FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY IRELAND ARMY HOSPITAL FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY and LOCAL 2302, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

 

 

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT 

ACTIVITY

IRELAND ARMY HOSPITAL

FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

and

LOCAL 2302, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

 

Case No. 98 FSIP 27

 

DECISION AND ORDER

      The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Ireland Army Hospital, Fort Knox, Kentucky (Employer) filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse between it and Local 2302, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) resulting from an agency determination to terminate a 5-4/9 compressed work schedule (CWS)(1) under the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982 (Act), 5 U.S.C. §§ 6120-6133.

      Following investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel determined that the impasse should be resolved on the basis of an informal telephone conference with a Panel representative. The parties were advised that if no settlement were reached, the representative would report to the Panel on the status of the dispute, including the parties’ final positions and the representative’s recommendation for resolving the matter. After considering the report, the Panel would take final action in accordance with § 6131 (c) of the Act and § 2472.11 of its regulations. Accordingly, Panel Member Mary E. Jacksteit conducted the informal conference with the parties by telephone on January 15, 1998. Since the parties did not resolve the dispute during the course of the informal conference, Ms. Jacksteit has reported to the Panel and it has now considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

     The Employer's mission is to provide basic training and advanced individual training to armor soldiers. As is relevant to the instant case, it operates a hospital on the post to provide inpatient and outpatient health care for the military. The Union represents approximately 2,200 employees who hold professional and nonprofessional positions such as doctor, nurse, accountant, attorney, clerk, education specialist, engineer, janitor, mechanic, tool-and-parts attendant, and truck driver. The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) expired on December 7, 1997; a successor agreement has been negotiated and is close to being executed.

    This case arises in the Administrative Section of the Information Management Division; the two affected employees work as mail and file clerks, respectively. One employee sorts and distributes the incoming mail and the other is primarily responsible for the outgoing official mail.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

    In accordance with section 6131(c)(3)(C) of the Act, the sole issue in dispute is whether the finding on which the Employer has based its determination to terminate employees’ 5-4/9 CWS is supported by evidence that the schedule has caused an adverse agency impact.(2)

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Employer’s Position

    Essentially, the Panel should find that the evidence on which the Employer bases its determination to terminate the 5-4/9 CWS establishes that the schedule has caused an adverse agency impact as defined under the Act. The Employer asserts that the schedule has diminished service to the public, including internal customers, and has reduced productivity. Since, in May 1997, downsizing resulted in loss of one position in the unit, on five occasions both affected employees were absent (one on her RDO, the other on unscheduled leave). As a result, the mail room was closed once (which meant mail was not delivered internally); on the other occasions it was kept open by rescheduling an employee’s RDO or paying overtime. In addition, and more seriously, since downsizing, the supervisor must on a regular basis, that is, every Friday (which is the RDO of one or the other employee) cover the Official Mail and Distribution Center for most (80 to 85 percent) of the day. The supervisor has a variety of administrative support responsibilities such as maintaining several databases including the MARKS system, ordering printing services, requisitioning publications, and acting as correspondence and copier manager. Providing regular coverage on the RDO of the affected employees has had a serious impact on his ability to provide timely administrative support for the primary mission of the medical center.

2. The Union’s Position

    Basically, the Employer has not established that a 5-4/9 CWS in Administrative Services is having an adverse agency impact, and it has failed to meet the burden of proof required under the Act. In this regard, affected employees only infrequently have been absent on the same day. Furthermore, each is willing to alter plans and provide coverage in the event the other takes unscheduled leave.

CONCLUSIONS

    Under section 6131(c)(3) of the Act, the Panel is required to take final action in favor of the agency determination if the finding on which the determination is based is supported by evidence that a CWS has caused adverse agency impact. Having considered the record before us, we find that the Employer has met its statutory burden. In this regard, the record establishes that two unique and non-overlapping full-time functions must be performed in the Administrative Section on a daily basis--one in the Mail Room and one in the Official Mail and Distribution Center. These functions are performed in physically separated work areas. In 1995 when the CWS was implemented, a third employee was available to fill in when one of the clerks was absent. With the elimination of that position in May 1997, when the affected employees take their RDO, the only means of covering the function of the absent employee is for the supervisor to perform that function. This coverage takes most of his work day, one day a week, every week. When the supervisor undertakes these duties, his work remains undone since there is no one else to pick up his responsibilities. These responsibilities provide direct administrative support to the Employer’s primary mission.

    An alternative to supervisory coverage is to close the mail room, but this results in the non-delivery of mail and UPS deliveries, and keeps the regular post office closed due to lack of physical access. The Union did not suggest this as a feasible alternative and, in fact, urged that the employees are willing to be flexible to avoid overlapping days off to prevent one function from closing down or the necessity of overtime. However, the Union could offer no means for ameliorating the impact of the CWS schedule on the supervisor’s productivity and ability to carry out his administrative support functions. In light of these facts, we are persuaded that the circumstances presented establish that the current 5-4/9 schedule has caused an adverse agency impact by diminishing service to the public and reducing productivity and, therefore, we shall order the termination of the 5-4/9 CWS.

ORDER

    Pursuant to the authority vested in it by section 6131 (c) of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, under section 2472.11(b) of its regulations, hereby orders the termination of the 5-4/9 compressed work schedules in the Administrative Section of the Information Management Division.

 

By direction of the Panel.

H. Joseph Schimansky

Executive Director

February 5, 1998

Washington, D.C.

 

1.Under a 5-4/9 schedule, employees work eight 9-hour days, one 8-hour day, and have one regular day off (RDO) each pay period.

2.5 U.S.C. § 6131(b) defines adverse agency impact as:

(1) a reduction of the productivity of the agency;

(2) a diminished level of the services furnished to the public by the agency; or

(3) an increase in the cost of agency operations (other than a reasonable administrative cost relating to the process of establishing a flexible or compressed work schedule).

Under section 6131(c)(3) of the Act and section 2472.11(a)(2) of its regulations, the Panel is required to take final action in favor of the agency head’s (or his delegatee’s) determination to terminate a CWS if the finding on which the determination is based is supported by evidence that the schedule has caused an adverse agency impact. If, however, the finding on which the determination is based is not supported by evidence that the schedule has caused adverse impact, the Panel, in accordance with section 2472.11(b) of its regulations, shall take "whatever final action is appropriate" to resolve the impasse. The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that the Employer bears the burden of proving adverse agency impact. S. REP. NO. 97-365, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. at 16.