______________________________________________
From: Garcia, Edward
Sent:   Monday, December 03, 2007 11:42 AM
To:     Egerman, Howard
Cc:     |CA FO Inland ADO; ||SF ORC; ||SF MOS HRC Labor and EE Relations Team; Garcia, Edward
Subject:        North Las Vegas Section 10 - REPLY dated 12/03/07

Dear Mr. Egerman,

The attached letter is in response to the grievance filed by AFGE under Article 24, Section 10 of the 2005 National Agreement between SSA and AFGE (contract) on October 9. 2007. I was designated to respond to this grievance on behalf of Pete Spencer, Regional Commissioner.

I will also send you a paper copy via FedEx this date.

Thank you for all your co-operation.

Edward W. Garcia
Region IX Designee

______________________________________________

December 03, 2007

Howard Egerman

AFGE Council 147 Designee

C/o Social Security Administration

Eastmont Town Center

7200 Bancroft Avenue, Suite 263

Oakland, CA 94605

Dear Mr. Egerman,

This letter is in response to the grievance filed by AFGE under Article 24, Section 10 of the 2005 National Agreement between SSA and AFGE (contract) on October 9. 2007. I was designated to respond to this grievance on behalf of Pete Spencer, Regional Commissioner.

You elected to give an oral presentation via telephone on November 6, 2007. Subsequently, you provided a written presentation and corresponding documentation to support your contention that the Agency violated the contract. I received the written presentation and material on November 13, 2007.

ISSUES

AFGE alleges that the Agency violated Article 1, Sections 1 & 2 (laws and government wide rules and regulations and existing conditions of employment); Article 3, Section 2A (personal rights for employees); Article 9, Sections 1 – 9, 11, 12, and 15 (Health and Safety) Article 16 (Training and Career Development); Article 18 (Equal Employment Opportunity), Article 21 (Performance); Article 22 (Within-Grade Increases) and Article 23 (Disciplinary and Adverse Actions).

However, your presentation discussed an alleged dress code imposed upon employees in the SSA North Las Vegas, Nevada District Office (DO).

RELIEF REQUESTED

AFGE requests that the Agency remove the dress code.
Management discusses the removal of the dress code at a staff meeting and annotate that the meeting notes that contained the dress code no longer apply.

PRESENTATION

During your phone presentation on November 6, 2007 you advised me of the following:

You stated that on September 20, 2007 a formal staff meeting was held in the North Las Vegas DO. You advised that you did not believe the Union was formally invited to attend the meeting. You indicated that during the meeting the issue of a dress code was discussed and that certain dress requirements were imposed both verbally and in writing by local management. You further stated that meeting notes were sent to all employees in the North Las Vegas DO citing a “Dress Code” for the employees.

You stated that the meeting notes cited the following issues:

Employees were told that the dress code for SSA is simple…”You are expected to observe standards of dress and appearance that are acceptable in similar work in the community and suitable to the work environment. The meeting notes issued by a member of management indicated that management was not making changes to the dress code but were asking each employee to think about their personal appearance.

Employees were asked to think about their personal appearance when representing SSA.

Employees were also asked to think if their appearance projected an image that gained customer’s confidence.

Employees were asked to think if they felt professional in their clothing.

Management asked the employees not to wear flip flops, clothing that showed chest or midriff, or tee shirts and sweat shirts that contained a logo.

The written presentation and material essentially summarized the viewpoints raised during the oral presentation and outlined above.

I have considered all documentation you provided as well as your presentations. However, I did not find that the North Las Vegas DO management imposed a local dress code for its employees.

As you are aware, the Agency provides Annual Personnel Reminders (APRs) to all employees. Part 1.6 – Conduct on and off the job of the APRs includes standards of conduct that SSA employees are required to observe. The APRs in relevant part state:

“You are expected to observe standards of dress and appearance that are:

Acceptable in similar work in the community; and
Suitable to the work environment

SSA will not prescribe what you may wear unless:

Your mode of dress presents a safety hazard to you or others.
Your mode of dress disrupts employees or the public from doing official business
You are required to wear a uniform or safety equipment.”

Management retains the right and has the responsibility to enforce conduct on and off the job in accordance with the applicable sections in the APRs standards of conduct. Management also has a duty to reinforce existing policies to ensure that employees are aware of the policies they are expected to follow and are in fact following the policies.

In summary, I do not believe there was a violation of the contract or Agency policy (APRs) as no dress code exists in the North Las Vegas DO. However, it appears that the September 20, 2007 staff meeting notes may have caused unintended concern. To alleviate further concern, I find that the following relief is appropriate:

The staff meeting notes for September 20, 2007 will be withdrawn and the Manager will ensure the North Las Vegas staff is aware that the meeting notes have been withdrawn.

Management in the North Las Vegas DO will not treat the wearing of flip flops as a workplace safety issue.

If you are not satisfied with this decision, the union may refer the grievance to arbitration in accordance with Article 24 of the National Agreement.

Sincerely,

Edward W. Garcia

Region IX Designee

Cc: ORC

ADO, Inland

CHR-LERT