REDUCTION IN FORCE Page 4 of 4
U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. and Local 2211, American Federa tion of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 98 FSIP 18, April 7, 1998 (Release No. 408).
The UNION proposed the following:
If an individual employee files an appeal with the MSPB on his or her own behalf of a RIF or furlough of 30 days or more, or, if the Union files a grievance concerning a RIF or furlough of 30 days of more, then the RIF or furlough of 30 days or more shall be stayed until an initial decision of the MSPB is issued on the employee appeal, or an arbitrator's decision on the Union grievance is issued.
The AGENCY proposed maintaining the status quo, i.e., RIF actions would not be stayed while employees appeal to either the MSPB or a grievance arbitrator.
The PANEL ordered the UNION to withdraw its proposal.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, San Francisco, California and Local 49, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Case No. 98 FSIP 64, May 12, 1998 (Release No. 409).
The UNION proposed the following:
Regarding issues 1, training, and 2, job duties, the Employer's existing IDP (Individual Development Plan) forms should not be used because they provide for a 5-year plan that does not adequately focus on immediate training needs following the RIF. Also, the Union has not bargained over the form. Moreover, the Union asserts that written, as contrasted with verbal, redistribution of job duties is necessary because the Employer cannot be trusted. Furthermore, deadlines for furnishing the redistribution plan and rewritten position descriptions are necessary to ensure Employer accountability.
As to issue 3, employee counseling, an Employer-paid group-counseling session for bargaining-unit employees is preferable to the Employer's proposal that employees seek counseling through the existing EAP program because employees may be reluctant to use the existing program. One example of an employee's failure to seek help occurred in 1994 when an employee committed suicide following the announcement of base closings.
With respect to issue 4, mock RIFs, there should be a more extensive mock-RIF process set forth in the parties' agreement than contained in the Employer's proposal. The more detailed procedure will increase the usefulness of these "dry runs" by better identifying and making known the likely results of the RIF. As to issues 5, effective date of the RIF, and 6, RIF notification letters, affording longer time frames than proposed by the Employer for notice to employees of a proposed RIF action, and for them to respond to RIF offers, is more equitable. Furthermore, employees need the additional time to address the myriad issues associated with receiving a RIF notice and to consider alternatives.
Concerning issue 7, performance appraisals, the existing practice that annual appraisals are due on the employee's birth date should apply for purposes of the RIF. One bargaining-unit employee's appraisal was belatedly received in the Human Resources (HR) office and, consequently, not used in computing that employee's retention standing in the RIF. The supervisor should be held accountable for the tardiness of the appraisal.
With respect to issues 8, vacant positions, and 9, training for separated employees, the Union's proposals seek to enhance the ability of those employees to obtain other employment. As to issue 10, the effective date of the parties' RIF agreement should be the date on which both parties have signed the agreement. Regarding issue 11, the Employer should be responsible for distributing the agreement to employees and posting it on bulletin boards. With respect to issue 12, a freeze on vacancies will contribute to protecting the interests of current employees who are subject to the RIF.
Concerning issues 13 and 14, which relate to the availability and retention of information, requiring the Employer to allow employees and their Union representatives access to specified information and retaining that information will place employees who are subject to RIF in a better position to protect their interests.
On issue 15, subject-matter experts, its proposal would ensure that information is available regarding the qualifications of any neutral subject-matter expert who is called on to determine employees' qualifications; joint selection of subject-matter experts or veto power is not sought.
As to issue 16, RIF training, it is necessary to spell out provisions for such training in greater detail than provided by the Employer's proposal. With respect to issue 17, the Union needs more extensive use of bulletin-board space than the Employer offers; the Union should be provided with half of the specified bulletin board until 60 days after the effective date of the RIF. Similarly, in regard to issues 18, e-mail, and 19, official time, the Union should be authorized such accommodations until 60 days following that effective date.
Finally, on issue 20, new performance plans for new positions and changes in job duties, they should be completed within 30 days of the change in the employee's job or duties.
The AGENCY proposed the following:
Concerning issues 1 and 2, which relate to training and job duties, the existing IDP forms provide an established system for addressing the short- and long-term needs of all employees. Hence, it is easily applied to employees who move into new positions as a consequence of the RIF. As to the reassignment of work, the redistribution of any remaining job duties resulting from the elimination of jobs in the RIF should be accomplished verbally; job descriptions need to be rewritten only when significant changes or substantial additions are made to job duties.
With respect to issue 3, the existing EAP, which is widely advertised to employees, is adequate to meed employee counseling needs resulting from the RIF. In fact, even though the Employer arranged to have an EAP counselor on site prior to the RIF and notified employees of that fact, no employees availed themselves of the service. Consequently, there is no reason to assume that employees would be more receptive to a special on-side group-counseling session, as the Union proposes.
As to issue 4, the Employer's proposal to share the results of the mock RIF with employees at a meeting where a Union representative is present is sufficient to meet employee needs. On issues 5 and 6, the content of the RIF notice and the notice period proposed by the Employer is sufficient. This is especially true in view of the fact the Commanding Officer met with all employees on January 8, 1998, and thoroughly discussed the RIF and answered employee questions. Moreover, the HR office gave the Union advance notice of when RIF letters would go to affected employees. In any event, the RIF was delayed in an effort to achieve the necessary reductions through attrition and could not be delayed any further to accommodate extending the RIF-notice period.
Regarding issue 7, the last three performance appraisals on file in the HR office as of January 1, 1998, were used to calculate the retention standing of employees for purposes of this RIF. In one instance, an employee whose performance appraisal was belatedly submitted to HR after that deadline had his retention standing recomputed; but the untimely submission of the appraisal made no difference in the outcome of the RIF.
Turning to issue 8, vacant positions, the interests of employees subject to displacement in this RIF are adequately met by its proposal to allow employees to use their personal computers to find vacancies for which the Employer is recruiting, and then apply for them in accordance with its established procedure. The Union's proposal on issue 9 is unnecessary because no bargaining-unit employee is being terminated in this RIF; consequently, there is no need to provide training and assistance to help such employees seek outside jobs.
With respect to issue 10, the terms and conditions of the agreement should be effective on the date of the agreement. The Employer makes no specific counterproposal as to issue 11, notifying employees of the agreement, however, they suggest this is not necessary as the Employer is willing to provide bulletin board space to the Union; issue 12, job freezes; and issue 13, providing the Union with information prior to the RIF. The Union's proposals with respect to these issues are unnecessary. As to issue 14, the Employer's proposal, which provides that records used to conduct this RIF be maintained for at least 1 year following the RIF, adequately addresses the potential need for the employees and their Union representatives to have access to information contained in those records.
On issue 16, the Employer's proposal, which permits official time for 2 Union representatives to provide up to 2 hours of RIF training to bargaining-unit employees who will be on official time, sufficiently addresses the issue. Regarding issue 17, allowing the Union to use one-fourth of a specified DETS (Directorate of Engineering and Technical Services) bulletin board for a period of 30 days following the effective date of the RIF is reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly, allowing a period extending 30 days following the RIF for Union use of e-mail, issue 18, and official time for the Union's president and vice president, issue 19, is also adequate to accommodate the Union's representational needs in this particular RIF. As to issue 20, its proposal reflects the Employer's essential agreement with the Union that performance standards should be reviewed and updated within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the RIF.
Next, the Employer points out that this bargaining is limited to this RIF and that they are not bargaining for any future RIFs. Therefore, many matters raised by the Union are now moot.
In addition to the 20 issues addressed in the Union's proposals, wording should be included stating that the parties' agreement resolves all unfair labor practice charges and negotiability petitions concerning this RIF.
The PANEL ordered the following:
The parties shall adopt Employer Proposals 1 and 2.
The Union shall withdraw its Proposal 14 and the parties shall adopt Employer's Proposal 9 with the following wording added:
On a case-by-case basis as needed to represent bargaining-unit member(s), the Union representative will be afforded access to the appropriately sanitized RIF records, in accordance with the Privacy Act.
The Employer shall withdraw its Proposal 10 and the Union shall withdraw its Proposal 15; they shall adopt the following compromise wording:
During this RIF, if it becomes necessary to determine a bargaining-unit member's qualifications and a neutral subject-matter expert is required, the Employer will make available to the Union the neutral expert's qualifications and availability.
The Employer shall withdraw its Proposal 8 and the Union shall withdraw its Proposal 17; they shall adopt the following compromise wording:
Directorate of Engineering and Technical Services (DETS) Bulletin Board
Until June 12, 1998, the Union will have use of half of the DETS Bulletin Board on the 10th floor to post matters regarding this RIF agreement. No Privacy Act information will be posted.
The Employer shall withdraw its Proposal 12 and the Union shall withdraw its Proposal 18; they shall adopt the following compromise wording:
Until June 12, 1998, the Union representatives will have access to the e-mail system for representational purposes relating to this RIF.
The Employer shall withdraw its Proposal 14 and the Union shall withdraw its Proposal 19; they shall adopt the following compromise wording:
The Union president and vice president are each authorized 10 percent (4 hours per week) total for RIF-representation matters until June 12, 1998.
Then Employer shall withdraw its Proposal 13 and the Union shall withdraw its Proposal 20; they shall adopt the following compromise wording:
The performance plans of affected employees will be reviewed and updated within 30 days of the May 4, 1998, RIF.
The Employer shall withdraw its Proposals 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 15.
The Union shall withdraw its Proposals 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16.
Page 1 of 4 · Page 2 of 4 · Page 3 of 4 · Page 4 of 4
