Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

I have reference to the questions posed by the Honorable Thad Cochran regarding proposed legislation that would include the legislative branch under Chapter 71 of the United States Code (labor-management relations) that were sent to this office by facsimile on July 26, 1994, by Mr. Larry Novey of your office.

Forwarded herewith are my responses to such questions; as you know, the Office of the Architect has never had any formal relationship with labor unions except for the effort several years ago to organize the Senate Restaurant employees. That effort resulted in a formal employee vote conducted by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The employees decided not to join a union. With that limited experience, my answers to the questions must necessarily be viewed as restricted in their basis for conclusions and could each be prefaced with the introductory phrase, "As I understand it."

I trust this is responsive to your request and I shall, of course, be pleased to respond further should you deem that necessary.

Sincerely yours,

Jang

George M.White, FAIA
Architect of the Capitol

1.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SENATOR COCHRAN

Would all Architect employees be covered under the Act or would certain types of jobs be classified as exempt from the labor-management regulatory scheme?

With respect to the labor-management regulatory scheme under Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code, which would apply to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol if S. 2071 were enacted, the definition of "employee" would not include any "supervisor" or "management official," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103, in the Office. Additionally, employees in personnel offices, confidential employees, and professional employees have limitations on the roles they assume under the labor-management regulatory scheme. The FLRA itself and case law determine how the lines would be drawn between covered and non-covered employees.

Could unions or bargaining units of employees of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol formally or informally affiliate with existing public sector labor organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees, or with a private sector union such as the Electrical Workers" or "Teamsters" for example under the Federal LaborManagement Statute?

There does not appear to be any provision in Chapter 71 of Title 5 that would preclude affiliation with existing public sector or private sector labor organizations, including the examples noted in the question. However, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code provides that agencies shall only accord recognition to a labor organization that is free from corrupt influences and influences opposed to basic democratic principles.

3.

Once unions and their affiliates are established in the legislative branch, do you see any potential for unions in the private sector, through their association or affiliation with legislative unions, to bring any undue or "insider" influence to bear on controversial legislation effecting organized labor?

With respect to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, I do not believe the bringing of undue or "insider" influence regarding controversial legislation is likely.

4.

Under the FLRA labor-management scheme, would there be any prohibitions or limit on activities of legislative union members with regard to making known their agreement or solidarity with a position taken by a national union which may represent private sector employees on matters before the Congress?

5 U.S.C. 7102 provides that each employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from such activity freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right, which includes to act for a labor union in the capacity of representative and, in that capacity, to present the views of the labor organization to the Congress. Additionally, employees and labor organizations have First Amendment rights, so it would appear that there are no such prohibitions or limit on such activities except where they interfere with the agency's mission.

6. Is it possible that work slow-downs or other subtle but disruptive tactics could be used by legislative branch unions to effect changes in their rights under the "labor" rules and regulations applicable to them?

Although 5 U.S.C. 7116 permits informational picketing that does not interfere with an agency's operations, it makes calling for or participating in a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown an unfair labor practice for a labor organization. Furthermore, 5 U.S.C. 7102 provides employee rights to engage in collective bargaining "with respect to conditions of employment." Although these provisions would appear to limit the possibility mentioned, the extent of the limitation could always be tested by employee unions.

1. (p.3) While there are substantially fewer legislative branch employees to be covered under the bills before the Committee than the number of executive branch employees currently covered by the FLRA, won't there be some significant costs that will result from unfair labor practice filings or other types of filings by Architect employees under an FLR/. regulatory scheme?

In my judgment, bringing the Office of the Architect of the Capitol under the provisions of Chapter 71 of Title 5 would result in significant costs to the Agency. This is particularly true in the early years, with respect to hiring new employees with experience in FLRA matters, training existing employees, determining bargaining units, determining the right to exclusive recognition, collective bargaining, and processing unfair labor practice findings. I do not believe that there would be any significant additional costs to the Federal Labor Relations Authority for processing unfair labor practice charges brought by employees of this office. The issue of bringing Legislative Branch employees under the aegis of an Executive Branch agency necessarily raises the question of the application of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

3. (p. 5) Do you see any potential for legislative decisions on issues important to private sector unions to be in any way unfairly influenced by the presence of unionized legislative branch employees inside the legislative process?

With respect to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, I believe the possibility of unfair influence on legislative decisions is reasonably remote.

4. (p. 5)

Under either of the coverage proposals, FLRA or NLRA, is there any reason for the public at large to be concerned that organized labor may, through organized legislative branch employees, gain some edge or special consideration when controversial labor legislation or issues are considered by the Congress?

With respect to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, I do not believe the public at large has any reason to be concerned that organized labor, through organized employees of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, will gain such edge or special consideration.

5. (p.5) Should there be any difference in the application of "labor law" between the legislative branch, the executive branch and the private sector? What are those differences to be taken into account?

With respect to differences in the application of "labor law" between the Office of the Architect of the Capitol and the executive branch, one significant difference is that Executive Orders issued by the President, such as Executive Order 12871, October 1, 1993, regarding Labor-Management Partnerships, to champion change in Federal government agencies to "transform them into organizations capable of delivering the highest quality services to the American people" as part of the National Performance Review, do not apply to the legislative branch, including the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. Otherwise, if S. 2071 is enacted, it would appear that "labor law" should be applied in the same manner to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol and executive branch agencies.

There are many differences between the Office of the Architect of the Capitol and the private sector in the way "labor law" should probably be applied. If the Office of the Architect of the Capitol were to be covered by the NLRA, all pay and benefits would be subject to collective bargaining as would the exclusive assignment of work among trades and craft personnel. It is likely that restrictive work rules protecting the domain of the crafts would be negotiated, which could restrict the flexibility to have work performed in the most expeditious and cost effective manner possible. Also, under the NLRA, employees would be afforded the right to strike. Our employees are public sector employees, and in that regard probably should have limited rights particularly with respect to the right to strike, compared to private sector employees. Our employees are paid by the taxes of all taxpayers, rather than by a particular company, and their rights would appear to be subordinate to the public interest which they serve.

6. (p. 5) Beyond the obvious benefits for its employees, how will Congress as an institution benefit from extending to the legislative branch and its employees coverage of the "labor law" currently applicable to the executive branch and/or private sector?

With respect to employees of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, extending the "labor law" currently applicable to the executive branch does not appear to have operational institutional benefits for the Congress.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

United States Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20401

July 29, 1994

Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Cochran:

On behalf of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), this responds to written "questions submitted by [you] to be answered by all witnesses appearing at the hearing on Congressional coverage legislation [before the] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Wednesday, June 29, 1994." While several of the inquiries and comments are not directly applicable to GPO, we have attempted to answer all questions as accurately as possible in a complete and concise manner.

PARTI

Question No. 1.: Would all legislative branch employees be covered under the act or would certain types of jobs be classified as exempt from the labormanagement regulatory scheme? How would the lines be drawn between covered and non-covered employees?

Answer: Chapter 71 of Title 5, United States Code, establishes the basic framework for Labor-Management and Employee Relations in the Federal workplace. It provides for union representation, collective bargaining (on issues other than pay), grievance and review procedures, etc. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7103 (a) (3), GPO is specifically included within the definition of agency, thereby subjecting the GPO and all employees (who also meet the definitiona! requirements of the provision) to the Act. In addition to the above, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 305 (commonly referred to as the Kiess Act), the vast majority of GPO employees also bargain for wages and compensation and have done so since passage of the legislation in 1924. With regard to other legislative branch employees and Congressional personnel, it would be the decision of Congress as to whether or not to include or exempt them from

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »