafter, well before such procedures were implemented at Atlanta and
Houston in 1980. The record fails to show that the Union made any
effort to utilize these opportunities at the national level.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Authority concludes that the
Respondent's refusal to negotiate at the national level in July 1980 and
its suggestion that the negotiations concerning local implementation at
Atlanta and Houston of the 1978 decision to invoke the "one stop"
procedure nationally should take place at the District office level,
cannot be found to constitute a refusal to bargain in violation of
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. Therefore, the complaint
shall be dismissed. See General Services Administration, 15 FLRA No. 6
(1984), and cases cited therein. See also Internal Revenue Service
(District, Region, National Office Unit), 14 FLRA No. 92 (1984).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 3-CA-1839 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 31, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ For example, the "one stop" procedures were implemented in
October 1978 at JFK Airport in New York, and at Miami, Los Angeles,
Seattle-Tacoma and Honolulu; at Boston's Logan Airport in November
1978; and at other airports according to a subsequently announced
schedule.
/2/ Article 3, Section G of the applicable 1979 contract provides:
G. The parties recognize that from time to time during the
life of the agreement, the need will arise for management to
change existing Service regulations covering personnel policies,
practices, and/or working conditions not covered by this
agreement. The Service shall present the changes it wishes to
make to existing rules, regulations, and existing practices to the
Union in writing. The Service recognizes that this obligation
exists at the national, Regional and District level when such
changes are made. The Union will present its views (which must be
responsive to either the proposed change or the impact of the
proposed change) within a set time after receiving notice from
management of the proposed change. The time will be:
22 Work Days at National Level
10 Work Days at Regional Level
10 Work Days at District Level(.)