Go to OPM Homepage

Labor-Management Relations: Index of Decisions
blank space

blank space

TELEPHONE MONITORING


TELEPHONE MONITORING

Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 18, March 24, 2000 (Release No. 430).

The UNION proposed that SSA notify "'employees immediately before conducting service observations.'"
The AGENCY proposed that employees be notified the week before conducting service observations.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the AGENCY's proposal, modified to require three workdays notice before conducting service observations of employees' calls.


TELEPHONE MONITORING . . . PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING EMPLOYEES

Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 18, March 24, 2000 (Release No. 430).

The UNION proposed the following:

The Excel program will be completed by the last week of the month before it is used in an office. The program for all offices will be done at the Regional Office level. Copies will be sent to management and Union designee. A copy of the office roster and number assigned to each employee will also be supplied to the Union. The Excel program will utilize the number of employees in a specific office and assign the time that they will be monitored. A [three]-hour window of either morning or afternoon could be used.

The AGENCY proposed that the Panel direct the Union to withdraw its proposal.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the following wording:

At the end of each month, the Union shall be provided with a copy of the random sample of employees who were subject to service observation during each week of that month.


TELEPHONE MONITORING . . . UNANNOUNCED . . . EMPLOYEE CONDUCT

Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 18, March 24, 2000 (Release No. 430).

For unannounced telephone monitoring relating to conduct, the UNION proposed that "a 'conduct problem' would be defined as 'rude telephone behavior, hang-ups without cause, making personal calls while callers are on hold, etc.' and that employees would be given ten workdays notice to respond to allegations. Additionally, documents relating to any allegations found to be unwarranted would be removed from employee files.

The AGENCY proposed that the Panel direct the Union to withdraw its proposal because it would excessively with management's right to discipline employees.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the following:

Conduct problems include, but are not limited to, rude telephone behavior, hang-ups without cause, and making personal calls while callers are on hold.


TELEPHONE MONITORING . . . NUMBER OF CALLS

Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 18, March 24, 2000 (Release No. 430).

The UNION proposed that employees would be subject to "service observation on three to five calls per month."

The AGENCY proposed the following:

[E]xperienced employees (employees service at least [one] year in their current position) will be subject to service observation of [one] to [five] calls per month per employee.... Unlimited service observation can be conducted on trainees (employees with less than [one] year in their current position).

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the AGENCY's proposal.


TELEPHONE MONITORING . . . VENDOR CERTIFICATION

Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 18, March 24, 2000 (Release No. 430).

Essentially, the UNION proposed that the Agency require the telephone vendor to certify which lines could and could not be monitored.

The AGENCY proposed that the Panel order the Union to withdraw its proposal because it is not needed. It has already agreed to identify the lines that would be subject to monitoring.

The PANEL ordered the UNION to withdraw its proposal.


TELEPHONE MONITORING . . . IMPLEMENTATION

Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 18, March 24, 2000 (Release No. 430).

In essence, the UNION proposed that--

1. Service observations would be implemented in 100 field offices per month.

2. Parties at the local level would negotiate how long service observations would remain in effect, "with a typical duration to range from [six] to [nine] months."

3. Continuation of service observations beyond the period negotiated locally would be bargained at the national lever pursuant to Article 4 of the Master Collective Bargaining Agreement.

4. The Agency would review data obtained from service observations to determine whether they should continue. These data and any rationale for continuing service observations would be shared with the Union.

The AGENCY proposed that the Panel order the Union to withdraw its proposal "because determinations over when service observation is to be implemented in field offices, and the duration of the implementation, should be at the Employer's discretion."

The PANEL ordered the UNION to withdraw its proposal.



blank space
blank space
To Top of Page
Skip past Navigation Buttons Adverse Action | Agreement | Alternative Work Schedule | Classification | Dress Code
Employee Rights | Facilities | Health Safety | Leave | Negotiated Grievance/Arbitration Prodecure
Official Time | Parking | Performance | Personnel Management | Personnel Records | Reduction in Force
Staffing | Telephone Monitoring | Travel | Union Rights | Work Schedule | FSIP decisions by case number | HOME


Last Modified August 27, 2001