United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

    The American Federation of Government Employees, 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 (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland (Employer or SSA).

    After investigating the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the dispute, which arises from bargaining over service observation (telephone monitoring) of employees, should be resolved through an informal conference between a Panel representative and the parties. If no settlement was reached, the representative would notify the Panel of the status of the dispute, including the parties’ final offers and her recommendations for resolving the matter. After considering this information, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse, including the issuance of a binding decision.

    Accordingly, Panel Chair Bonnie Prouty Castrey conducted an informal conference with the parties on January 27, 2000, in the Panel’s offices in Washington, D.C.⁽¹⁾ While the parties were able to narrow the issues, they were not successful in reaching a complete resolution. The parties have submitted their final offers on the remaining issues. Ms. Castrey has reported to the Panel and it has now considered the entire record, including the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence.

    Pursuant to Federal regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 422.705, et seq., the Commissioner of SSA has the authority to approve public service monitoring of telephone calls at SSA facilities. The dispute herein arose when the Employer proposed implementing service observation throughout its 1,300 field offices. Similar practices have been in effect for several years at the Employer’s Teleservice Centers where the telephone technology allows monitors to know, with certainty, that calls on particular telephone lines are claims related and not personal. The same technology, however, does not exist, as yet, in the field offices, making it possible for managers to inadvertently select a call for monitoring that is not work-related.

    The following issues remain unresolved with respect to the procedures for implementing service observation in field offices: (1) for Tier I observation, whether employees should be given specific or general notice that their calls are to be monitored; (2) procedures for randomly selecting employees for Tier II observation; (3) with respect to unannounced service observation relating to an employee conduct problem, the definition of a "conduct problem;" whether the employee should be given an opportunity to respond to an allegation of a conduct problem; and whether documents relating to the conduct problem should be removed from files if the supervisor ultimately determines that an unannounced service observation is not warranted; (4) the number of calls per month which may be monitored; (5) whether the list of telephone extensions to be monitored and those to be excluded from monitoring should be certified by the vendor, with the parties to bargain locally over any changes to the certification; and (6) whether implementation of telephone monitoring should take place piecemeal throughout the 1,300 field offices, and the extent of local and national-level bargaining over the duration of service observation.

    a. The Union’s Position

    b. The Employer’s Position

    The Employer proposes that "management [] notify the employee in the week prior to conducting service observations." Notice during the preceding week should help stem employees’ anxiety over when calls are to be monitored since they would know, generally, when their calls are to be observed. The Union’s proposal, on the other hand, would tend to defeat the Employer’s objective of obtaining "quality information" on how employees handle calls. In this regard, if employees know that their calls are being monitored they are likely to be "guarded" in their conversations with members of the public thereby hindering the Employer in making assessments for training purposes on employee skills.

CONCLUSIONS

    Having considered the parties’ evidence and arguments on this issue, we conclude that the dispute should be resolved on the basis of a compromise solution. While sympathetic to the Union’s concern that telephone monitoring may cause stressful situations for employees, we find that in order for the Employer to fulfill the parties’ agreed upon objective of conducting Tier I service observations, which is to "provide feedback (to employees) for training needs," the best assessment of an employee’s performance on incoming calls from the public can be made when employees are less "guarded" about these conversations. Therefore, we do not favor the Union’s proposal for "up front" notice to an employee that a call is to be monitored. As we read the Employer’s proposal, however, employees could be required to wait up to 10 workdays to actually be monitored after notification. This appears to be an unnecessarily long period of time to place employees under the stress of service observation. Accordingly, we shall order wording that employees be provided with 3 workdays notice prior to receiving service observation. Although this compromise effectively informs employees of the day on which monitoring will occur, in our view, the employee’s uncertainty as to which calls will be monitored during that day is sufficient to meet the objectives of Tier I observation without causing undue stress. Morever, because Tier I observation is for training purposes, and not part of a formal employee evaluation process, we believe that a 3-workday notice period should also permit employees to be better prepared when the actual monitoring occurs.

    a. The Union’s Position

    The Union proposes the following:

The Excel program will be completed by the last week of the month before it is used in an office. The program for all offices will be done at the Regional Office level. Copies will be sent to management and Union designee. A copy of the office roster and number assigned to each employee will also be supplied to the Union. The Excel program will utilize the number of employees in a specific office and assign the time that they will be monitored. A 3-hour window of either morning or afternoon could be used.

The Union should be provided with notice as to which employees have been monitored so that it can evaluate whether the selection of employees who have been subject to service observation is fair, equitable, and truly random. The Union has a keen interest in preventing situations where employees may be targeted continually for service observation and, therefore, to further this objective, it should be allowed to have access to information on which employees have been monitored. Moreover, the proposed procedures would establish a uniform practice to be followed in all field offices, thereby helping to ensure consistency and continuity.

    b. The Employer’s Position

    The Panel should direct the Union to withdraw its proposal because it has not demonstrated a need to be involved in the selection process. In this regard, the Excel computer program, which the parties have agreed to use to randomly identify employees who are to be monitored, eliminates any negative human motivations for selecting particular employees. Moreover, information concerning the identities of individuals who are to be monitored should not be disseminated because it opens the possibility that employees could learn when their telephone calls are to be monitored; such notice to employees could jeopardize the integrity of the information obtained during the service observation.

CONCLUSIONS

    a. The Union’s Position

    According to the Union’s proposal, a "conduct problem" would be defined as "rude telephone behavior, hang-ups without cause, making personal calls while callers are on hold, etc." Employees would be given 10 workdays in which to respond to allegations of a conduct problem. If the supervisor determines that unannounced service observations are not warranted, documents related thereto would be removed from any files.

    Defining the term "conduct problem" would establish the parameters that give rise to unannounced service observations. Including the word "etc." in the definition indicates that the situations described are illustrative of a conduct problem rather than an all-inclusive listing. Employees should be given an opportunity to respond to an allegation of a conduct problem because doing so is a routine part of due process; moreover, employees should have a right to respond, since the allegation could lead to disciplinary action. There also is the potential that an employee’s response may produce information which causes a supervisor to change his/her mind about the need for unannounced service observations. Finally, in the interest of fairness, if a supervisor determines an unannounced service observation is unnecessary, all documents concerning the purported conduct problem should be purged.

    b. The Employer’s Position

    In essence, the Panel should direct the Union to withdraw its proposal because defining which "conduct problems" give rise to unannounced service observations may impede management’s ability to correct a problem that does not fall within the definition. Thus, the Union’s proposal may excessively interfere with management’s right under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A) to take disciplinary actions against employees. There is no need to provide employees with a right to respond to counseling, since employees already have procedural safeguards under the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure.

    a. The Union’s Position

    The Union proposes that each employee be subject to service observation on three to five calls per month. In its view, a minimum number of three observations per employee per month is reasonable because the Employer’s assessment of how an employee handles calls should be made on the basis of observing several calls rather than merely one. Furthermore, equitable treatment of both trainees and more senior employees would be assured because trainees could not be singled out, perhaps unfairly, for an increased number of service observations.

    b. The Employer’s Position

    The Employer proposes that "(e)xperienced employees (employees having at least 1 year in their current position) will be subject to service observation of 1 to 5 calls per month per employee. . . . Unlimited service observation can be conducted on trainees (employees with less than 1 year in their current position)." The proposal provides for a reasonable number of service observations, under both Tier I and Tier II. It also would allow for more opportunities to observe trainees who are likely to require greater scrutiny than experienced employees. Furthermore, there should be greater flexibility with respect to experienced employees because management may have other, more pressing, priorities than conducting monitoring.

    Upon careful consideration of the record presented by the parties on this issue, we conclude that it should be resolved on the basis of the Employer’s proposal. Potentially, there are many factors for management to weigh when it determines the number of service calls that are to be monitored in a particular month. Because circumstances may change, we believe the Employer should have maximum flexibility to determine that number. In this regard, the Employer’s proposal allows for a broader range of service observations each month than the Union’s. As to trainees, in agreement with the Employer’s position, such employees are likely to require greater oversight during their first year and, therefore, management should not be restricted on the number of calls it monitors each month with respect to them. Accordingly, we shall order the parties to adopt the Employer’s proposal.

5. Certification Of Telephone Extensions

    a. The Union’s Position

    Essentially, the Union proposes that the Employer should require the vendor to certify which telephone extensions may be monitored and those not subject to monitoring. Changes in certifications would be negotiated by the parties at the local level. A vendor’s certification would give employees a measure of confidence that certain telephone extensions are not to be monitored and, therefore, are appropriate for personal calls.

    b. The Employer’s Position

    The Panel should order the Union to withdraw its proposal because there is no need for a vendor to certify telephone extensions. In this connection, the Employer already has agreed to identify which telephone lines will be subject to monitoring, as well as those which are excluded from monitoring; furthermore, the Union is to be provided with a listing. Certification by a vendor serves no useful purpose. Moreover, the Union cannot dictate work that is to be performed by non-employee vendors.

    a. The Union’s Position

    In essence, the Employer would implement service observation in 100 field offices per month until all field offices have telephone monitoring. The parties would negotiate locally over how long service observation would remain in effect in a particular office, with a typical duration to range from 6 to 9 months. Any continuation of service observation beyond the period negotiated locally would be bargained by the parties at the national level pursuant to Article 4 ("Negotiations During the Term of the Agreement on Management-Initiated Changes") of the parties’ MCBA. The Employer would review data obtained from service observations to determine whether it wishes the initiative to continue. This data, as well as any rationale for continuing service observation, would be shared with the Union.

    There is no need to permanently implement service observation because after being utilized for several months, the Employer may conclude that there is no further need for it. Since situations vary in field offices, the parties at the local levels should have control over the duration of implementation, and the Union’s proposal would further that objective. The Employer has not articulated a need for simultaneous implementation of service observation in all field offices; therefore, a piecemeal approach to implementation is a reasonable alternative. Finally, the proposal operates, essentially, as a reopener provision which would allow the parties at the national level the opportunity to revisit the matter after having experienced nationwide implementation.

    b. The Employer’s Position

    The Union should be required to withdraw its proposal because determinations over when service observation is to be implemented in field offices, and the duration of the implementation, should be at the Employer’s discretion.

CONCLUSIONS

    Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on this issue, we shall order the Union to withdraw its proposal. In our view, the proposal could lead to an undesirable situation where parties at the local level are involved in perpetual negotiations, and potential impasses, over the duration of service observation in various field offices.⁽³⁾ Implementing service observation in field offices for periods of 6 to 9 months essentially would be the equivalent of a short-term test of service observation. In this regard, however, the parties already have had a 6-month pilot program for service observation in field offices. Since the parties’ agreement on service observation is silent with respect to its duration, the general rule is that it would run concurrently with their MCBA.⁽⁴⁾

ORDER

    Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and because of the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the course of the proceedings instituted under the Panel’s regulations 5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel under 5 C.F.R. § 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders adoption of the following:

1. Notice Of Tier I Service Observation

    The parties shall adopt the Employer’s proposal, modified to require the Employer to notify an employee 3 workdays prior to conducting service observation of the employee’s calls.

2. Procedures For Randomly Selecting Employees For Tier II Service Observation

    The parties shall adopt the following wording:

At the end of each month, the Union shall be provided with a copy of the random sample of employees who were subject to service observation during each week of that month.

    The parties shall adopt the following wording:

Conduct problems include, but are not limited to, rude telephone behavior, hang-ups without cause, and making personal calls while callers are on hold.

    The parties shall adopt the Employer’s proposal.

5. Certification Of Telephone Extensions

    The Union shall withdraw its proposal.

6. Implementation Of Service Observation

   The Union shall withdraw its proposal.

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Executive Director

March 24, 2000

Washington, D.C.

1.Originally, Ms. Castrey and the parties’ representatives were scheduled to meet over a 2-day period; however, due to inclement weather, which prompted the closing of Federal Government offices in Washington, D.C., the informal conference was reduced to 1 day.

2.We note that a random selection of employees by the Excel program does not guarantee that employees will receive an equal number of service observations; rather, the random selection process can only ensure that the selections are impartial.

3.See Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and SSA General Committee, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 96 FSIP 159 (February 3, 1997), Panel Release No. 394, where the Panel resolved an impasse over a 6-month pilot program for telephone observation in 50 field offices.

4.During the Panel’s investigation into the request for assistance in this case, the Employer stated that the matter of service observation in field offices was severed from term bargaining over a successor MCBA and negotiated separately by the parties because it had many “impasse laden” issues which might otherwise impede the parties’ progress in negotiating a new agreement.