SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FORT LAUDERDALE EAST FIELD OFFICE FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA and COUNCIL 220, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
United States of America
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL
In the Matter of
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
FORT LAUDERDALE EAST FIELD OFFICE
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
COUNCIL 220, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Case No. 98 FSIP 170
DECISION AND ORDER
Council 220, 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 (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Social Security Administration, Fort Lauderdale East Field Office, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Employer).
After investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel directed the parties to participate in an informal conference with a Panel representative for the purpose of resolving their dispute concerning the relocation of the Fort Lauderdale East Field Office. The parties were advised that if no settlement was reached, the Panel’s representative would report to the Panel on the status of the dispute, including the parties' final offers, and his or her recommendations for resolving the impasse. After considering this information, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse, including the issuance of a binding decision.
Accordingly, on December 15, 1998, former Panel Member Gilbert Carrillo(1) conducted an informal conference with the parties at the Employer’s office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.(2) During the informal conference, the parties resolved two of the five issues in dispute.(3) Mr. Carrillo submitted a written report to the Panel which included his recommendations for resolving the three remaining issues based on the record developed by the parties. The Panel has now considered the entire record.(4)
The Employer administers retirement, disability, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income entitlement programs. The Union represents approximately 35 employees in the office who are part of a nationwide consolidated unit of about 48,000. They work in such positions as claims representative, service representative, and secretary. The parties’ master collective bargaining agreement was due to expire on March 5, 1999.
ISSUES AT IMPASSE
The parties disagree over: (1) the location of the multipurpose room (employee break room)/stockroom; (2) the location of the manager’s office; and (3) the layout of the reception area.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. The Employer's Position
The Employer essentially proposes that: (1) the multipurpose, or employee break room, be located in interior space and that the stockroom be placed at the rear of building with double doors to the outside; (2) the manager’s office be located at the front corner of the office with the window overlooking the front parking lot; and (3) the layout of the reception area follow the existing floor plan, with the reception counter windows placed opposite the front windows, and the public restrooms and private interview room placed on the side, along an interior wall.
Placing the multipurpose room in the interior of the building would allow it to share plumbing lines with adjacent restrooms. Unlike the Union’s proposal, under its floor plan the multipurpose room is situated away from the Interactive Video Teleconferencing room, thereby avoiding potential transmission problems with the satellite linkup. As to the location of the stockroom, deliveries are more easily accommodated if it is at the rear of the building with double doors to the outside. Since mail pick up and delivery, as well as other deliveries, would occur in the stockroom area, keeping it at the rear of the office also would eliminate the need for delivery persons to walk through employee work space. Adopting the Union’s preferred location, on the other hand, would cause security concerns, as well as wear and tear on the carpets.
With respect to the manager’s office, placing it in the front corner would help to maximize office security since it would allow the manager to monitor the front parking area, which is not patrolled by the office’s security guard. The manager’s office also would be near the assistant manager’s office, thereby creating a relatively secure area for confidential administrative and personnel records to be located. Its proposal regarding the layout of the reception area would allow employees who are manning the reception windows to have full view of persons entering the front door of the office, and would provide the security guard a direct line of vision to the reception windows to monitor any problems with patrons. Placing the reception counters opposite the office’s front window would maximize the amount of natural light coming into the reception area. Moreover, natural light would be able to pass through the open reception windows to an area where approximately one-third of the employees have their desks, further increasing the amount of natural light entering the office.
The Union "has failed to establish any significant factors that would require changes" in the Employer’s proposed layout, notwithstanding its stated desire for an office design which maximizes natural light. In the current office space, employees either draw the drapes completely on some windows, or partially draw them closed on others. It is doubtful, therefore, that the windows proposed by the Union for the multipurpose room would provide much natural light, regardless of where they are placed on the wall. Moreover, the Employer questions the Union’s sincerity in promoting natural light for the office since it only belated raised the issue. In this regard, the parties already have agreed to the following wording: "All front windows will be tinted. To the extent possible, the tinting will be dark enough so as to prevent seeing in from the outside while affording seeing