15:0525(110)CA - HHS, SSA, Baltimore, MD and Chicago, Illinois Region and AFGE -- 1984 FLRAdec CA

 15 FLRA No. 110
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BALTIMORE,
 MARYLAND AND CHICAGO, ILLINOIS REGION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 5-CA-832 
                                                      5-CA-834
 
                            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 the parties'
 contentions, /1/ the Authority finds:
 
    On August 30, 1979, the American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO (the Union) was certified as the exclusive representative of the
 Respondent's professional and nonprofessional employees at, but not
 limited to, Respondent's Chicago, Illinois Region.
 
    During the week of October 6, 1980, Eleanor Jordon, Respondent's
 Operations Supervisor at the Chicago, Illinois Region, held a discussion
 with six employees of the Rapid Process Unit (RPU).  The discussion,
 lasting no longer than five minutes, was initiated by Ms. Jordon when
 she went to the area in which the RPU employees work.  Ms. Jordon did
 not sit down and the RPU employees remained at their desks.  The subject
 of the discussion was changes regarding the teleclaims referral process.
  At the meeting the RPU employees expressed their opinions as to a
 proposed alternative teleclaims referral process.  The meeting was held
 without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to be
 present.
 
    On or about November 12, 1980, at a routinely held Service
 Representatives' Unit (SRU) meeting, Ms. Jordon raised the subject of
 telephone practices and procedures.  Ms. Jordon brought to the attention
 of SRU employees a complaint from a member of the public about having to
 wait a long time on the phone before receiving assistance.  She advised
 employees that if calls were going to take longer than five minutes, the
 employees should take the individual's name, phone number, and the
 nature of the problem and call the individual back rather than have the
 person wait on the phone.  Ms. Jordon and the SRU employees then
 discussed the reasonableness of the five minute guideline.  This meeting
 also was held without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity
 to be present.
 
    The complaint alleges that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1),
 (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
 (the Statute) /2/ by conducting formal discussions within the meaning of
 section 7114(a)(2)(A) /3/ of the Statute on or about October 6, 1980 and
 on or about November 12, 1980 with bargaining unit employees without
 providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to be present.
 
    Regarding the meeting which occurred during the week of October 6,
 1980, with employees of RPU, the Authority concludes that the General
 Counsel has not met his burden of proving that the meeting was a "formal
 discussion." /4/ Thus, the stipulated facts establish only that the
 meeting was not scheduled in advance, was a brief discussion at the
 desks of the employees involving the Operations Supervisor and six
 employees of the unit and lasted only five minutes.  However, other
 factors which are necessary to enable the Authority to determine whether
 the discussion was "formal" in nature are not contained in the
 stipulated record, for instance:  whether the Operations Supervisor is a
 first-level supervisor or is higher in management;  whether the meeting
 was mandatory or attended by the full complement of employees in the
 unit;  whether a formal agenda was established for the meeting;  or
 whether records or notes of the meeting were kept.  Therefore, as to the
 meeting which occurred with RPU employees, the Authority finds that the
 General Counsel has failed to establish that the Respondent violated
 section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply with
 section 7114(a)(2)(A).
 
    Similarly, the Authority finds that the record does not contain
 enough specific evidence about the meeting which occurred on or about
 November 12, 1980, with employees of SRU to enable the Authority to
 determine whether the meeting was "formal" in nature.  Thus, there is no
 showing, for instance, of whether management representatives other than
 Ms. Jordon attended the meeting;  how long the meeting lasted;  how the
 meeting was called;  whether a formal agenda was established for the
 meeting;  whether employee attendance was mandatory;  or whether records
 or notes of the meeting were kept.  Therefore, the stipulated record is
 inadequate to sustain the General Counsel's burden of establishing that
 the Respondent held a "formal" meeting in violation of section
 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in Case Nos. 5-CA-832 and
 5-CA-834 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 10, 1984
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 916
 
                                   Union
 
    and
 
    OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS
 
    CENTER, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
 
                                 Activity
                                       Case No. O-AR-715
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator John P. Owen filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
 the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
 Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
 section 7