Since we last formally looked back at Army's labor relations program, another year has come and gone. While it has been a relatively calm year in labor relations, changes have occurred all around us. This bulletin focuses mainly on the labor relations "numbers", but we also like to take a quick look at some of the major issues that have impacted Army's labor relations program.

Although there were no significant Federal-wide issues impacting Army's labor relations program in Fiscal Year (FY) 02, one particular Army-specific action was quite significant -- the creation of various new organizations. Initially referred to as Transformation of Installation Management, this program encompassed the establishment of the Installation Management Agency (IMA), the Army Contracting Agency (ACA) and the Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM). In addition to the establishment of these three new organizations, labor relations specialists were busy ensuring the completion of labor relations obligations in a whole host of changes to bargaining unit employees' conditions of employment. Further, Army began addressing the issue of the labor/employee relations shortage we identified in last years bulletin.

Transformation of Installation Management

One of the largest changes impacting Army installations this year was the establishment of the IMA, the ACA and NETCOM. While these organizations did not directly affect installations in Fiscal Year (FY) 02, their establishment created significant concern with the labor organizations regarding the impact the new organizations will have on bargaining unit status. After meetings with the national unions, though, most fears were alleviated when the new organizations assured the union that there would be no significant disruption to the working conditions or union representation of the employees during the transition period. To date, we have not seen any strong union opposition to the establishment of these organizations.

General Changes to Conditions of Employment Requiring LR Action

In addition to the rather large change above, labor relations specialists were continually faced with policy changes requiring their involvement in ensuring the fulfillment of all statutory and contractual labor relations obligations. Some of the more significant changes included the issuance of Telework policies, the centralization of Resumix, the Emergency Contact Data Base, salary offset stemming from TDY payment, and the requirement that employees sign up for Army Knowledge Online (AKO). Each one of these changes presented certain challenges for Army's labor relations specialists who handled them with their usual style and conviction.

Labor Relations Specialists Within Army

In response to the current and future shortage of labor and management employee relations (MER)specialists, Department of the Army began developing a labor/MER specialty for interns. The program will recruit and train a select number of interns to specialize in labor and MER. While these interns will receive training in other areas of civilian personnel, the vast majority of time will be spent on formal and on-the-job training in the labor and employee relations functional areas. Once finalized, the program should be a valuable tool for the recruitment and development of labor and MER specialists within Army.

As stated above, this was a relatively tranquil year for Army's labor relations program. With future changes on the horizon, this may just be the calm before the storm.

Negotiability Disputes

Appeals - There were six negotiability appeals filed by unions involving Army installations. While this is a 50% increase from last year's 4 cases, only one of the six cases will result in the Authority addressing the merits of the appeal. Interestingly, from FY 97 to FY 02, negotiability appeals have changed a minimum of 50% from each of the previous years. (See Chart A.) The mean average of negotiability appeals for the previous ten years is 7.9.

The six cases submitted to the Authority by the unions (agencies don't file negotiability appeals as the union can't declare our proposals nonnegotiable) involved a total of 7 proposals and 3 provisions. (The provisions are agreed to contract language that were declared nonnegotiable by Field Advisory Services during its agency head review of the agreement.) The 10 proposals/provisions were about the same as last year's seven.

Five of the six cases (involving 7 proposals and 2 provisions) were either withdrawn by the union - typically the result of settlement procedures by the Authority - or dismissed by the Authority. Dismissals can result from the union's appeal being untimely filed or incomplete. In FY 02, the Authority did not issue any negotiability decisions involving Army cases where they addressed the merits of the parties' arguments. One case filed in FY 02 is still pending before the Authority.

Decisions

The Authority disposed of five Army cases. As stated above, all five were either dismissed by the Authority or withdrawn by the union. One case filed in FY 02 is still pending before the Authority.

Army accounted for 8.2% of the total negotiability cases filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority in FY 02 and 0% of the decisions issued where the Authority decided on the merits of the proposal. Given that Army has approximately 20% of the bargaining units within the Government and that our employees account for about 11% of the employees under exclusive recognition, our negotiability numbers are very impressive.

Impasses

The Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel) received 212 requests for assistance in FY 02, down 3 from the previous year. Unions submitted approximately 77% of the requests. Management submitted 17% and the remainder (6%) were joint submissions. Army installations accounted for 17 (8.0%) of the Panel's 212 requests-this is up 3 (21%) from last year's 14 requests and is still a relatively low percentage of requests from Army installations. Typically, Army averages about 9% of requests to the Panel. On the unions' side, AFGE was involved in 154 (73%) cases, far surpassing the second union, NTEU which accounted for only 14 (6.6%) of the 212 cases.

As consistently happens from year to year, the vast majority (80%) of the cases stemmed from mid-term bargaining. The majority of issues raised to the Panel in FY 02 concerned facilities (office equipment, office design, parking, etc.) followed closely by hours of work, to include compressed work schedules and flextime. Personnel matters such as reassignments, reductions in force and merit promotion rounded out the top three.

The Panel disposed of 181 cases in FY 02; down 24 (11.7%) from FY 01. (This is not surprising since there were no Panel members between December 2001 and May 2002 due to the transition of Presidential appointees.) Ninety-seven of those cases (54%) were withdrawn prior to the Panel accepting jurisdiction. The Panel declined to accept jurisdiction (e.g., questions of duty to bargain were raised) in 26 (14%) of the cases. Thirty-five (19%) were settled or withdrawn after procedural determinations but prior to an actual Decision and Order by the Panel. These cases could have been settled during written submissions, resolved as a result of mediation efforts by a Panel or staff member or settled based on acceptance of a Panel recommendation.

The Panel issued 18 decisions in FY 02. Private arbitrators decided five cases. (In these cases, the Panel either approved a joint request for an outside arbitrator, the parties accepted the Panel's recommendation that an outside arbitrator be used, or the Panel directed outside arbitration.) Sixteen Opinions and Decisions (89%) were Panel Decisions and Orders; two (11%) of the 18 decisions were issued by Panel or staff members serving as mediators/arbitrators.

Two (11.1%) of the Panel's 18 decisions involved Army installations. The first case involved one proposal regarding whether a particular rest room should be designated as female only or unisex. The union sought to maintain the status quo by keeping the restroom for females noting that there are many more female employees in the area than males. Management sought a 30-to-60-day test of the unisex bathroom. Additionally, management noted that the bathroom was already being used by males and they had the results of a six-week survey on bathroom usage showing both male and female usage. The Panel sided with the agency and directed that the bathroom be designated as unisex. http://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/01fs_180.html

In the second case, the dispute was whether lock and dam operators in the Little Rock District should be authorized to wear gray knit shirts. Management proposed that the employees wear only the duty shirt while the back-up lock and dam operators could wear the duty shirt or the knit shirt. Management wanted the operators to wear the duty shirt because it presented a more professional image. The union wanted the employees to be able to wear the knit shirt for safety reasons. As in the previous case, the Panel sided with the agency and ordered the adoption of its proposal. http://www.flra.gov/fsip/finalact/02fs_053.html

Army continues to have a limited presence before the Impasses Panel, which indicates the parties are completing negotiations with only rare third-party intervention.

Grievances and Arbitrations

Grievances - There were 951 negotiated grievances filed by Army bargaining unit employees in FY 02. While this is an increase of 96 (11%) from FY 01, it is the second fewest negotiated grievances filed within a fiscal year in Army. Grievances in Fiscal Year 2002 remained at a relatively low rate. (See Charts A and B.)

There was no particular trend with regard to previous years. Nine MACOMs saw an increase in the number of grievances from last FY while seven saw their grievances go down. One MACOM had a 175% increase in the number of negotiated grievances (from 51 to 140). The grievances were spread throughout the command and no specific explanation for the change could be identified.

Using the numbers obtained from HQ ACPERS, there are 112,215 Department of the Army appropriated fund bargaining unit employees. This number was obtained by subtracting all employees with bargaining unit status codes of 7777 (non-represented) and 8888 (statutorily excluded, e.g., supervisors) from the entire appropriated fund population as reported in ACPERS. (OPM's Union Recognition in the Federal government reports there were 114,798 appropriated fund bargaining unit employees in Army as of January 2001.) For consistent comparisons with last year's figures, the following numbers are based on the bargaining unit population contained in HQ ACPERS.

Given Army's bargaining unit population of 112,215, there were 8.5 negotiated grievances filed per 1,000 appropriated fund bargaining unit members. This number is slightly up from last year's rate of 7.5 per 1,000 bargaining unit members and compares very favorably with the normal range of about 10 negotiated grievances per 1,000 bargaining unit members. (For example, the rates for the last ten fiscal years range from 17.2 to 7.5 grievances per 1.000 employees.)

Arbitration - One hundred and fifteen (12.1%) of the 951 grievances were raised to arbitration. That's up 55 (91.7%) from the number of grievances taken to arbitration in FY 01. (See Charts A and C.) Two MACOMs accounted for over 62% of all the arbitrations taken within Army. The 12% of grievances taken to arbitration in Fiscal Year 02 is significantly higher than the 7% taken in FY 01 and is the highest percentage since we've kept track of this data. Though management has no true control over the number of grievances taken to arbitration, efforts should be made to resolve those grievances at the lowest practical level. While the percentage of grievances to arbitrations was high, the actual number of arbitrations was in line with those in FY 96 and earlier. This is an interesting statistic to keep eye on. It would make sense that if the unions are not overly successful in their arbitration efforts, this number should go down in the coming years.

There were 110 arbitration awards involving Army installations issued in FY 02. That is 66 more (150%) than FY 01. Though the unions normally determine which grievances will go before an arbitrator, management continued to have great success in arbitrations. Management was sustained in 58 (53%) of the 115 decisions. This is very similar to last year's 54% success rate. The union was successful in 16 (14%) decisions and 36 (33%) were either split or mitigated. (See Charts A and D). As we have seen over the years, the success rates for the parties typically remain within a given range. Management is typically successful in about 40 to 50 percent of the arbitrations, the union's success rate falls within its typical range of 20 to 30 percent and the split or mitigated decisions generally stay within 20 to 30 percent range of the awards issued. This year, the union's appear to have been a bit less successful than previous years (though I look at this as management being more successful.)

Exceptions - Management filed six exceptions to arbitrators' awards in FY 02. That's four more than the previous fiscal year, but given the dramatic increase in the number of arbitration awards, this number is not surprising.

The first exception involved a supplemental award from an arbitrator regarding the payment of contractual and statutory attorney fees stemming from an asbestos/EDP matter. This case has been going on for quite some time with numerous requests for clarifications and supplemental awards by the union, with the arbitrator only too happy to comply. This particular exception had to do with contractual attorney fees and the continuing liability for EDP.

The second exception was to an arbitrator's award canceling the grievant's performance appraisal and ordering the grievant's prior appraisal extended. The arbitrator also awarded the grievant backpay and ordered the agency to approve the grievant's application for training. Army argued the award was contrary to numerous management's rights in that it directed approval of work related training and substituted a different appraisal than that provided by management.

The appropriate staffing level of a firehouse was the issue in the third exception. The fourth exception concerned an arbitrator's finding that management had improperly held a grievant financially liable for damages to a government truck. The fifth case involved an arbitrator's finding that grievants were entitled to standby pay for certain time spent on-call. Interestingly, the arbitrator found that the grievants were not entitled to standby pay under applicable regulation, but he found the contract less restrictive and awarded back pay. Management argued that the arbitrator was right in finding his award violated government-wide regulations which were not trumped by the parties' agreement. The final exception concerned an award directing management to create and fill a particular position based on requirements contained in the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

The Authority issued two decisions on exceptions that the agency filed in FY 01. Both cases involved the various supplemental awards involving the EDP/asbestos arbitration case. The Authority addressed the issue of the contractual fees once again as well as the continuation of EDP payments. The Authority, in agreement with the agency, found that management was not obligated to pay contractual attorney fees and that EDP payment could be terminated. Of note, the Authority authorized either party to request a different arbitrator with respect to any remanded issue. Member Pope dissented in almost all aspects of the decision. http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v58/58-016ab.html

In the second decision, the arbitrator billed the parties for storage of records from the above EDP arbitrations. He also awarded attorney fees to non-attorney staff. The Authority reversed the storage bill and remanded the award with regard to support staff. Other aspects of the attorney fee bill were upheld. http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v58/58-017.html The Authority did not issue a decision on any of the FY 02-filed exceptions.

Oppositions - Army filed eight oppositions to union filed exceptions - five (167%) more than in FY 01. The Authority denied or dismissed three of the eight union exceptions filed in F 02; the Authority remanded to the parties one case in which the agency had filed an opposition. Four oppositions were still pending at the end of FY 02. The Authority issued one decision on a union exception filed in the previous year. The union exception was denied.

Summary - The number of negotiated grievances filed by Army employees and unions increased from last year's numbers; the number of negotiated grievances though continues to remain at a relatively low rate - 8.5 per 1,000 employees. The 951 grievances were the second fewest filed under a negotiated procedure since we began maintaining this data. Associated with the increase in the number of grievances filed was an increase in the number of grievances taken to arbitration. FY 02 had the most grievances going to arbitration since FY 96. Management's success rate remained at the higher level of its normal success range. When adding management's success rate with those cases where the arbitrator split or mitigated the award, management saw some success in 85% of its arbitration cases. As we stated last year, even though Army continues to experience great success in its arbitration cases, activities should continue to examine the merit of each case and seek to resolve disputes at the lowest possible level and to reach settlement wherever possible.

Unfair Labor Practices

Charges - Fiscal Year 02 was a tremendous year for ULPs - and I mean that in the most positive manner. This year we saw the fewest ULP charges against the agency. There were 340 ULP charges filed against Army activities; a decrease of 25 (6.8%) from FY 01. (See Charts A and E.)

Three MACOMs accounted for almost 65% of the ULPs this year. Three other MACOMs almost dropped in half the number of ULP charges it received. This is the second year in a row where ULPs have stayed in the 350 range. It will be interesting to watch if this becomes a trend, especially in light of the constant, significant changes occurring within Army and DoD.

Comparing the number of ULP charges with the unit data in ACPERS, there were approximately 3.00 ULP charges filed per 1,000 bargaining unit members. This compares very favorably with last year's rate of 3.2 ULPs per 1,000 employees.

Government-wide, the General Counsel received 5,716 ULP charges. Army received 5.9% of the charges, the same as last year's percentage. Given that Army accounts for approximately 11% of the bargaining unit population, a 5.9% rate is a very nice accomplishment.

Complaints - With the decrease in the number of ULP charges filed against management, there was a smaller percentage decrease in the number of complaints issued by the General Counsel. Army activities received 20 ULP complaints in FY 02. That is a decrease of 3 (13%) from last year. Compared to Government-wide data, Army accounted for 5.1% of the complaints issued by the General Counsel. Complaints against Army installations equated to 5.9% of charges filed, down from the 6.3% rate in FY 01. Government-wide, the rate was 6.8%. A ULP complaint was issued for every 17 ULP charges filed against Army installations. Last year, a ULP complaint was issued for every 15.9 charges filed. Government-wide, the General Counsel issued a complaint for every 14.7 charges filed. It would appear that ULP charges filed against Army installations are dismissed more frequently than those filed against other government agencies. Using our ACPERS data, there were 0.18 complaints issued per 1,000 bargaining unit members within Army, slightly below last year's number of 0.20.

Decisions - Of the 20 complaints, only one resulted in a ULP decision being issued by the Authority in FY 02. In that case, the Authority found the activity had not violated the Statute by refusing to furnish the union with a copy of the MEO prior to the close of the A-76 bid process. The Authority found providing the MEO at that time would have violated the A-76 regulation. http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v57/57-176ac.html. There were no Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions issued involving Army installations.

Summary - Unfair labor practice charges against Army hit an all time low. As there is no restriction on the filing of unfair labor practice charges, the amount of charges filed is not a true indicator of management's compliance with the labor relations statute. Rather, it is more an indicator of the relationship between management and the union. This year's 340 charges would indicate that the relationships between Army installations and their unions continue to be healthy. Given the changes occurring within Army, it would be (pleasantly) surprising to see this number remain this low in the upcoming years.

What this office pays more attention to is the number of complaints issued and the number of decisions where management has been found to have committed a ULP. This year, the numbers are very impressive. Only 20 complaints were issued. That's the fewest number since FY 94. Also, there were no ALJ decisions issued against Army and management was sustained in the single ULP decision issued by the Authority. These numbers would indicate that Army installations are typically complying with the Statute and, where there may be a violation, settling the dispute at the lowest level. Of course, unions continue to file frivolous ULPs against management. This year, 94% of the ULP charges filed by the unions did not warrant a complaint by the General Counsel. Looked at another way, the General Counsel (GC) issued a complaint for every 17 ULP charges filed. This compares favorably to last year where the GC issued a complaint for every 15.9 charges filed.

Using government-wide figures, Army accounted for only 5.1 of the government-wide complaints; given we account for about 11% of the Federal bargaining unit members, that's a pretty good showing. There could be numerous explanations, but the one most on target is the level of effort and teamwork exerted by our labor relations specialists and our labor attorneys. These partners are looking to keep management educated as to their statutory and contractual labor relations obligations, settling those cases where warranted and aggressively defending the agency as appropriate.

Labor-management cooperation continues to be Army's preferred means for administering its labor relations program. Such dealings typically promote worker satisfaction and mission accomplishment. As we recommended last year, activities are encouraged to include agreement language requiring a settlement period before the actual filing of a ULP charge. This allows the parties an opportunity to investigate and settle a charge before the parties' positions get hardened and settlement a less likely occurrence.

Union Representation

The Office of Personnel Management has not issued an updated Union Recognition in the Federal Government. The next publication is expected in 2003.

What's Next

While started in FY 02, one of the most important changes coming in FY 03, from a labor relations perspective, will be the establishment of IMA and ACA at the installation level. The establishment of these new installation organizations will require your involvement in various issues stemming from questions of representation, to include the filing of representation petitions, to an increase in the need for collective bargaining. Also in FY 03, changes will begin impacting the organization structure of the Civilian Personnel Advisory Centers. It is too early to identify what impact, if any, this will have on Army's labor relations program. Given the overall health of the program, I'm hoping any changes will be minimal.

Another possible change, though not as certain, is the proposed legislation for the DoD National Security Personnel System. If passed, this legislation would dramatically change how labor relations, as well as all personnel, would be handled in the Department of Defense. We'll be keeping a close eye as this legislation makes its way through Congress.

Recognizing that Army is facing a shortage of experienced labor and MER specialists, we will implement a new functional intern program. Under this intern program, candidates will be recruited with the understanding that they will finish the program with the expectation of placement into labor/MER vacancies. The training and rotation within the program will be geared towards that ultimate placement.

In addition to specific changes, labor relations specialists will continue to be engaged in all types of labor negotiations, from new drug testing to various vaccinations. Every change impacting working conditions of bargaining unit members has some role for the labor relations specialist. At least the days are never dull -- frustrating, but not dull.

Based on almost all the indicators discussed in this bulletin, it appears FY 02 was a very successful year for Army's labor relations program. I look forward to seeing next year's results.

*M-Management      *U-Union      *S-Split or mitigated

---

Chart B    Grievances Filed Under Negotiated Procedures FY 97 - 02

Chart C    Arbitration (as % of Negotiated Grievances) FY 97 - 02     

Chart D    Arbitration Decisions (% of Total Decisions) FY 97 - 02     

Chart E    Unfair Labor Practice Charges and Complaints (Filed by Union) FY 97 - 02    

  These files require Adobe Acrobat Reader to view