United States of America BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL In the Matter of DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE TYNDALL AFB, FLORIDA and LOCAL 3240, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Case No. 06 FSIP 88 DECISION AND ORDER Local 3240, 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 Department of the Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Tyndall AFB, Florida (Employer). Following an investigation of the request for assistance, which concerns the Lodging Manager’s decision to increase the number of housekeeping work leaders assigned to perform duties on weekends and holidays from two to three, the Panel determined that the parties should provide single written submissions, with supporting arguments and evidence, as to whether the Union’s proposal should be adopted. The parties were advised that, following receipt of their submissions, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the matter, 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. BACKGROUND The Employer’s mission is to support training for F-15 pilots and other battle managers. It also provides goods and services for military personnel and their dependents, as well as 2 morale, recreation, and welfare programs and activities. The Union represents approximately 275 non-appropriated fund employees who typically work as recreational aides, child development specialists, housekeepers, warehouse workers, plumbers, carpenters, painters, electricians, mechanics, and motor vehicle operators, at grades NA-1 through -III (crafts and trades), pay bands NF-I through -II (administrative), NF-III through -IV (lead support), and pay bands CC-I through -III (child development). The parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is due to expire in 2008. The Lodging Manager’s decision to require an additional leader to work on weekends and holidays was made after lodging operations at the installation were expanded. Housekeeping services are now provided at three locations: Visiting Officer Quarters (VOQ), Visiting Airmen Quarters (VAQ), and a third, more geographically removed area, known as Wood Manor. As explained in the notification provided to the Union by the Lodging Manager: Housekeeping leaders have been working weekends and holidays for years, currently, there are two leaders assigned each weekend and holiday. When Wood Manor opened fully and has been in operation for some time, the workload in the three areas, VOQ, VAQ, and Wood Manor is too great for just two leaders to provide adequate supervision. Therefore, management will schedule three leaders per day on weekends and holidays effective 3 Jun 06 to adequately provide supervision in these three areas. ISSUE AT IMPASSE The parties disagree over whether the Employer should hire another housekeeping work leader.1/ 1/ Under Article 4, Section 3, of the CBA, it is undisputed that the Employer is obligated “to negotiate over the permissive subjects of bargaining outlined in 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(1),” i.e., “the numbers, types, and grades of employees or positions assigned to any organizational subdivision, work project, or tour of duty.” 3 POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 1. The Union’s Position The Union proposes that the “Agency [] hire another work leader for Wood Manor.” If the Employer were required to do so, it would resolve an ongoing staffing shortage at the Agency and allow “for an equitable balance of work among the housekeeping leaders.” In this regard, management’s decision to schedule three housekeeping leaders to work each weekend and holidays “would cause an undue hardship on the bargaining unit and complicate the personal and family lives of the employees.” Since Wood Manor is a new lodging facility, additional staff should be hired to handle the additional workload. Finally, its proposal does not interfere with the Employer’s mission or affect the overall effectiveness of the lodging operation because “the Agency already spends additional resources for overtime due to the staffing shortage.” 2. The Employer’s Position Essentially, the Employer’s position is that the Panel should order the Union to withdraw its proposal. In its view, “the issue at hand is not the hiring of another leader for Wood Manor but the scheduling of an additional leader on the weekends.” Wood Manor is 3 miles from the other lodging facilities, and “the leaders have been complaining about the time it takes” to cover adequately the three major areas of lodging on weekends and holidays with only two leaders. Among other things, a third leader would prevent employees at Wood Manor from having to wait before they can clock in, thereby increasing the productivity of the lodging operation. In addition, management plans to detail current lower graded lodging employees into the housekeeping leader position. This would benefit employees, as well as the Agency, by giving them the training required to update their personnel records “so they may be promoted to a leader position when the need arises.” CONCLUSION Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties on this issue, we conclude that the Union has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of its proposal would outweigh its costs. Beyond the bare assertion that assigning an additional leader to work on weekends and holidays from among current employees would complicate their 4 lives, it has provided no evidence to establish the severity of the hardship. There is also no way of determining, from the record provided, whether the expense of hiring another housekeeping leader would be offset by a reduction in current overtime costs, as the Union claims. Accordingly, we shall order the Union to withdraw its proposal so the Employer can increase the number of housekeeping leaders assigned to work on weekends and holidays by detailing current employees to the position. 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 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 the following: The Union shall withdraw its proposal. By direction of the Panel. H. Joseph Schimansky Executive Director December 22, 2006 Washington, D.C.