[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46349-46368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19929]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46349]]
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
5 CFR Chapter XIV
Changes to Current Addresses and Geographic Jurisdictions
AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends regulations listing the current addresses
and describing the geographic jurisdictions of the Federal Labor
Relations Authority, General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel. These changes
reflect the closing of the Dallas Regional Office and changes to the
geographical jurisdictions of the Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver Regional
Directors.
DATES: Effective September 21, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Tosick, Executive Director,
Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1400 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20424,
(202) 218-7791, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 28, 1980, the Authority
and the General Counsel published, at 45 FR 3482, January 17, 1980,
final rules and regulations to govern the processing of cases by the
Authority and the General Counsel under chapter 71 of title 5 of the
United States Code. These rules and regulations are required by title
VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and are set forth in 5 CFR
chapter XIV (2018).
After an examination of budgets, caseloads, rental costs, operating
costs, and staffing, the Authority is closing its Dallas Regional
Office and reassigning its jurisdiction to the Denver and Atlanta
Regional Directors, effective September 21, 2018. It is also
reassigning jurisdiction for the state of South Dakota from the Denver
Regional Director to the Chicago Regional Director. The Authority
expects no adverse effect on the quality or efficiency of casehandling
as a result of the Dallas Regional Office closure.
This amendment updates paragraphs (d) and (f) of Appendix A to 5
CFR chapter XIV to reflect the new organizational structure by removing
the Dallas Regional Office from the list of current addresses,
telephone numbers, and fax numbers of the Authority's Regional Offices
and by revising the geographical jurisdictions of the Federal Labor
Relations Authority. As this rule pertains to agency organization,
procedure, or practice, it is exempt from prior notice and public
comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). For this same reason, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Authority finds that good cause exists for
not providing a more delayed effective date. This type of action is
also exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017).
For additional information regarding case handling procedures
following the Dallas Regional Office closure, please go to
www.flra.gov.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Chapter XIV
Administrative practice and procedure.
Chapter XIV--Federal Labor Relations Authority
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
of 5 U.S.C. 7134, the authority amends 5 CFR chapter XIV as follows:
0
1. Appendix A to 5 CFR chapter XIV is amended by removing paragraph
(d)(5), redesignating paragraphs (d)(6) and (7) as (d)(5) and (6), and
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Appendix A to 5 CFR Chapter XIV--Current Addresses and Geographic
Jurisdictions
* * * * *
(f) The geographic jurisdictions of the Regional Directors of
the Federal Labor Relations Authority are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or other locality Regional office
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ Atlanta.
Alaska................................. San Francisco.
Arizona................................ Denver.
Arkansas............................... Atlanta.
California............................. San Francisco.
Colorado............................... Denver.
Connecticut............................ Boston.
Delaware............................... Boston.
District of Columbia................... Washington, DC.
Florida................................ Atlanta.
Georgia................................ Atlanta.
Hawaii and all land and water areas San Francisco.
west of the continents of North and
South America (except coastal islands)
to long. 90 degrees East.
Idaho.................................. San Francisco.
Illinois............................... Chicago.
Indiana................................ Chicago.
Iowa................................... Chicago.
Kansas................................. Denver.
Kentucky............................... Chicago.
Louisiana.............................. Atlanta.
Maine.................................. Boston.
Maryland............................... Washington, DC.
Massachusetts.......................... Boston.
[[Page 46350]]
Michigan............................... Chicago.
Minnesota.............................. Chicago.
Mississippi............................ Atlanta.
Missouri............................... Chicago.
Montana................................ Denver.
Nebraska............................... Denver.
Nevada................................. San Francisco.
New Hampshire.......................... Boston.
New Jersey............................. Boston.
New Mexico............................. Denver.
New York............................... Boston.
North Carolina......................... Atlanta.
North Dakota........................... Chicago.
Ohio................................... Chicago.
Oklahoma............................... Denver.
Oregon................................. San Francisco.
Pennsylvania........................... Boston.
Puerto Rico and coastal islands........ Boston.
Rhode Island........................... Boston.
South Carolina......................... Atlanta.
South Dakota........................... Chicago.
Tennessee.............................. Chicago.
Texas.................................. Denver.
Utah................................... Denver.
Vermont................................ Boston.
Virginia............................... Washington, DC.
Washington............................. San Francisco.
West Virginia.......................... Washington, DC.
Wisconsin.............................. Chicago.
Wyoming................................ Denver.
Virgin Islands......................... Atlanta.
Panama/limited FLRA jurisdiction....... Atlanta.
All land and water areas east of the Washington, DC.
continents of North and South America
to long. 90 degrees East, except the
Virgin Islands, Panama (limited FLRA
jurisdiction), Puerto Rico and coastal
islands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7134.
Dated: September 10, 2018.
For the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
William Tosick,
Executive Director.
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations:
Appendix A--Opinions of the Authority's Majority and Dissent With
Respect to the Closure of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's
Boston and Dallas Regional Offices
I. Authority's Opinion
The Authority voted in January 2018 to close the Boston and Dallas
Regional Offices. At that time, the Authority considered arguments
echoing those of Member DuBester. We concluded, however, that
consolidating the FLRA's Regional Office structure would husband the
FLRA's budgetary and operational resources and best serve the labor-
management relations community.
In the end, Member DuBester raises nothing new. We have reprinted
Chairman Kiko's March 26, 2018 letter to the Senate Subcommittee on
Financial Services and General Government, Committee on Appropriations
(attachments omitted), explaining why we undertook this Regional Office
consolidation. We have also included Chairman Kiko's May 21, 2018
response to the letter from a group of Senators that Member DuBester
references, which reiterates the rationale for the consolidation and
offers Chairman Kiko's additional personal reflections on the need for
reform. In our opinion, these two letters thoroughly refute Member
DuBester's dissent.
Colleen Duffy Kiko,
Chairman.
James T. Abbott,
Member.
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
[[Page 46351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.003
[[Page 46352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.004
[[Page 46353]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.005
[[Page 46354]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.006
[[Page 46355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.007
[[Page 46356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.008
[[Page 46357]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.009
[[Page 46358]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.010
[[Page 46359]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.011
[[Page 46360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.012
[[Page 46361]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.013
BILLING CODE 6727-01-C
II. Dissenting View of Member Ernie DuBester
I strongly disagree with the decision to close the FLRA's Dallas
Regional Office at the end of this fiscal year and the Boston
Regional Office in November 2018. My opposition to these regional
office closures is based in significant part on the perspective
gained during my extensive experience in government.
In that respect, I have served over nine years as a Member of
the FLRA. For most of 2013, the first year of sequestration, I
served as the FLRA's Chairman. I also had the privilege of serving
for eight years as the Chairman (and Member) of another federal
labor-management relations agency--the National Mediation Board. In
these 17 years of service, I have always been mindful of the need
for efficiencies that could improve government performance.
Similarly, I have always tried to exercise leadership in a fiscally
responsible manner.
With those thoughts in mind, the decision to close the Dallas
and Boston Offices is unjustified, unwarranted, and will undermine
the FLRA's ability to perform its mission. Beyond my grave concerns
about this decision's substantive impact, I also take serious issue
with the circumstances surrounding the process by which this
decision was made and implemented.
The FLRA administers the labor-management relations program for
over two million non-Postal, federal employees worldwide, including
civilians in the Armed Forces. Until this decision, within its
Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the FLRA had seven Regional
Offices around the country, including one at its Washington, DC
headquarters. These seven offices served the entire country, and
overseas locations where federal employees work.
Ostensibly, the decision to close the Dallas and Boston Offices
is responsive to Executive Order No. 13781, Comprehensive Plan for
Reorganizing the Executive Branch (March 13, 2017), and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-22 (April 12, 2017).
These directives ask federal agencies to consider organizational
changes that could be made to effect operational savings. But it is
evident that the purpose is not simply to show a cost savings
without regard to an agency's mission and its delivery of services
to stakeholders. To the contrary, agencies are to implement changes
that will ``dramatically improve effectiveness and efficiency of
government.''
The decision to close the Dallas and Boston Offices fails this
test. It was made without thoughtful consideration of the FLRA's
mission or the nature of its work to perform that mission. And
significantly, it ignores the considerable sacrifices made by the
FLRA and its employees in recent years which have already saved the
government tens of millions of dollars.
Concerning mission effectiveness, as the attached letter to FLRA
Chairman Kiko (May 1, 2018) from 13 U.S. Senators representing a
quarter of a million federal employees currently served by the
Boston Office indicates, its closure will ``place FLRA Staff farther
away from those who rely on their services.'' Indeed, federal
agencies and federal employees in the Northeast, all the way to the
tip of Maine, will have to come to Washington, DC to address their
rights and responsibilities. And, as the Senators' letter indicates,
the decision is being made without Congressional oversight. Is this
really the direction that we want to go?
Analogous concerns apply to the Dallas Office closure. With that
closure, the FLRA is closing the Regional Office located in the
state which has the second largest number of federal employees
outside of the Washington, DC Metropolitan area. Considered in this
context alone, the decision defies logic.
This is especially true given that the decision was made without
any apparent outreach to stakeholders. Any serious consideration of
the FLRA's mission and its delivery of services to the parties
demands that there be some kind of outreach BEFORE such a decision
was made.
Also ignored, as indicated, is that, for the last 20 years, the
FLRA has practiced fiscal responsibility, saving the government tens
of millions of dollars. As the attached letter from eight retired
FLRA Regional Directors (RDs) to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
states (March 9, 2018), the FLRA has gone ``far beyond most agencies
in reducing operational costs and expenses.'' [A comparable letter
was sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Oversight
Committee].
There are many illustrations. For example, from a recent high of
215 employees (FTEs) in fiscal year (FY) 2000, the FLRA reduced its
workforce by over 45%, to 114 FTEs, by FY 2009.
Since that time, the FLRA has implemented many additional cost-
saving measures and efficiencies. This includes reducing the size of
its headquarters by about 12,000 square feet in FY 2014, eliminating
an entire floor. And, the FLRA similarly reduced its space in five
Regional Offices (Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, as well as Dallas
and Boston).
In the last year, moreover, the FLRA has eliminated at least 12
more FTEs, about 10% of its already small workforce. Elimination of
the Dallas and Boston Offices will result in a further reduction of
FTEs. This means that, since FY 2000, the FLRA will have eliminated
over 55% of its employees.
As the attached retired-RDs letter suggests, after these
repeated sacrifices, the severity of this additional action to close
Dallas and Boston, without good reason, is demoralizing and impairs
the FLRA's ability to perform its mission. It should be remembered
that, in FY 2009, after the 45% reduction in employees, the FLRA was
ranked dead last (32nd of 32 similarly-sized agencies) in the
Partnership for Public Services ``Best Places to Work'' rankings.
But in recent years, at least until last year, though implementing
many cost-
[[Page 46362]]
saving measures and innovative practices to promote efficiencies,
the FLRA has climbed to a #1 ranking in most categories of the Best
Places to Work Rankings, and has ranked in the top five overall for
several years. With elimination of the Dallas and Boston Offices, it
is questionable whether this will continue.
What a shame. Nobody knows better than OMB (and Congress) the
recent record of the FLRA in saving the government significant
dollars. Sometimes, after such repeated sacrifices, a small agency
like the FLRA, with a relatively modest budget, has become ``right-
sized.'' Before elimination of the Dallas and Boston Offices, the
FLRA was already the optimal size to perform its mission effectively
and efficiently.
In addition to disregarding the FLRA's repeated fiscal
sacrifices, the decision to close Dallas and Boston fails to
consider thoughtfully the substantial mission-related value of
Regional Offices being located where FLRA staff is more readily
accessible to the parties. Again, as the retired-RDs letter
suggests, this value has been ``demonstrated again and again over
the years.''
Certainly, a value is provided through ``[r]egularly scheduled
regional training presentations'' which have become ``an established
resource to both labor and management representatives, many of whom
could not travel to Washington DC or other distant cities.'' In the
last 10 years, the FLRA has provided training to thousands of FLRA
stakeholders at Regional Office sites. And, by facilitating
opportunities for the parties to meet and interact with Regional
Office Staff, the FLRA's credibility and effectiveness is enhanced.
This is particularly true, and important, regarding access to
our RDs, who are FLRA decision-makers. Access to, and interaction
with, RDs by the federal sector labor-management community, not only
builds trust in the FLRA's operations, but also promotes early
settlements which produce real cost savings.
Apparently, the FLRA Members supporting the closures do not
believe that this value still exists. Rather, it is suggested that
technology has changed the nature of Regional Office work. In other
words, it does not matter where you are. As long as you have a
computer, a fax, and a telephone, you can be on top of a mountain
anywhere in the U.S.A.
This suggestion is little more than a fabrication. The FLRA is
in the business of labor-management relations. As is often said, the
often overlooked word in that phrase is ``relations.'' Constructive
relationships require direct human interaction. And, notwithstanding
rapid advances in technology, direct human interaction will continue
to be a vital element in building constructive labor-management
relationships for the foreseeable future.
And, finally, in a related sense, now is the worst time to
downsize further a dispute-resolution agency like the FLRA. While
the FLRA is a small agency, accomplishing its mission, including
timely, quality, and impartial resolution of labor-management
disputes, is critical to promoting effective and efficient
performance at EVERY federal agency under its jurisdiction. In other
words, the FLRA's successful mission performance has a positive
rippling effect government-wide.
Given the current effort to streamline federal government
agencies, there is very likely to be an increase in the number of
grievances and labor-management disputes. Viewed against this
background, it is the wrong time to cut further the size and
resources of a small dispute-resolution agency like the FLRA--
particularly given its many sacrifices and practice of fiscal
responsibility in recent years.
Indeed, considering the adverse impact on the FLRA's ability to
perform its mission, the significant loss of quality employees, and
the number of silent people who know better, the decision to close
the Dallas and Boston Regional Offices is not just a shame--it is a
crying shame.
The Mind reels.
Ernie DuBester,
Member.
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
[[Page 46363]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.014
[[Page 46364]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.015
[[Page 46365]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.016
[[Page 46366]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.017
[[Page 46367]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.018
[[Page 46368]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE18.019
[FR Doc. 2018-19929 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-C