10:0015(4)CA - SSA, Mid-America Program Service Center, Kansas City, MO and AFGE Local 1336 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v10 p15 ]
10:0015(4)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 4
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 MID-AMERICA PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1336
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-502
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 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
 PARTIES' STIPULATION OF FACTS, ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS AND BRIEFS
 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION MID-AMERICA
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI (THE ACTIVITY) AND THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL, /1/ THE AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE COMPLAINT, ISSUED ON MAY 13, 1981, ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT
 ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) /2/ BY FAILING AND
 REFUSING TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL CONCERNING THE
 CHARGING PARTY'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE FROM FIXED SHIFTS TO ROTATING SHIFTS
 IN THE ACTIVITY'S FACILITY COMPUTER ROOM.  WHILE THE PARTIES STIPULATED
 THAT THE ONLY ISSUE HEREIN " . . .  IS WHETHER THE CHARGING PARTY IS
 ENTITLED TO INITIATE BARGAINING ON A NEGOTIABLE MATTER, WHICH IS NOT
 COVERED BY THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, UNDER
 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROPOSED ANY CHANGES IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF THE CHARGING PARTY'S PROPOSAL," THE
 AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED ON THE NARROW
 GROUND SET FORTH BELOW.
 
    ON AUGUST 30, 1979, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO (AFGE), WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR A
 CONSOLIDATED NATIONWIDE UNIT IN CASE NO. 22-09146(UC), CONSISTING OF 211
 PREVIOUSLY SEPARATE UNITS WITHIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 INCLUDING THE BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1336 (CHARGING PARTY) AT THE
 RESPONDENT ACTIVITY.  /3/ PRIOR TO SUCH CONSOLIDATION, THE ACTIVITY AND
 THE CHARGING PARTY WERE SIGNATORIES TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
 DATED DECEMBER 8, 1978, WHICH COVERED THE SEPARATE UNIT AT THE ACTIVITY.
  AFTER THE CONSOLIDATION, ON NOVEMBER 15, 1979, THE CHARGING PARTY
 REQUESTED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RESPONDENT CONCERNING A UNION PROPOSAL
 TO CHANGE TWO FIXED SHIFTS IN THE COMPUTER ROOM TO ROTATING SHIFTS.  ON
 NOVEMBER 19, 1979, THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE.
 
    THIS MATTER WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 ON AUGUST 10, 1981.  ON JUNE 25, 1981, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED ITS DECISION
 IN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, 6 FLRA NO. 33(1981).  THE RESPONDENT, IN ITS BRIEF,
 FILED SEPTEMBER 9, 1981, CITES THIS DECISION, WHICH STATES, IN PART,
 THAT " . . . ONCE A LABOR ORGANIZATION IS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR A CONSOLIDATED UNIT, . .  . A NEW BARGAINING
 OBLIGATION IS CREATED IN LIEU OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS WHICH PREVIOUSLY
 EXISTED REGARDING SMALLER UNITS NOW INCLUDED IN THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT."
 /4/ THUS, IN ITS BRIEF, THE RESPONDENT RAISES THE ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
 THAT IT WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH THE CHARGING PARTY
 CONCERNING THE CHARGING PARTY'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE FIXED SHIFTS IN THE
 COMPUTER ROOM TO ROTATING SHIFTS BECAUSE, AS A RESULT OF THE
 CONSOLIDATION, THE LEVEL OF RECOGNITION EXISTS AT THE NATIONAL RATHER
 THAN THE LOCAL LEVEL, AND THERE REMAINED NO OBLIGATION UPON LOCAL
 MANAGEMENT TO NEGOTIATE UNION PROPOSALS FOR NEW CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT
 AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, THE AUTHORITY AGREES AND
 THEREFORE SHALL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 7-CA-502 BE, AND
 IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 2, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE CHARGING PARTY'S UNTIMELY FILED BRIEF WAS NOT CONSIDERED.
 
    /2/ SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) PROVIDES:
 
    SEC. 7116.  UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 
    (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY--
 
    (1) TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE
 EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF
 
    ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS CHAPTER;
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (5) TO REFUSE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED
 
    BY THIS CHAPTER(.)
 
    /3/ IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2429.5 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT "(T)HE AUTHORITY MAY . . . TAKE
 OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH MATTERS AS WOULD BE PROPER," THE AUTHORITY TAKES
 OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THIS CONSOLIDATED NATIONWIDE UNIT.
 
    /4/ THE AUTHORITY FURTHER NOTED THAT NOTHING WOULD PREVENT THE
 PARTIES AT THE LEVEL OF EXCLUSIVE