DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS, SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA and LOCAL 2429, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
United States of America
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL
|In the Matter of
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS, SPACE AND MISSILE
AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOCAL 2429, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Case NoS. 92 FSIP 206 and 92 FSIP 213
DECISION AND ORDER
Local 2429, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) in Case No. 92 FSIP 206 and the Department Of the Air Force, Headquarters, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Los Angeles, California (Employer) in Case No. 92 FSIP 213 filed requests with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under 5 U.S.C. § 119 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute).
The Panel determined to consolidate the cases and that the dispute concerning smoking policy should be resolved on the basis of the parties' responses to an Order to Show Cause why the Panel should not mandate the following provision:
(1) Smoking in all buildings at Los Angeles Air Force Base, except in the designated area of the warehouse in Building 229 and the designated bar area of the Club during non-duty hours, shall be prohibited.
(2) Smoking cessation classes shall be provided at no cost for interested employees, who shall be excused from work on official time, workload permitting, to attend classes that are scheduled during their work time.
(3) The Employer shall designate outdoor smoking areas at each building covered by the above policy which (a) are reasonably accessible to employees and (b) provide a measure of protection from the elements.
Submissions were made pursuant to these procedures. The Panel has now considered the entire record.
The Employer is a component of the newly-merged Air Force Materiel Command, with a mission of research and development relating to spacecraft and launch vehicles. It provides support for the Strategic Defense Initiative and other satellite programs. The Union represents approximately 1,000 General Schedule employees, who hold such positions as quality assurance and budget analyst, contract specialist, secretary, and clerk. The parties are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement which was to expire in 1982, but has been renewed automatically each year.
The dispute arose during negotiations over the Employer's decision to ban smoking indoors, except in the designated areas of a warehouse and the Club during non-duty hours. The Union opposes the change in policy.
ISSUE AT IMPASSE
The dispute concerns whether (1) employees should be permitted to smoke in designated areas of eating facilities, cocktail lounges, and the bar and (2) the Employer should provide complete protection from the elements in regard to outdoor designated smoking areas.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. The Employer's Position
The Employer concurs with the wording set forth in the Panel's Order to Show cause.
2. The Union's Position
Essentially, the Union proposes a modified version of the Panel's wording in its Order to Show Cause: (1) where ventilation systems and air movement patterns are sufficient to protect the health and comfort of nonsmoking patrons, smoking would be permitted in designated areas of eating facilities, cocktail lounges, and bars, and (2) designated outdoor smoking areas at each building should be reasonably accessible and shall provide complete protection from rain and other inclement weather. The Union does not specifically object to the Panel's wording regarding cessation classes.
The Union asserts that the parties previously have agreed on criteria for determining in which eating and drinking facilities smoking areas should be designated. Any contrary wording imposed by the Panel would violate the terms of the agreement. Additionally, permitting indoor smoking in the warehouse alone is inadequate since that area is available only to a limited number of employees. The main eating facilities have sufficient ventilation for smokers in designated areas. As to paragraph 3 of the Panel's Order, it is inadequate since a "measure of protection" means smokers still may be subject to adverse weather conditions. The Union's proposal, on the other hand, offers a better solution since it would tend to ensure that smokers are protected from the elements.
Having considered the parties' evidence and arguments, we conclude that the dispute over smoking should be resolved on the basis of a modified version of the Panel's wording in its Order to Show Cause. In our view, the Union has argued convincingly that the wording proffered by the Panel may serve to undermine that portion of the smoking policy previously agreed to by the parties concerning indoor designated smoking areas. We recognize, however, that there may be a need to modify that agreement because the ventilation systems in the eating facilities, cocktail lounges, and bars may not be sufficient to protect the health of employees who frequent thos