FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION MESA FIELD OFFICE MESA, ARIZONA and COUNCIL 147, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

In the Matter of

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

MESA FIELD OFFICE

MESA, ARIZONA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No. 97 FSIP 146

and

COUNCIL 147, AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

 

ARBITRATOR'S OPINION AND DECISION

    Council 147, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Social Security Administration, Mesa Field Office, Mesa, Arizona (Employer). After the investigation of the request for assistance, which concerned various issues arising from negotiations over an office relocation, the Panel directed the parties to mediation-arbitration with the undersigned. Accordingly, on January 29, 1998, the undersigned met with the parties in Mesa, Arizona. At the outset, mediation efforts which began during a pre-hearing telephone conference continued, and numerous issues were voluntarily resolved. When the parties were unable to reach a complete settlement, however, they submitted their last, best and final offers on the two remaining issues on February 9, 1998 and an arbitration hearing was conducted on February 19, 1998. The hearing provided the parties with a full opportunity to present arguments and evidence in support of their positions. At the conclusion of the hearing, they were also afforded the opportunity to file briefs. Their briefs were received on February 27, 1998, and I have considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

    The Employer is responsible for administering retirement, Medicare, disability, survivor, and supplemental security income (SSI) entitlement programs. The Union represents a nationwide consolidated unit of approximately 48,000 employees. The relocation of the Mesa Field Office, however, will affect 40 bargaining-unit employees. They work as claims and service representatives, responsible for processing and adjudicating claim requests, and clerical support staff, at grades GS-5 through GS-11. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties is due to expire in March 5, 1999.

ISSUES AT IMPASSE

    The parties are at impasse regarding the following issues:

    1. Whether the Employer's proposal or the Union's proposal for the layout and design of the front end interviewing (FEI) area in the Mesa SSA field office would best serve the interests of the public and employees.

    2. Whether the Union may reopen negotiations on the use of Plexiglas in the reception counter windows no earlier than 6 months after the office relocation.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

I. THE LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF THE FEI AREA

    A. The Union's Position

    The Employer should install a 30-inch high barrier wall with privacy walls in the FEI area to separate the claims representatives' workstations from the public. Each workstation would have an ergonomic E-95 table, 52-inch high privacy dividers, and a 12-inch deep writing surface or counter for the claimant. The area above the desk and counter would be open (Joint Exhibit 1; Union Exhibit 2).

    The Union's proposal addresses concerns about improved security for employees, functionality and productivity, cost-effectiveness, and a customer-friendly environment.

        1. Improved Security

    Mesa claims representatives face significant security risks in the FEI area. These risks stem from several factors, including: (1) face-to-face interaction with threatening clients who are mentally ill, aggravated by the lack of program eligibility, or desperate because of their economic circumstances; (2) prevalence of handguns and knives in the area; and (3) isolated work with clients. Approximately 300 to 500 customers visit the Mesa office daily. Although most visitors are respectful and appreciative of the service they receive, employees occasionally must deal with some clients who are disruptive and dangerous.

    Incident reports maintained by the Employer reveal that there were approximately 95 incidents in the Mesa office for the period from July 10, 1996 through January 20, 1998. (Union Exhibit 4) Over 75 percent of these incidents involved disruptive claimants, alcohol, or weapons. The following examples highlight the serious security risks encountered by employees at the Mesa office:

  • In 1980, a disgruntled disabled claimant entered into the Mesa office (at a previous location) with a can of gasoline and destroyed part of the office. Since there were no barriers, the claimant accessed the back of the facility and poured gasoline in the Manager's office (employee testimony; Union Exhibit 8).

  • In January 1997, a claimant called in and threatened to come to the office with a machine gun and kill a particular claims representative (Employer Exhibit 3, January 28, 1997, incident report).

  • In January 1997, a claimant called and threatened to come to the office with a bomb strapped to herself (Employer Exhibit 3, January 16, 1997, incident report).

  • In October, 1997, an escaped felon from a mental hospital came to the office and requested that his checks be reinstated. He was arrested at the office by the police (employee testimony; Employer Exhibit 3, October 3, 1997, incident report).

  • In 1997, a claimant refused to leave the office and followed an employee throughout the FEI room until a guard intervened (employee testimony).

  • In 1998, a drunken claimant refused to leave the premises and was arrested by the police (Employer Exhibit 3).

    Although there is a security guard stationed at the Mesa office, employees testified that they are sometimes left alone with claimants in the FEI room, particularly at the end of the day when late interviews extend beyond the time the guard leaves the office.

    Even local management at the Mesa office has expressed concern about the safety of interviewers in FEI. In a memo dated December 15, 1995, the Assistant District Manager and the Union jointly notified the Federal Protective Service that there was a need for improved security for FEI area interviewers (Union Exhibit 7).(1)

    The Union's proposal addresses employees' security concerns because it prevents easy physical access to employees by members of the public and prevents clients from following employees to other parts of the FEI room or behind the employees' workstations. In addition, the barrier prevents children of claimants from playing with printers and other equipment on the employees' side of the desks.

    In contrast, the Employer's proposal does not address the Union's security interests at all. Under the Employer's proposal, claimants have easy access to the employees and office equipment. Moreover, the Employer's proposed use of 52-inch high solid panels to separate the desks makes it difficult for the guard, management, and other employees to see what is happening in the FEI area (Joint Exhibit 3).

        2. Functionality and Productivity

    Under the Employer's proposal, the first workstation on the east side of the FEI area is completely open to the reception area and raises privacy concerns. Interruptions and noise from the reception area would make this workstation very unproductive.

    The Employer's proposal also deviates from the original agreement between the parties that the dimensions of the FEI room would be 18 feet by 60 feet. The Employer now contends that it must expand the FEI room by another foot (i.e., to 19 feet 10 inches by 60 feet) into the general work area in order to make its plan work. The Union's proposal, however, would fit within the originally agreed upon dimensions of the room.

          3. Cost Effectiveness

    The Union's proposal will save the Employer over $10,000 because it dispenses with the use of systems panels at each workstation. The Union's proposal will cost approximately $5,620.

        4. Customer Friendly Environment

    The Employer objected to the Union's original proposal which provided for a floor-to-ceiling barrier wall with windows. The Employer preferred that there be no barrier above the work surface, complaining that the Union's proposed design projected a "siege mentality." To address the Employer's concerns, the Union's last best offer eliminated the wall and window closures above the work surface. Thus, the Union's proposal provides the open, friendlier atmosphere desired by the Employer, yet preserves the security interests of the employees.

    B. The Employer's Position

    The Employer will not construct a barrier wall in the FEI area separating the employees from the public. The Employer's layout and design for the FEI room, using furniture defined in the Jaffe Award (Employer Exhibit 1, Appendix E), will serve the public and employees best in terms of its precise physical dimensions, user friendliness, security for employees and the public, and cost effectiveness.

        1. Physical Dimensions of the Employer's FEI Room Design

    The Employer's original proposal was for an FEI room with dimensions of 19-feet wide by 60-feet long. Its revised proposal to widen the FEI room to 19-feet 10-inches wide by 60-feet long will work, because it is drawn to scale and the precise details needed to begin the build out are in place. In contrast, the Union's proposal is not drawn to scale and will not work. It does not allow enough room in the width of the FEI area and it allows for too much room and wasted space for the length of the FEI room.

    The Union's proposal calls for an FEI room that is 18-feet wide. Since the Union did not submit a scale drawing, it is impossible to determine precisely where the printers, aisles, desks, chairs, and barrier wall will be located. Nonetheless, the evidence presented indicates that the Union's configuration will not fit into an 18-foot wide FEI room. Measuring from the back wall on the employee's side, the Union's proposal will require 19 feet 7 inches (235 inches) to accommodate all of the furniture, equipment, walls, and aisles.

    The length of the Union's proposal will require 54 feet 4 inches (652 inches) and yet the parties have already agreed to an FEI room that is 60 feet in length. Thus, under the Union's proposal there will be 5 feet 8 inches of unused space.

    If the Employer is directed to adopt the Union's proposal, the Employer will be placed in a position of violating government-wide rules and regulations regarding life safety codes and accessibility for individuals in wheel chairs. The National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code requires that the aisle behind the public and employee sides of the FEI workstations be at least 44- inches wide. The Union's proposal provides for only a 42-inch aisle width.

        2. User Friendliness

    The Employer's proposal will best serve employees and the public because it is more "user friendly." It provides for a better traffic pattern in the FEI room. The Employer's design calls for 44-inch wide aisles between every two workstations, thereby allowing employees to easily escort clients to the appropriate interviewing station. The Employer often receives visitors in the FEI area who are aged, disabled, blind, or hard of hearing. The Union's proposal does not have aisles between workstations, so employees would be separated by one long wall from the public side of the FEI room. Employees who want to escort visitors to their workstations must enter the public side of the FEI room through the locked door, walk the visitors to the workstation, then walk all the way back to the locked door to re-enter the employee's side of the FEI room, and walk back to their workstations from the employee's side.

    Whereas the Employer's proposal allows for privacy dividers behind the employee and public side of each workstation, the Union's proposal does not. Thus, the Employer's proposal provides more privacy for visitors who are being interviewed.

    The Employer's proposal also allows for each workstation to accommodate individuals in wheelchairs. The Union's proposal would allow only interviews with wheelchair-bound individuals at the last interviewing station.

    Finally, the Employer's proposal has form storage capability at each workstation, whereas the Union's proposal does not.

        3. Security for Employees and the Public

    The FSIP previously ruled in Social Security Administration, Casa Grande District Office, Casa Grande, Arizona and Local 3694, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 97 FSIP 118 (November 12, 1997)(Casa Grande), that a barrier wall was not necessary.(2) The population of the Mesa service area is primarily middle- to upper-class and compares favorably to Casa Grande (Employer Exhibit 2).

    Furthermore, the incident reports do not reflect a pattern of violent or threatening behavior by visitors to the Mesa office. According to the testimony of the Mesa Field Office Manager, the security guard was instructed to write up any and all incidents in order to justify the hiring of the guard. This accounts for the dramatic increase in reported incidents. Not a single incident took place in the FEI area and no employees were ever harmed. Although there were some incidents involving possession of weapons, these were not threatening situations as it is legal in Arizona to carry a weapon.

    The Mesa office will continue to have a security guard and each employee workstation will have a panic alarm. No employees are left alone, because there is always a member of management in the office to assist employees who feel uncomfortable with an interview situation. Windows in the panels behind the public and employee sides of the workstation will permit adequate sight lines into and throughout the FEI area. In any event, the Union's proposal of a 30-inch barrier will not deter any member of the public intent on doing harm.

        4. Cost Effectiveness

    The cost of either the Employer's or the Union's proposal will constitute a small percentage of the Employer's total budget. Nonetheless, the Employer must spend its funds in a cost effective manner. The Union's proposal is not money well spent because it wastes at least 90-square feet of space and does not allow room for form storage.

II. REOPENING NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF PLEXIGLAS IN THE RECEPTION COUNTER WINDOWS

    A. The Union's Position

    The Union proposes a reasonable but cautious approach to the parties' disagreement over whether Plexiglas should be installed in the service representatives' interviewing windows. The proposal is simply that Plexiglas not be installed initially at the new office and that the matter may be reconsidered 6 months after the relocation.

    The Union has an interest in improved security for the service representatives. The evidence and testimony show that there is a high volume of incidents at the Mesa office. The Union acknowledges that the parties have agreed to a new interviewing arrangement wherein customers will be sitting in chairs rather than standing at a counter. This may address some of the employees' concerns. It makes no sense, however, to close out the issue of Plexiglas for the term of the agreement, especially given that the Mesa Field Office Manager admitted that he did not oppose studying the Plexiglas issue at the new office.

    B. The Employer's Position

    It is not necessary to conduct a 6-month study of the use of Plexiglas in the reception counter windows and to possibly reopen negotiations on that subject. The Mesa office has never had Plexiglas at the reception counter windows. There has never been an incident of an employee filing a claim for injury as a result of working at the reception counter. Installation of Plexiglas will merely create an unwelcoming atmosphere and an unnecessary barrier between the public and the employees. Spending money on a study would not be cost effective.

CONCLUSION

    Having carefully considered the parties' arguments and evidence in this case, I am persuaded that the Union's final offers, with modifications, provide a reasonable resolution of the parties' dispute.

    With regard to the issue of the low barrier wall in the FEI area, the record demonstrates that employee security is a legitimate Union concern at the Mesa office. While it is true that few security measures will withstand a determined effort to do harm, nonetheless reasonable precautionary measures may be taken to diminish the risk of harm. In 1995, the Employer's own Assistant District Manager agreed that there was a need for improved security in the FEI area. The Union's proposal of a low barrier wall would at least impede access by members of the public to the employee side of the workstations and, on a practical level, would obviate the need for employees to tend to children or other members of the public who stray away into that area. The Union has accommodated the Employer's concern about maintaining an open, friendly atmosphere by withdrawing its initial proposal of a floor-to-ceiling barrier wall with shutter windows. Given that the Union's proposal did not include a scale drawing, however, the parties should accommodate the low barrier wall design in the FEI area by making whatever adjustments are necessary to the dimensions of the room to comply with government-wide regulations relating to fire safety and wheel chair access and the Employer's concern about form storage capability. Such accommodations would include, but are not limited to, the possibility of expanding the width of the room to 19 feet 10 inches, as the Employer proposed, and applying unused space in the length of the room for form storage.

    The Union's proposal to reopen the issue of whether Plexiglas should be installed in the service representatives' windows no earlier than 6 months after the office relocation is a reasonable one. The Employer may have misunderstood the Union's proposal to require a "6-month study." It neither requires any formal study nor mandates a final result. It merely allows the parties time to evaluate security and health issues at the new facility and reserves the Union's right to raise the issue of Plexiglas.

DECISION

In light of the foregoing, the parties' disputes are resolved as follows:

1. The Layout and Design of the FEI Area

    The parties shall adopt the Union's proposal, as modified below:

The Employer will construct a low barrier wall to include a work surface that is 30-inches high measured from the floor to the top of the counter on the claimant's side. This wall will run the entire length of the FEI room. The claimant's writing surface will be 12-inches deep. The counter tops will be secure and structurally stable with the work surface to be laminate with rounded edges on the claimant's side. Privacy walls on the left and right hand side of both the public and employee side will be constructed. These privacy walls will stand a minimum of 52-inches high and extrude at least 30 inches on both the public and employee side. The E-95 will be situated flush to the barrier wall and move freely up and down. The width between privacy walls will be at least 6 feet (inside dimensions).

At the east part of the FEI area, a 42-inch solid core door will be constructed to hang off the 42-inch stub wall between the FEI and the reception area. This door will have combination locks on both sides that are easy to use with a one-handed operation.

The FEI room will be up to 19 feet 10 inches in width by 60 feet in length, except that the parties may mutually agree to adjust the dimensions to accommodate the design and layout described herein.

The walls separating the FEI room from the general work area will be high walls that run from the floor to almost the ceiling. There will be a 12-inch gap from the top of the wall to the ceiling to allow air circulation. There will be one door to the general work area with a combination lock that is easy to use with a one-handed operation. The door will have a 12-inch view panel.

Attachment 1 of the Union’s final offer shows the layout of the Mesa FEI design.

2. Plexiglas

    The parties shall adopt the Union's proposal:

Plexiglas/safety glass will not be installed in the SR windows at this time, but this issue may be reopened. Such a reopener will be no earlier than 6 months after the office relocation. This will allow the parties time to evaluate security and health issues at the new facility.

 

Dolly M. Gee

Arbitrator

April 16, 1998

Los Angeles, California

 

1.The December 15, 1995, memo stated in pertinent part:

Modify the front-end interviewing area to provide a security barrier between office employees and the public. One option might be to erect, in place of the wall that currently separates the FEI from the rest of the office, a wall with service windows at a height that would facilitate the conduct of business between an interviewer seated on one side of the wall and a customer seated on the other. (The current wall separates employees conducting interviews, and those being interviewed, from the rest of the office, but provides no security for the employees working in the interview area itself. Since the FEI and reception areas of the office are separated only by a waist-high wrought iron railing, the FEI is accessible to virtually anyone who comes into the office.) (Priority: high).
(Union Exhibit 7; emphasis added).

2.To be precise, in Casa Grande the Panel provided the parties with a Report and Recommendations for Settlement which they voluntarily adopted to resolve their dispute. Consequently, the Panel was never required to issue a legally binding decision in that case.