U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, BRSI, Northeastern Program Service Center, A/SLMR No. 1158



[ v01 p164 ]
01:0164(20)AS
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 20
                                            APRIL 9, 1979
 
 MR. IRVING L. BECKER
 LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
 ROOM G-402, WEST HIGH RISE BUILDING
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21235
 
                              RE:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 
                                   EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL 
                                   SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, 
                                   NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE 
                                   CENTER, A/SLMR No. 1158, Case 
                                   No. 0-AS-2
 
 DEAR MR. BECKER:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW AND
 REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION, AS
 SUPPLEMENTED, IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE, INSOFAR AS RELEVANT, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1760 (THE UNION) FILED AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
 WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTER (THE ACTIVITY).  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE ACTIVITY
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY REFUSING TO MEET AND
 CONFER WITH THE UNION REGARDING THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
 CONNECTION WITH THE DETAILING OF A TASK FORCE OF EMPLOYEES FROM ONE
 OFFICE COMPONENT TO ANOTHER, AS WELL AS OVER THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF SUCH
 A DETAIL ON THE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  IN SO
 CONCLUDING, HE STATED:
 
    (T)HE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TASK FORCE, WHICH NECESSITATED THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES) TO
 
    PERFORM SCREENING IN A DIFFERENT WORK AREA, CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN
 THE (ACTIVITY'S) PAST
 
    PRACTICE AFFECTING THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  UNDER
 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
 
    (ACTIVITY) WAS OBLIGATED UNDER THE ORDER TO AFFORD THE (UNION) NOTICE
 AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 
    MEET AND CONFER ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN EFFECTUATING ITS
 DECISION TO ASSIGN A TASK
 
    FORCE OF (EMPLOYEES) TO CLEAR UP THE BACKLOG OF SCREENING WORK IN A
 UNIT OTHER THAN THEIR OWN,
 
    AND ON THE IMPACT OF ITS DECISION ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 BY FAILING TO FULFILL
 
    THESE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ORDER, I FIND, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE,
 
    THAT THE (ACTIVITY) VIOLATED (S)ECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
    IN YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY, YOU ALLEGE THAT
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION HEREIN RAISES A MAJOR POLICY ISSUE AS
 TO WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE APPLIED "TO DISTINGUISH THOSE