Labor-Management Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.