SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DALY CITY FIELD OFFICE DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA and LOCAL 3172, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

In the Matter of

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
DALY CITY FIELD OFFICE
DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA

and

LOCAL 3172, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

 

Case No. 03 FSIP 152

DECISION AND ORDER

    Local 3172, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (the Union), filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Social Security Administration, Daly City Field Office (DCFO), Daly City, California (the Employer).

   Following an investigation of the request for assistance concerning whether DCFO employees would be permitted to consume food and beverages in the Interactive Video Training (IVT) room, the Panel determined that the dispute should be resolved through single written submissions from the parties. The parties were advised that, following receipt of their submissions, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the matter, which may include the issuance of a Decision and Order. Written submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.1/

BACKGROUND

    The Employer's mission is to administer retirement, Medicare, disability, survivor, and supplemental security income programs. The Union represents 15 employees in the DCFO who are part of a nationwide unit of approximately 50,000. They typically work as service representatives, claims representatives, clerks, and technicians, at grades GS-5 through -11. The national agreement (NA) covering these employees is due to expire on April 6, 2004.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

    The parties disagree over whether employees should be permitted to consume food and beverages in the newly-constructed IVT room.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Employer’s Position

    The Employer proposes the following:

Employees may use the [IVT] Room for breaks, lunches, etc., when the room is not otherwise being used. Food or beverages may only be used or consumed by employees (in the IVT room) during unit meetings, staff meetings, or training, such as CRT, SRT, etc. (Only the highlighted wording is in dispute.)

This proposal should be adopted because it addresses potential damage that may be caused by spilling liquid onto delicate computer equipment. For example, computer keypads will be located at each desk to accommodate training sessions, which increases the likelihood of damage to these keyboards if food and beverages were allowed in the room. Further, the IVT room will be carpeted, which may make it difficult to clean up spills and may show stains. To reduce problems relating to clean up, employees whose permanent work location is the DCFO, should use the lunchroom, which is also being renovated, or they may eat and drink at their normal workstations.

    Allowing employees to consume food and beverages during long-term training would not pose a problem because each training group will have a mentor assigned to them who would oversee cleanup. Since the DCFO is not the permanent work location for many of the trainees who will use the IVT room, they do not have the option of eating or drinking at their workstations. To address any perceived unfairness, these employees’ training desks would be designated as their workstations. They would be asked to limit their food and beverage consumption to snacks and beverages, however, and urged to eat their meals in the lunchroom.

2. The Union’s Position

    The Union proposes the following wording:

Employees may use the [IVT] Room for breaks, lunches, etc., when the room is not otherwise being used. However, all food and beverages must be removed from the room after usage. In other words, no food or beverages will be stored in the room. (Only the highlighted words are in dispute.)

The parties' past practice has been to allow employees to consume food and beverages in all non-public areas of the DCFO.2/ The Employer's justification for changing the past practice is "illogical," and inconsistent with its agreement to allow all employees to utilize the IVT room for breaks and lunches when it is otherwise not in use. If its concern were spillage, then it would have proposed "no consumption of food or beverages at any time." In fact, the Employer has failed to articulate "any adverse impact that would occur by allowing c