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.
|