GSA effort to shut supply warehouses stalled again

The General Services Administration hit another bump on the road to streamlining the Federal Supply Service last week, when an independent arbitrator ruled that the agency was not living up to its agreement to bargain with the American Federation of Government Employees over the fate of its financially unstable warehouse distribution system.

Last September, Jerome H. Ross, who was assigned to resolve a challenge to GSA's original decision to close the warehouses, ruled that GSA officials had failed in their obligation to bargain with AFGE, which represents the warehouse employees. Six months of discussions ensued between management and union officials on how to deal with the stock distribution program. On March 20, GSA Administrator David Barram issued a final decision to create two new business lines and to close six of eight Federal Supply Service warehouses.

But in the interim, AFGE officials filed another grievance against GSA, again for violating a 1993 memorandum of understanding between the two parties, in which the agency agreed to negotiate with AFGE over all reinvention-related initiatives.

Specifically, AFGE claimed the agency had broken its agreement with the union by telling employees about the decision to shut the warehouses without first going through the union, and for failing to offer AFGE a chance to negotiate on behalf of the GSA employees it represents. "The essence of our claim is that they can't go ahead without bargaining," said AFGE spokesman Phil Kete.

"It is clear that the [GSA] administrator and other high-level management officials worked diligently with local and national union representatives to develop solutions to the stock distribution program issues," Ross ruled. "In the final analysis, however, the agency did not comply with its bargaining obligations."

The working groups that were formed to discuss the warehouses' fate "were not tantamount to bargaining, and thus did not rise to the level of the term 'negotiate,' " Ross said. He also noted that GSA management had agreed to tell the union prior to issuing a final decision, but a March 20 e-mail announcing the final decision was issued without notice to the union and without additional bargaining.

"Basically the arbitrator says that since they chose not to bargain with us-and they made a big point of the fact that they never were bargaining, it was all just discussions-then they must restore the status quo and sit down with us and bargain over what's to be done," Kete said. Ross pointed to several letters Barram wrote to AFGE President Bobby Harnage as evidence that GSA's view of the decision-making process was not in line with the terms of its agreement with the union. In the letters, Barram emphasized that making the ultimate decision on the stock distribution program was his reserved management right.

GSA said it is now considering its options. "We are reviewing the arbitrator's decision and the reasoning that led to his decision. We find his conclusion contrary to our view of the way we have conducted business," said Barram. "We believe we worked in good faith with our unions to address the challenges in our distribution system and tried very hard to discuss these issues as genuine partners."

The GSA employees who are affected by this decision are a top priority, Barram said. "We will continue to support our employees as they seek options for their future despite these latest challenges put before us again." At the same time, he expressed frustration at the continued delay in events.

"Each time we made a decision to close parts of the stock distribution system, we made extensive plans to help our employees through the transition. Unfortunately, our union partners have consistently refused to engage us in those plans, preferring instead to focus on stopping any closures."