DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FLORENCE, COLORADO and LOCAL 1300, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

 

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
FLORENCE, COLORADO

and

LOCAL 1300, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

 

Case No. 03 FSIP 128

 

DECISION AND ORDER

    Local 1300, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union), filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) pursuant to the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982 (Act), 5 U.S.C. § 6120 et seq., to resolve an impasse arising from a determination by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Florence, Colorado, not to establish a 4-10 compressed work schedule (CWS)(1) for employees working in the Facilities Department.

    Following an investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the impasse should be resolved through single written submissions from the parties. The parties were informed that the Panel would resolve the dispute based on the written record. After considering the information, the Panel would take final action in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 6131 and 5 C.F.R. § 2472.11 of its regulations. The Panel has now considered the entire record, including the parties’ submissions.

BACKGROUND

    The Employer operates a prison complex consisting of (1) an Administrative Maximum Security Facility ("Supermax" or ADX); (2) a U.S. Penitentiary;(2) (3) a Medium-level Federal Correctional Institution; and (4) a Prison Camp. These operations cover 600 acres. Local 1300 represents 331 employees in the latter two entities, who mainly work as correctional officers at Wage Scale-6 through -10. Another 38 employees are under the General Schedule. In the Facilities Department, employees supervise inmate details that "perform all building maintenance [minor and preventative], such as plumbing repairs, electrical problems, painting, construction as required, etc." The parties are covered by a master collective-bargaining agreement (MCBA) which was to have expired on March 8, 2001; however, the MCBA has been extended while negotiators at the national level continue bargaining over a successor agreement.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

    In accordance with section 6131(c)(2)(b) of the Act, the issue in dispute is whether the findings on which the Employer bases its determination not to establish a 4-10 CWS in the Facilities Department is supported by evidence that the schedule is likely to cause an adverse agency impact.(3)

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1.  The Employer’s Position

    The Panel should find that the proposed schedule, if implemented, would cause an adverse agency impact under all three of the Act’s criteria. With respect to productivity, the 23 affected employees are chiefly engaged in supervising inmates who perform repairs. Under the proposed schedule, however, employees’ 10-hour work days would be 2 hours, 15 minutes longer than inmates’ work days; the CWS would, therefore, cause the loss of 207 man hours per week, hours when employees would not be supervising inmates and inmates would not be making repairs. Furthermore, work cannot be invented for employees to do during such times, nor are the earlier starting times the Union proposes, as it contends, useful for contacting vendors. On this latter point, "the majority of the vendors utilized are located within the State of Colorado" in the same time zone as the FCI. As to diminished service to the public, which includes service to inmates, Friday and Monday days off (selected by 20 of the 23 employees who wish to participate in the CWS) would cause inmates to either be laid-in or added to another foreman’s detail.(4) In this regard, the FCI is so spread out (111 acres with 23 buildings) that the reduced number of staff present under the schedule on Mondays and Fridays would not be able adequately to supervise inmates and control tools; therefore, work could not be assigned to inmates on those days. As a result, a direct effect of the schedule would be to lessen the