Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, BRSI, Northeastern Program Service Center, A/SLMR No. 1101 

 1 FLRA No. 3
                                             MARCH 1, 1979
 
 MR. IRVING L. BECKER
 LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
 ROOM G-402, WEST HIGH RISE BUILDING
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21235
 
                           RE:  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 
                                AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINI-
                                STRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM
                                SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR No. 1101, 
                                FLRC No. 78A-136
 
 DEAR MR. BECKER:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION, AND THE UNION'S OPPOSITION THERETO,
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1760 (THE UNION) FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT
 AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER (THE
 ACTIVITY).  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE ACTIVITY
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE
 WITH THE UNION OVER THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN CONNECTION WITH A
 PROPOSED DETAIL OF EMPLOYEES FROM ONE OFFICE COMPONENT TO ANOTHER, AS
 WELL AS OVER THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF SUCH A DETAIL ON THE BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ADOPTED THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ALJ WHO CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY FAILING AND REFUSING TO MEET
 AND CONFER WITH THE UNION CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE INVOKED IN THE
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DETAIL OF FIVE EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS THE IMPACT
 UPON THOSE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.  IN REACHING HIS DETERMINATION, THE ALJ,
 IN RELEVANT PART, REJECTED THE ACTIVITY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE DETAILING OF
 THE FIVE EMPLOYEES HEREIN DID NOT CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS, STATING:
 
    THE ASSIGNMENT OF FIVE EMPLOYEES TO WORK IN A DIFFERENT AREA ON
 SPECIAL REPORTS FOR SEVERAL
 
    MONTHS MUST NECESSARILY RESULT IN MATERIAL IMPACT.  SUCH A(N)
 ASSIGNMENT PROMPTED CONCERN BY
 
    (THE UNION) AS TO THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN SELECTING THE
 INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER
 
    ASSIGNMENTS WOULD BE MADE ON A VOLUNTARY AND ROTATIONAL BASIS, TO
 WHAT EXTENT THE DETAIL WOULD
 
    AFFECT THE MEMBER SELECTED FROM (ANOTHER FACILITY) SINCE THE HOURS
 THEREAT DIFFERED FROM THOSE
 
    IN EFFECT DURING THE DETAIL, AND WHETHER OVERTIME WOULD BE PAID TO
 THE MEMBERS.  THESE ISSUES
 
    ARE, IN MY OPINION, IMPORTANT AND THE DECISION MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT
 UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    IN YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW ON BEHALF OF THE ACTIVITY, YOU ALLEGE
 THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION RAISES THE FOLLOWING MAJOR
 POLICY ISSUE:  "DO ALL SITUATIONS INVOLVING THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF
 BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES REQUIRE 'IMPACT' BARGAINING.  . . .  IF NOT,
 WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY THOSE SITUATIONS WITH 'DE
 MINIMIS' IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES WHERE NO BARGAINING WILL BE REQUIRED."
 
    IN THE AUTHORITY'S OPINION, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY'S DECISION DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2400.2 OF
 THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE SECTION
 2411.12 OF THE COUNCIL'S RULES.  THAT IS, THE DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY DOES NOT PRESENT ANY MAJOR POLICY ISSUE, AND YOU NEITHER
 ALLEGE, NOR DOES IT APPEAR, THAT HIS DECISION IS ARBITRARY AND
 CAPRICIOUS.
 
    THUS, YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION
 PRESENTS A MAJOR POLICY ISSUE AS SET FORTH ABOVE CONSTITUTES ESSENTIALLY
 MERE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S CONCLUSION, BASED UPON
 THE ALJ'S FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS HEREIN, THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE
 BY FAILING AND REFUSING TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE UNION OVER THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE INVOKED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DETAIL OF FIVE
 EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS THE IMPACT UPON THOSE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
 ACCORDINGLY, NO BASIS FOR REVIEW IS THEREBY PRESENTED.
 
    SINCE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION DOES NOT PRESENT A MAJOR
 POLICY ISSUE AND YOU NEITHER ALLEGE, NOR DOES IT APPEAR, THAT HIS
 DECISION IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, YOUR APPEAL FAILS TO MEET THE
 REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 TRANSITION RULES WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE SECTION 2411.12 OF THE
 COUNCIL'S RULES.  ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IS HEREBY
 DENIED.  /1/
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
    CC:  M. L. WALKER
 
    AFGE
 
    /1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE WAS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE
 BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.  (92 STAT.
 1191) THE DECISION DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR
 APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH
 WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE
 STATUTE RATHER THAN THE ORDER.