REDUCTION
IN FORCE
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . STAFFING PLAN . . . IMPLEMENTATION
Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution
Depot Susquehanna, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and Local 2004,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case Nos.
00 FSIP 86 and 00 FSIP 93, July 28, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed that the Panel delay its decision until the
Federal Labor Relations Authority rule on pending negotiability
appeals and unfair labor practice charges. Additionally, it proposed
that "positions be eliminated over a [five]-year period, ending
with FY 2005"--rather than entirely in FY 2001.
The AGENCY proposed "a staffing plan for FY 2001 that would
reduce by 461 the number of bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit
positions," effective October 1, 2000.
The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the AGENCY's proposal.
REDUCTION IN FORCE . . . CONTINUATION
OF NEGOTIATIONS
Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution
Depot Susquehanna, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and Local 2004,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case Nos.
00 FSIP 86 and 00 FSIP 93, July 28, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed that "'(d)ue to the complex nature of the
negotiations, the Union reserves the right to submit proposals throughout
the negotiating process.'"
The AGENCY proposed the following:
The Union may continue to submit proposals throughout the negotiating
process to assist in lessening the adverse impact on bargaining-unit
employees. The Union may not submit proposals that will change
the Staffing Plan after June 29, 2000, or extend or delay the
RIF date of September 30, 2000.
The PANEL ordered the parties to withdraw their proposals.
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . INFORMATION REQUESTS
Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution
Depot Susquehanna, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and Local 2004,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case Nos.
00 FSIP 86 and 00 FSIP 93, July 28, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed the following:
Management will provide, by 8 February 2000, an organizational
chart depicting every position required to perform all work in-house,
as opposed to contracting out. This information would include
numbers, types and grades of overhead positions, non-bargaining
unit positions and military billets.
Management will provide, by 8 February 2000, copies of all DDSP
workload projections for the last [three] fiscal years. In addition,
management will also provide, within [five] workdays, DDSP's actual
performance statistics for the past [three] years.
Management will provide, by 8 February 2000, the annual cost
of each position in DDSP.
Management will provide, by 8 February 2000, all studies and/or
data in the Agency's possession at the SLRA, PLFA, or DLA Headquarters
level related to the cost of contracting our (sic) any function.
Additionally, the UNION proposed that "it be provided a copy
of the [Business Case Analysis] as well as all other data used by
management 'to determine the number of separations.'"
The AGENCY offered no counterproposal. Instead, it asked the Panel
to order the Union to withdraw its proposals.
The PANEL ordered the Union to withdraw its proposals.
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution
Depot Susquehanna, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and Local 2004,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case Nos.
00 FSIP 86 and 00 FSIP 93, July 28, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed that---
[E]ach employee scheduled for separation under VSIP/VERA will
have his/her SF-52 annotated with the following statement: 'DDSP
agrees not to controvert any claim for state unemployment compensation
filed by this employee.' Each employee will be provided a signed
copy of the approved SF-52, upon approval.
The AGENCY had no counteroffer.
The PANEL declined to retain jurisdiction over the UNION's proposal.
REDUCTION IN FORCE . . . HOLDING RIF IN
ABEYANCE
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed that the reduction in force be held in "abeyance
pending the outcome of 'all bargaining, including but not limited
to, mediation and/or impasse proceedings.'"
The AGENCY proposed that the reduction in force be held in abeyance...
"'absent budgetary con[s]traints.'"
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the UNION's
proposal.
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . STREAMLINING THE BUREAUCRACY
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed the following:
A. Prior to effectuating the RIF, the Activity agrees to comply
with the President's Executive Order entitled "Streamlining
the Bureaucracy" and the Activity's Plan for Streamlining
the Bureaucracy, by reducing the ratio of managers and supervisors
to other personnel, and by decreasing their supervisory to employee
ratio to one (1) to thirteen (13).
B. Pursuant to Instruction 5400.15A the activity agrees that
prior to effectuating the RIF that there will not be more than
one (1) supervisory level between the employee and Department
Head.
C. The Activity agrees to streamline processes prior to effectuating
the RIF.
The AGENCY declared the proposals "non-negotiable since they
address the numbers and types of positions to be abolished in the
RIF, and seek to regulate the conditions of supervisory and management
employees."
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit declined to consider the UNION's proposal.
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . OUTPLACEMENT AND EAP SERVICES
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed that---
1. The Union and the Agency would seek reimbursable details
through the Employee Assistance/Transition Center for employees
impacted by the RIF. The Agency would keep records of these efforts.
2. The parties would meet two weeks before the RIF is effective
to "assess use of the Center and then bargain over how long
the Center will remain open."
3. The Employee Assistance Program would continue to be available
to "surplus and displaced employees" after the RIF.
The AGENCY proposed that---
1. The parties would track the usage of the Employee Assistance/Transition
Center; and, based on that information, "either close it
or enter into time-limited interest-based bargaining about how
long it should remain open."
2. The Agency would add additional services in the Transition
Center to support RIF- impacted employees, i.e., an additional
counselor and have counselors on site three days a week, but could
not provide services to non-employees.
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the following
language:
Section 4. Outplacement Employee Assistance Program Services
C. The Activity and the Union, through the Employee Assistance/Transition
Center, will seek reimbursable detail opportunities for RIF impacted
employees where such details are not inconsistent with the purpose
for which the RIF is being conducted. The Activity will be responsible
for documenting the parties' efforts (e.g., Activity(ies) contacted
for details, employees detailed, duration, Activity(ies) not accepting,
etc.). Copies of this information will be provided to the Union
on a weekly basis.
D. During the last month of the RIF, the Activity and Union
will jointly track the usage of the Transition Center, using a
sign-in sheet indicating what resources the employee intends to
use at the Center.
a) If there is no usage, the center will close at the end
of the 120 calendar days.
b) If there is usage then,
1) Activity and Union will engage in interest-based bargaining
with the intent of coming to agreement on how long the Center
will remain open. The parties will reach an agreement within
one month of the onset of negotiations, Or
2) The Center remains open an additional month.
E. The Activity will add one additional counselor to support
RIF impacted employees. Counselors will be on site three days
a week until the RIF is effected.
F. The Activity agrees to continue to make available to displaced
and surplus employees services and assistance currently offered
through the Employee Assistance Program to the extent authorized
by law.
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . EXECUTIVE ORDER 12871
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed the following:
Pursuant to Executive Order 12871 and the National Performance
Review, the parties agree to negotiate over numbers, types and
grades of employees through the Partnership Council by use of
consensus. Agreement to outstanding issues shall be agreed to
on numbers, types, and grades to be impacted by the RIF. This
Agreement shall be reduced to writing in the form of an MOU and
signed by the parties.
The Union also proposed that the parties agree to "'negotiate
and implement Self Directed Work Teams (SDWT)...'" and "'negotiate
and implement furloughs in lieu of effectuating the RIF....'"
The AGENCY elected not to negotiate over 7106(b) matters and asserted
that it, therefore, had no duty to bargain over the Union's proposals.
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the following
language:
The Partnership Council shall meet prior to the issuance of
specific RIF notices to air any outstanding questions the Union
has about the underlying reasons for the RIF and/or any alternatives
to RIF it wishes to suggest. At least 72 hours prior to this meeting
the Union will submit a concise list of questions/topics it wishes
to discuss. The Agency is required to send to the meeting representatives
prepared and able to address these topics. A dispute over the
amount of quality of information brought to the meeting will not
be a reason to extend or postpone the meeting. The meeting will
not exceed three hours in length except by mutual agreement. This
partnership discussion is for the purpose of sharing information
and suggestions, only. It is not for the purpose of bargaining
over the reduction in force, such bargaining having concluded
with issuance of this Award. Consequently, the failure of the
parties to come to any agreement during this discussion will not
constitute a bargaining impasse. A failure to hold this meeting
prior to issuance of specific notices that results from the Union's
non-availability shall not justify a postponement of the notices
being issued.
REDUCTION IN
FORCE . . . EXCEPTIONS/APPEALS
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed the following:
All employees passed over will have an opportunity to assert
and demonstrate their readiness to perform the same work. Moreover,
they will be given a notice and the opportunity to respond orally
and in writing prior to being passed over. This response will
be replied to before the employee is passed over and all procedural
issues will be identical to those provided for oral and written
replies to disciplinary action under the parties' Master Agreement.
The AGENCY proposed that the parties solely rely on "the RIF
appeal and grievance rights wherein an employee can raise any allegation
of error or unfairness" and opposed the creation of "any
right to a 'trial period,' which is how it [read] the Union proposal...."
The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the following:
Section 13. Exceptions/Appeals
(B) When the Activity decides to use one of the exceptions set
forth in the CFR and the employees receive notice of such action,
the employees may submit a written response, and at their request
will be given the opportunity for an oral response. The employee
response will be given full consideration and any subsequent decisions
will be provided to the employees in writing.
REDUCTION
IN FORCE . . . QUALIFICATION DETERMINATIONS
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposals allowed the Agency "to use a proficiency
test to determine qualifications..." and provided "for
testing results to go to the Union and short time frames for requesting
and taking any such test."
The AGENCY opposed the Union's proposal, which it read "as
a requirement that it develop proficiency tests and 'allow any and
all employees to be tested.'"
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the UNION's
proposal.
REDUCTION IN FORCE
. . . TRAINING
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head
Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July 27,
2000 (Release No. 433).
Essentially, the UNION proposed that the Agency would provide training
for employees reached for separation by the RIF to increase their
opportunities for placement in other Federal positions.
The AGENCY proposed that it would take "aggressive efforts
to ensure that employees reached for separation by the RIF will
receive benefits under Title II of the Federal Job Training Partnership
Act...."
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the AGENCY's
proposal, modified by the addition of the following paragraph:
There will be a designated RIF program manager at Indian Head
NSWC to coordinate and be responsible for carrying out the above
efforts.
REDUCTION IN FORCE
. . . DETAILS
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed the following:
The Activity will seek to detail as many employees as possible
on a reimbursable basis to other agencies. A committee shall be
established by the Activity with no less than two (2) Union representatives
that shall be responsible for the accomplishment of this effort.
The committee shall document its efforts...and a copy of the documentation
shall be provided to the Union. The Activity is responsible for
all necessary equipment and data that shall be necessary for accomplishing
this function. The committee's function shall terminate on the
date effectuating the RIF or when all available agencies have
been reached for consideration.
The AGENCY had no counterproposal.
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit declined to adopt the UNION's proposal.
REDUCTION IN FORCE
. . . MOCK RIF
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed that the Agency conduct, "'with the participation
of the Union,' practice runs of the RIF 'under alternative assumptions
to increase understanding of the process by employees, to identify
problems and jointly...develop solutions, and to compare costs of
the alternatives.'"
The AGENCY determined that it had no duty to bargain over the Union's
proposal because "it would require Union participation in management
discussion and deliberations on relevant factors upon which RIF
decisions are made, integral to management's right to lay off employees."
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the following
language:
Should the Agency conduct practice runs or "mock"
RIF/s, at the conclusion of such mock RIFs, for the purpose of
increasing understanding and identifying problems that may adversely
impact employees the Union President and two other Union representatives
designated by the President will be briefed on the mock RIF, given
an opportunity to provide comments to the Agency and provided
with documentation of the mock RIF, on condition that the Union
agree to such conditions of confidentiality as the Agency believes
are reasonably necessary.
REDUCTION IN FORCE . . . VOLUNTARY EARLY
RETIREMENT
Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland and Local 1923, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 68, July
27, 2000 (Release No. 433).
The UNION proposed "that the Agency make 'every reasonable
effort to request and receive authority to offer additional early
retirement opportunities (VERA/VSIP) base-wide for as long a period
as possible. The Activity shall expedite these efforts and shall
provide copies of all documents and briefings on the issue to the
Union.'"
The AGENCY provided two windows for early retirement--November
11 to December 15, 1999, and January 13 to 27, 2000--giving employees
amble opportunity to apply.
ARBITRATOR Mary E. Jacksteit ordered the parties to adopt the UNION's
proposal.
|