|
|
|
|
|
NSPS Labor Relations System |
|
Department of Defense (DoD) and Office of Personnel Management Meet with DoD Union Officials to Discuss NSPS Labor Relations System Concepts Meeting Summary On February 26 and 27, 2004, DoD hosted a two-day meeting with representatives from employee labor unions to discuss and exchange ideas for the NSPS labor relations system. Representatives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also participated in the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to engage in meaningful discussions and interchange with the unions regarding the creation of a new labor management relations system for DoD, as authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of fiscal year 2004. A commissioner from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) facilitated the meeting. Representatives from the following unions were present:
Also present at the meeting were management representatives from the Military Departments, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Washington Headquarters Services. Overview of Discussion of Labor Concepts DoD began the meeting
with an overview of the labor relations concept paper that was provided to
unions on February 6. DoD representatives stressed during the presentation
that these concepts were not the final proposal, and pointed out that DoD
solicited feedback and ideas from the unions on ways to improve the labor
relations program in the Department. DoD stated that such feedback and input
would be considered in drafting the official written proposal to be provided
to the unions on The rest of the meeting focused on discussions of the concepts proposed by DoD. This included union comments and reaction to the labor relations concepts, as well as questions to DoD on specific concepts. The unions noted that their questions on how the specific concepts would work in application did not constitute any proposal from any union on these concepts. The major areas of discussion are summarized below. This summary is not intended to capture all comments and statements made during the meeting; rather it summarizes the significant issues discussed. Status of Chapter 71 - Union representatives questioned whether DoD had the legal authority to establish a labor relations system that was not consistent with Chapter 71 of title 5, USC. (Some unions asserted that this was not lawful.) DoD representatives stated that the NDAA authorized the Department to develop a new system for labor management relations in the Department, notwithstanding chapter 71. Some union officials asserted that the NDAA did not allow DoD from developing a labor relations system that was inconsistent with Chapter 71 and Congressional intent. National Security - Union representatives asked what the national security interest was in proposing these new concepts. DoD representatives stated that a modern, efficient, and effective system for labor relations which provided for streamlined and efficient processes for bargaining over changes to conditions of employment, quick resolution of disputes, while respecting the collective bargaining rights of employees would improve the Department's ability to carry out its national security mission. The union representatives stated that the DoD did not provide sufficient explanation of how such changes would improve DoD's ability to carry out its national security mission. Concept of bargaining - Union representatives expressed concern over the concept of "consultation" under the NSPS labor relations system, which they asserted was not consistent with the traditional definition of collective bargaining. Of particular concern to union officials was the lack of a third party "impasse" process, and the lack of term collective bargaining agreements. DoD explained that under the proposed concepts, bargaining would be accomplished through a consultation process that uses a collaborative, issue-based approach, as provided for in law, and that this requires a new "mindset" by both parties. Under the proposed concepts, unions could have input in new or changed policies, which may include issues that are traditionally "non-negotiable." The unions expressed objections that the consultation process would allow DoD to implement changes to conditions of employment even if no agreement is reached after 60 days after the unions were notified of the changes. DoD pointed out that unions would have an avenue to dispute outcomes of the consultation process through the Defense Labor Relations Board. Definition of "significant impact" - Union representatives expressed concern over the "significant impact" standard for duty to bargain for changes in condition of employment, and asked that this be defined in regulations. DoD stated that a definition had not been fully developed, however the thought behind the concept was to ensure that there was sufficient reason to begin the bargaining process. DoD stated that a definition would be provided in proposed regulations provided during the official collaboration process, which includes opportunities to discuss the definition at that time. Defense Labor Relations Board (DLRB) - Union officials expressed concern about whether an internal board could act independently in settling labor disputes. DoD representatives cited other internal boards within the Department that are required to act as independent decision-making bodies. OPM representatives pointed out that the Homeland Security personnel proposal included a similar internal board for resolving labor relation disputes. One union representative suggested that the makeup of the board should include three management representatives, three union representatives, and one member jointly selected by management and unions. DoD noted this suggestion. Determination of Bargaining Units - Union representatives objected to the proposed concept for determining bargaining units (that they may be described in terms of command structure, geographic location, and/or Component). Union officials expressed concern that this may lead to significant consolidation and reduction of bargaining units. Union officials also objected to the standard for elections of bargaining units (over 50% member turnout with over 50% votes cast), recommending that DoD should retain the current standards for elections. Several union representatives objected to new categories of employees who would be excluded from bargaining unit membership under the proposed concepts. DoD noted the specific concerns and indicated that the flexibility to structure bargaining units could improve the efficiency of working with unions, particularly when the arrangement facilitated dealing with similar problems and issues. DoD made a clear statement that it was not the intent to consolidate unions. Employee Complaints - Union representatives expressed concern over how individual employee grievances would be handled under NSPS. DoD officials stated that the employee appeals process would be streamlined under a single process (replacing negotiated grievance procedures), but that the details of that system were under development. Some unions expressed concern whether the employee complaints process would provide for due process. DoD pointed out that the employee complaints process would certainly provide for due process and would be provided to the unions at a later date. Union representatives objected to this approach and stated that the labor relations system should provide for a negotiated grievance process with binding arbitration. Union representatives noted that they could not make any comments on the appeals process during this meeting and stated that it impacted other parts of the labor relations system. DoD officials emphasized that the unions would be provided an opportunity to review the employee complaints process when it was available. Fee-for-Service Concept - Several union representatives objected to a proposed fee-for-service arrangement for non-dues paying bargaining unit employees. DoD stated that this was proposed to address union concerns over the requirement to represent employees who do not pay dues. Several union officials stated that they believed this would decrease union membership, which would financially hurt the unions. At least one union suggested that a "fair share" fee be imposed on bargaining unit employees where employees who decline to become dues paying members would pay a reduced amount decided by the union while still receiving full representation. DoD noted the concern and suggestion. Dues Collection - Union representatives objected to proposed language regarding management liability for administrative errors in dues withholding. DoD representatives clarified the intent of this provision, stating that the purpose was to identify a fair mechanism for reimbursing employees whose dues have been withheld in error. Union Access to Information - Union representatives expressed concern over the proposal to use the Freedom of Information Act procedures for providing unions information for labor relations purposes. DoD stated that the intent was to use an existing, known process for providing information. One union official expressed concern that FOIA requires information be provided based on the "public interest" which is viewed as difficult to establish and recommended that the current process should be followed, but suggested that the standard for granting access be based on "relevance." DoD noted the recommendation. Official Time - Union representatives expressed concern over changing the procedures for authorizing official time, and recommended that DoD retain the status quo. Next Steps DoD and OPM representatives thanked union representatives for attending the meeting and providing input to the process, and welcomed additional input for ways to improve the labor management relations system. DoD stated that the information and feedback from these meetings would be taken to heart, and fully considered in drafting the written proposal for a new labor relations system in the Department. |