DECISION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
I. Introduction
The petition for review comes before the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance (“the Board”) pursuant to § 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (“FSLMRS”), as applied by § 220©)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”), 2 U.S.C. § 1351(c)(1). Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties’ filings, the Board has determined, for the reasons set forth below, that the Union’s proposal is negotiable.
This case concerns the negotiability of the Petitioner labor organization’s (AFSCME Council 26) proposal essentially that the employing office (the Architect) immediately cease requiring bargaining unit employees to sign out and in when taking meal breaks. AFSCME Council 26 is the certified bargaining representative of a Architect unit composed of laborers and custodians.
II. Proposal in Dispute
- The parties agree to implement Article 36 of the proposed collective bargaining agreement.
2. Article 36 does not require employees to sign in or out for meal breaks.
3. The [Architect] will provide supporting documents showing workload was inefficient and productivity was not effective.
4. The requirement for Night Senate Labor staff to sign in upon return from meal breaks shall cease immediately.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Architect initially responded to the proposal that the meal sign out/in requirement “is merely a reinstatement of a long standing past practice and there is, consequently, no adverse impact on affected employees.” In this proceeding, the Architect has taken the following position before the Board:
- The disputed sign-in procedure had been in effect for thirty years, when in September 2001 the Architect decided to “suspend” the requirement “to address employee concerns in the spirit of labor management cooperation.” However, in December 2002 the Architect decided to reinstate the sign in process “for operational requirements and workload reasons.”
- The proposal would force the Architect to implement a portion of the tentative master agreement that had not been ratified by AFSCME membership, pursuant to the negotiation ground rules, or approved by the Architect, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §7114©)(1)&(2).
