Click here to view the decision.
56 FLRA No. 56
Department of the Treasury , U.S. Customs Service El Paso, Texas and NTEU, Chapter 143 and Department of the Treasury U. S. Customs Service, New Orleans, Louisiana and NTEU, Chapter 168, Case No. CA-60047 (Decided May 16, 2000)
This unfair labor practice case came before the Authority on the Respondent's exceptions to an Administrative Law Judge decision on remand from the Authority in 55 FLRA 43 (1998). On remand, the Judge found that the Respondent failed to show that videotaping employee interviews constituted the exercise of a reserved management right under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its internal security practices. Accordingly, he concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by failing to give the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain over its decision to videotape employee interviews prior to changing conditions of employment. The Authority adopted the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order only to the extent consistent with this decision.
The Authority found that the respondent's videotape recording of employees during internal affairs investigations constituted an internal security practice under section 7106(a)(1) of the statute. The Authority noted that the Respondent established a reasonable link between its investigative technique-videotape recording an employee subject to an investigation by the Office of IA, to capture the demeanor of the employee interviewee--and its objective of safeguarding its personnel, property, or operations
The Authority also found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the statute by failing to bargain over the impact and implementation of its decision to videotape record interviews of employees subject to IA investigations. Having found that the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice based on its failure to notify the Union and bargain over the impact and implementation of the change, and in the absence of any exception to the scope of the Judge's remedy, the Authority modified the Judge's recommended order, where it concerned the Respondent's obligation to bargain, to add language that limited the scope of bargaining to impact and implementation of the change.