United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

    Local 2006, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE or 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 (SSA or Employer).

    Following an investigation of the request for assistance, which concerns the relocation of three organizational components to the Regional Office and related office renovations, the Panel determined that the impasse should be resolved through an informal conference between a Panel representative and the parties. If the parties were unable to reach a settlement, the representative would notify the Panel of the status of the dispute, including the parties’ final offers, and his recommendations for resolving the impasse. The Panel would then take whatever action it deemed appropriate, including the issuance of a binding decision. Accordingly, Panel Member Stanley M. Fisher met with the parties on June 2, 1998, at the Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and toured the building. Although the parties explored settlement possibilities during the informal conference, they were unable to resolve the dispute. Consequently, the parties submitted their final offers and written statements in support of their positions, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.

    The Employer administers Federal retirement, disability, Medicare, and supplemental security income (SSI) entitlement programs through its six components. The Union represents a bargaining unit of approximately 1,000 employees, who work mostly as Benefit and Claim Authorizers, but also in clerical, debt collection, and disability positions. They are covered by a master collective-bargaining agreement (MCBA) between SSA and AFGE which is due to expire on March 5, 1999.

    The parties essentially are in dispute over the following three issues: (1) the location of the Offices of General Counsel (OGC), Hearing Appeals (OHA), and Inspector General (OIG); (2) the use of floor-to-ceiling perimeter walls to separate the private offices of the three components from the rest of the employees on the affected floors; and (3) whether the renovated office space should contain fire exits to maintain current evacuation routes.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Employer's Position

    The Employer’s final offer consists of its final floor plan, a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU), and procedures to test air quality and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system.⁽¹⁾ Currently, the layout on both the fourth and sixth floor is open, with no interior offices or walls. Under the Employer’s renovation plan, the OGC would move to two suites on the sixth floor and OHA and OIG would move to suites on the fourth floor. The suites would be at one end of each floor, occupying about one-third of the total floor space, bisected on each floor by a central aisle.⁽²⁾ According to the Employer, the MOU embodies the parties’ tentative agreement, to which the Union agreed in principle but was reluctant to sign. The Employer also proposes to modify its original floor plan on each floor to include glass entry doors and sidelights along the established central aisle.

    A second basis for adopting the floor plan is to maintain the organizational integrity of the three offices: Separating OHA and OGC employees, as the Union proposes, would change their functional grouping, eliminate current organizational distinctions, and impede supervisors’ ability to instruct and communicate with them. This interferes with component structure and conflicts with management’s right to determine its organization under § 7106(a) of the Statute.⁽⁴⁾ Similarly, placing the OIG on the first floor would also disrupt Agency operations. Moving Tele-Service Center employees, who currently occupy the first floor space, to make room for the OIG would interrupt toll-free 800 number service and communications. Such a move also would relocate some employees for a second time in 1 year. The extra redesign, demolition, and construction costs could reach $1 million.

    The proposed office design also will not, as the Union contends, adversely affect either the air quality or temperature of the fourth and sixth floors. The possibility that "perimeter walls and private offices will create unsafe and unhealthy working conditions ha[s] no foundation in fact. In actuality, there has been no determination by a knowledgeable official or inspector that such unsafe or unhealthy conditions will actually exist." Approximately 1 year ago, it replaced the entire HVAC system. Before that, it tested and corrected any temperature and air quality problems caused by the previous HVAC system. Recognizing, however, that problems may develop with the new system, the proposed MOU "assures that all SSA employees will be provided with a safe and healthy work environment consistent with GSA requirements, Article 9, and Appendix B of Article 9 of the National Agreement."

    The Union’s proposal also should not be adopted because it affects the conditions of employment of employees outside the bargaining-unit and is, therefore, nonnegotiable. In this regard, there are no bargaining-unit employees represented by Local 2006 in the OIG and OHA offices; another union represents the attorneys in the OHA office, whose contract with SSA requires private offices. While there are some bargaining-unit employees represented by Local 2006 in the OGC, attorneys in that office are not in the unit. Furthermore, because these employees deal with confidential and private information, providing them with private offices concerns the "methods and means" of performing work.

    Finally, the real issue underlying the dispute is morale: OIG, OGC, and OHA employees are mainly attorneys and their need for private space creates a perception of elitism. In this regard, adding glass doors and sidelights to the entrances gives "an open appearance to [the] suites and should alleviate concerns that the relocating components want to wall themselves off from the [other] employees." In addition, it is expected that during normal office hours the doors often would be kept open.

2. The Union’s Position

    Under the Union’s modified proposal, it would conditionally agree to a floor-to-ceiling wall on one half of the fourth and sixth floors if the Employer would: (1) modify the floor plan to place the files, libraries, and support staff into open cubicles on the other side of the dividing aisle; (2) move the OIG offices to the first floor; and (3) maintain existing fire lanes with crash bar-controlled emergency exit doors.⁽⁵⁾

    The HVAC system is designed for an open floor plan, such as the Union proposes, by delivering air through "air bars" that run throughout the building. Any obstructions, such as the walls and private offices in the Employer’s design, block the air flow, thereby preventing the system from dispensing air evenly. The second floor experienced severe temperature fluctuations 15 years ago when the Employer constructed a perimeter wall on the second floor to separate a work component. Once the Employer removed the wall, however, the problems dissipated. There are, however, similar problems with the current, year-old HVAC system. For example, the temperature in the auditorium is "freezing," the second floor still has some problems, managers use space heaters and fans in their offices, and no employees shut their doors. The Employer’s proposal to construct perimeter walls and private offices would adversely affect the temperature and air quality on the fourth and sixth floors. By limiting the use of interior walls to one corner of each floor and maintaining an open work environment on the other side, the Union’s office layout would allow for greater air circulation and prevent extreme temperature fluctuations and bacterial accumulations. The latter conditions have led to "sick building syndrome" at other Federal facilities.⁽⁶⁾

    Recognizing the special nature of OIG duties, the Union proposes to move the OIG to a more secured space on the first floor. As to the Employer’s concerns regarding the OGC and OHA areas, it "cannot prove any security necessity for [perimeter] walls." First, the Regional Office "is a completely secure [and] guarded building." In addition, every SSA employee has a security clearance and access to the same cases and information on the computer system as the affected components. Furthermore, there are SSA employees who conduct private conversations with clients and attorneys on the phone without the benefit of private offices.

    Assuming that floor-to-ceiling walls are necessary, adding exit doors with crash bars to the floor plan will ensure employee safety by maintaining current fire lanes. "Even the Joint Union-Management Health and Safety Committee recommended against construction of walls [that block] existing fire lanes." Instead, it recommended that the Employer "consider an alternative plan that minimizes the impact on employee evacuation on these two floors." In the Committee’s view, the proposed plan "represents a radical change in the evacuation routes, substantially increasing the distance to fire exits for the employees on those floors." Furthermore, changing evacuation routes and blocking existing fire exits could lead to confusion and unnecessary injury in an emergency.

CONCLUSIONS

    Having carefully reviewed the arguments and evidence presented, we conclude that the remaining issues now constituting the parties’ dispute should be resolved through the adoption of a modified version of the Employer’s final offer.⁽⁷⁾ In reaching this conclusion, we are persuaded that the testing procedures offered by the Employer are adequate to address the Union’s concerns about safeguarding unit employees who occupy floors where the renovations are to occur. By testing whether the HVAC system is producing healthy air quality and temperature levels, these measures appear to be both consistent with, and supplemental to, the parties’ MCBA. Furthermore, the Union is to participate in the testing, monitoring, demonstration, and repairs of the HVAC system, thereby ensuring that such efforts are undertaken. With respect to the fire exits, however, we believe that the Employer’s final offer should be modified to include the following compromise wording: "On the fourth and sixth floors, management shall maintain all existing fire lanes, fire exits, and evacuation routes, consistent with the Employer’s determination that its internal security needs are met." Such wording balances the employees’ need for quick egress in emergencies with management’s security concerns. Lastly, adopting the Employer’s offer to provide glass doors and sidelights should, in our view, improve general office ambiance and employee morale.

    Conversely, the Union has failed to demonstrate a need for its proposed floor plan. There is no substantiated evidence of current problems, complaints, or past Employer negligence in abating any known problems with the HVAC system. In this regard, we note that the current system is only 1 year old and that the Employer commits itself to a testing plan to guard against adverse conditions resulting from the renovations. Furthermore, we are persuaded that moving OIG employees to the first floor, as the Union proposes, would disrupt Agency operations and cause certain employees to relocate twice in 1 year. It also might, as the Employer contends, affect customer service to Social Security recipients by disrupting toll-free 800 number service. Accordingly, we shall order the adoption of the Employer’s floor plan, MOU, and final offers, and the compromise wording regarding the fire exists to resolve the dispute.

    The parties shall adopt the Employer’s floor plan, MOU, and final offers. In addition, the following wording shall be adopted regarding fire exits:

On the fourth and sixth floors, management shall maintain all existing fire lanes, fire exits, and evacuation routes, consistent with the Employer’s determination that its internal security needs are met.

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Executive Director

June 26, 1998

Washington, D.C.

1.Specifically, the Employer’s HVAC testing proposal requires it to: (1) ask the U.S. Public Health Service, Division of Federal Occupation Health, to conduct three mandatory HVAC tests; (2) notify the Union of the test results; (3) take prompt action if abatement measures are necessary; and (4) provide the Union with a calibrated thermometer. A Union representative could accompany the testing officer, request a test of additional locations, participate in pre- and post testing meetings with the examining agent and management officials, witness a demonstration of the HVAC system, and request a fourth test. The MOU references Article 9 and Appendix B of the MCBA, which address employee health and safety and air quality standards, respectively. Taken together, they set the criteria to be used during tests and the abatement procedures to be followed in case problems are detected.

2.On both ends of each floor, the central aisle intersects with an end hallway, which contains elevators, staircases, and restrooms.

3.Although the Employer’s jurisdictional arguments address an earlier version of the Union’s proposals, they appear to apply with nearly equal relevance to the Union’s final offer. The Employer cites several Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) decisions establishing that the right to determine internal security includes the right to safeguard personnel, physical property, and operations against internal and external risks. See Patent Office Professional Association and U.S. Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, 41 FLRA 795 (1991); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 37 FLRA 197 (1990).

4.See National Treasury Employees Union and U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Laguna Niguel District, 46 FLRA 211 (1992).

5.The Union withdrew a pending negotiability appeal and brought all of the unresolved issues concerning the office renovations, initially contained in three proposals, to the Panel for consideration; it has since offered this single proposal.

6.This term describes the effect of bacterial build-up in the HVAC system of buildings, which can irritate allergies and cause other side-effects to those working inside. If the volume of air moved is insufficient as a result of the Employer’s plan, the Union believes such build-ups could occur.

7.In view of this result, it is unnecessary to consider the jurisdictional question the Employer raises regarding the Union’s proposals.