17:0908(119)NG - AFGE Council 147 and SSA -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v17 p908 ]
17:0908(119)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 119
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 COUNCIL 147 
 Union 
 
 and
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-888
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
 pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises issues
 concerning the negotiability of six Union proposals.  Upon careful
 consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions,
 the Authority makes the following determinations.  /1/
 
         Union Proposals 1 through 5-- SSI Quality Statistical Log
 
          1.  The SSI quality statistical log will be used for training
       purposes only.
 
          2.  The SSI quality statistical log will not be used for TSR's
       appraisals as a means to evaluate quality and/or statistics on an
       individual basis.
 
          3.  The SSI quality statistical log will not be identified by
       any TSR's name or unit number.
 
          4.  The SSI quality statistical log will not cause any adverse
       action to TSR's performance.
 
          5.  If management wishes to gather statistical data for
       reports, it will be for the office as a whole.  All statistics, as
       long as it does not show any individual performance, is
       acceptable.
 
                 Union Proposal 6-- Telephone Audit Sheet
 
          Management will negotiate to establish a standard of what is
       a(n) Unsatisfactory Audit, Satisfactory Audit, Minimally
       Satisfactory Audit, Above Satisfactory Audit, and an Outstanding
       Audit for each of the TSR grade levels 4-7.
 
    The disputed proposals in this case arose as a result of the Agency's
 Los Angeles Teleservice Center initially implementing a procedure for
 monitoring telephone calls between certain agency employees and the
 general public concerning Social Security matters.  With regard to these
 proposals the Agency contends, without contravention by the Union, /2/
 that higher level union and management officials in the Social
 Security-AFGE national consolidated unit have negotiated a national
 memorandum of agreement (MOA) /3/ concerning the telephone monitoring
 process in all Social Security teleservice centers including the Los
 Angeles Center represented by AFGE.  Further, the Agency argues that,
 except for future changes to the telephone monitoring process, the MOA
 does not authorize additional negotiations at the local level on the
 monitoring process itself.  /4/
 
    The Authority finds that the Union Proposals herein are inconsistent
 with express provisions of the MOA and accompanying evaluation form.
 Specifically, in this regard, item 4 of the MOA provides as follows:
 
          The purpose of the Service Observation is to identify training
       needs, to provide a basis for retraining, to monitor the accuracy
       of information given, to improve employee performance, to provide
       information for performance appraisals and to gather information
       on the volume of types of calls received.
 
    Consequently, Union Proposals 1 through 5, which would essentially
 permit the use of statistical data only for training or for general
 office purposes, are inconsistent with the MOA which provides that this
 information will be utilized in performance evaluations.  Similarly,
 Union Proposal 6, which requires the negotiation of five performance
 levels in the telephone audit process, is inconsistent with the
 negotiated "Evaluation of Interviewing Practices" form which provides
 for only three levels of performance, namely, unsatisfactory,
 satisfactory and exceptional.  Thus, the disputed Union proposals herein
 would require bargaining beyond that permitted in Items 26 and 27 of the
 MOA.
 
    Hence, since there is no duty to bargain between the parties at the
 local level under the MOA, issues as to the negotiability of the
 disputed proposals herein under the Statute are not appropriate for
 resolution by the Authority.  The Authority therefore concludes that the
 negotiability issues raised by the disputed proposals in the instant
 appeal are moot.  See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
 1979 and U.S. Forest Service, San Dimas Equipment Development Center, 16
 FLRA No. 60 (1984) (Union Provision 4).
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
 it hereby is, dismissed.  Issued, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1985
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The Agency's contention that the Union's petition for review
 should be dismissed for failure to timely serve the head of the Agency
 cannot be sustained.  In this respect, while the Union initially mailed
 a copy of its petition for review to the local Agency official who
 alleged that the proposals were nonnegotiable, the Regional Commissioner
 of the Social Security Administration and the Commissioner of the Social
 Security Administration, the Union subsequently served its completion of
 appeal on the Agency head's designee.
 
 
    /2/ The Union did not file a Reply Brief in this case.
 
 
    /3/ The Agency included with its Statement of Position a copy of the
 MOA and a form, entitled "Evaluation of Interviewi