GovernmentExecutive.com

Disagreement on how to merge divergent personnel policies at two recently combined General Services Administration contracting divisions could affect thousands of federal procurement workers, union officials said this week.

GSA's Federal Supply Service, which purchased office equipment and other materials, and the agency's Federal Technology Service, which provided information technology products, had very different policies on pay, employee bonuses, telework and other personnel issues, according to the National Federation of Federal Employees. The two were consolidated into the Federal Acquisition Service last year.

Until parties agree on policies to cover the combined organization, employees will be left in the dark, NFFE officials said. Union officials said that while they are not opposed to the reorganization, they want to ensure the merger does not have a negative effect on workers.

"We must see that the ... lives of the employees we represent are not adversely affected by ill-defined decisions made later," said Charles Paidock, chief negotiator for the more than 2,000 FAS employees who are NFFE members.

NFFE and GSA have been at odds over policies for the merged procurement service since they began negotiations in mid-January. The parties have since recessed and have sought assistance from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an independent agency that promotes labor-management cooperation.

Art Valero, director of labor relations at GSA, said the agency has provided information to both NFFE and the American Federation of Government Employees, another union representing GSA workers, ever since the merger was conceived. The agency has since held a series of union briefings and has provided "detailed crosswalks" showing that every employee would retain the same grade and would not be required to make a geographic move, Valero said.

AFGE "was given the same notification, and bargaining with AFGE has been completed," Valero said.

NFFE said it has presented GSA with 135 proposals since negotiations began, and the agency has accepted only eight. Several of those have been narrowed in scope, said John Hanley, president of the NFFE GSA National Council.

But Valero said that while NFFE has made proposals, they have not constituted "appropriate arrangements." In fact, most of the proposals cover subjects that are already in an overall agreement between NFFE and GSA, Valero said, adding that a general rule in federal labor relations law is that agencies are not required to negotiate topics that are adequately covered in a current agreement.

Hanley attributed much of the problem to GSA's placing a contractor in charge of negotiations. He said private sector workers are unable to understand the agency's culture and lack concern for the employees involved.

"The in-house people have a vested interest in the success of the agency," Hanley said. "They want to protect their job. It's unprecedented for a contractor to be at the table."

Valero said, however, that a fundamental concept in negotiation is that each party is free to designate a representative.

"NFFE has frequently used nongovernment employees who are employed by the union as negotiators," Valero said. "That is their right, just as a government agency may choose whomever they wish to represent them."

Hanley said the parties will return to the negotiating table next week, with a plan to meet with the FMCS Wednesday.

COMMENTS

• When are the powers going to see the handwriting on the wall? The new personnel system is not a cure for all and it will only create bigger morale issues. As someone said the other day, people are sucking up to their bosses so far that it's hard to determine where one body starts and the other ends. So much for brown-nosing! GovExec.com reader Posted March 21, 2007 1:16 PM
• Shame on the reader who calls Mr. Valero a liar. It is clear to me that the reader is ignorant of labor relations law. I understood what Mr. Valero meant by not negotiating over matters covered in a current agreement. He has not "inferred" that the language in the agreement is the same as proposed by NFFE as the reader naively suggests. What Mr. Valero is saying is the agency isn't obligated nor should it be negotiating new proposals on a matter previously negotiated by the union. The agreement doesn't necessarily have the same language but probably has language that already covers the matter and the union is trying to change the agreement after the fact. What is the point of having a contract if the other party decides they don't like the old language and want new language? That's the point Mr. Valero was making. The union needs to live with the contract it previously negotiated and stop trying to get out of the agreement. And if the language is the same as the reader naively suggests, then why in the world would they be negotiating anything??? If it is the same, then nothing is changed and they are wasting everybody's time for yet another reason. Come on NFFE...live up to the contract you already agreed to! GovExec.com reader Posted March 19, 2007 7:44 PM
• In your article Mr. Valero states a general rule in federal labor relations law is that agencies are not required to negotiate topics that are adequately covered in a current agreement. If this is so then Mr. Valero should not mind changing the language requested by the NFFE; As he has inferred that his language is the same as what the NFFE negotiated. This would fix the negotiation problem, unless Mr. Valero is a liar and the language that is being disputed does not mean the same thing. GovExec.com reader Posted March 16, 2007 1:52 PM