American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1999 (Union) and Army-Air Force Exchange Service, Dix-McGuire Exchange, Fort Dix, New Jersey (Activity) 



[ v02 p153 ]
02:0153(16)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 16
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1999
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE,
 DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE,
 FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-20
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL I
 
    ARTICLE 7, SECTION 12
 
    IN THE EVENT OF A DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL, THE GRIEVANT
 WILL EXHAUST THE REVIEW
 
    PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT BEFORE THE SUSPENSION OR
 REMOVAL IS EFFECTUATED, AND
 
    THE EMPLOYEE WILL REMAIN IN A PAY STATUS UNTIL A FINAL DETERMINATION
 IS RENDERED.  /2/
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL ESTABLISHES A NEGOTIABLE
 PROCEDURE, UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2), WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS WILL
 OBSERVE IN EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (THE STATUTE).  /2/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL ESTABLISHES A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 2424.8 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (44 FED.REG.
 44740 ET SEQ.(1979)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL
 IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /3/
 
    REASONS:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL PROVIDES, ESSENTIALLY, THAT AN
 EMPLOYEE THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED TO DISCIPLINE BY SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL
 MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE SUSPENDED OR REMOVED PENDING COMPLETION OF THE
 CONTRACTUAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING ARBITRATION.  THE AGENCY'S
 BASIC POSITION IS THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NONNEGOTIABLE BECAUSE THE
 PROCEDURE IT CREATES WOULD UNREASONABLY DELAY THE EXERCISE OF THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE TO SUSPEND
 AND REMOVE EMPLOYEES.  THE AGENCY'S POSITION, HOWEVER, IS WITHOUT
 SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE.
 
    SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE SPECIFIES, IN SUBSECTION (A), VARIOUS
 RIGHTS RESERVED TO AGENCY MANAGEMENT.  SECTION 7106(B)(2), HOWEVER,
 PROVIDES THAT THE ENUMERATION OF THE SPECIFIED MANAGEMENT RIGHTS IN
 SUBSECTION (A) DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE NEGOTIATION OF PROCEDURES WHICH
 MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS.  THE LEGISLATIVE
 HISTORY OF THE STATUTE, AS IT PERTAINS TO SUBSECTION (B)(2), REVEALS,
 FIRST TO ALL, THAT THE COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE, IN ADOPTING THE BILL
 WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY WAS ENACTED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE
 PRESIDENT, SPECIFICALLY REJECTED A PROVISION OF THE SENATE BILL (S.
 2640) WHICH PROVIDED THAT NEGOTIATION ON PROCEDURES SHOULD NOT
 "UNREASONABLY DELAY" SO AS TO "NEGATE" THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S
 RESERVED RIGHTS.  /4/ THE CONCLUSION IS JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, THAT
 CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND SUBSECTION (B)(2) TO PRECLUDE NEGOTIATION ON A
 PROPOSAL MERELY BECAUSE IT MAY IMPOSE ON MANAGEMENT A REQUIREMENT WHICH
 WOULD DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF A PARTICULAR ACTION INVOLVING THE EXERCISE
 OF A SPECIFIED MANAGEMENT RIGHT.  RATHER, AS THE CONFERENCE REPORT
 INDICATES, SUBSECTION (B)(2) IS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE TO NEGOTIATE FULLY ON PROCEDURES, EXCEPT TO EXTENT THAT
 SUCH NEGOTIATIONS WOULD PREVENT AGENCY MANAGEMENT FROM ACTING AT ALL.
 /5/ THAT IS, INSOFAR AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT
 ULTIMATELY TO ACT, CONGRESS INTENDED THE PARTIES TO WORK OUT THEIR
 DIFFERENCES WITH REGARD TO PROCEDURES IN NEGOTIATIONS.  /6/
 
    SINCE CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY REJECTED THE GROUNDS FOR NONNEGOTIABILITY
 ASSERTED BY THE AGENCY, IT ONLY REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE
 PROPOSAL AT ISSUE HEREIN CONTRAVENES THE LIMITATIONS CONGRESS DID PLACE
 ON THE NEGOTIATION OF PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2).  THAT IS, THE
 BASIC ISSUE IS WHETHER A PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE AGENCY HOLD IN
 ABEYANCE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL OF AN EMPLOYEE
 UNTIL THAT EMPLOYEE EXHAUSTS THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION
 PROCEDURES WOULD PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM EXERCISING AT ALL ITS STATUTORY
 RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES.  CLEARLY IT WOULD NOT:  THE
 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPOSAL RELATES ONLY TO WHEN
 THE SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL MAY BE EFFECTUATED, NOT TO WHETHER THE AGENCY
 ULTIMATELY WILL BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE ACTIONS.  IN THIS RESPECT,
 THE ONLY FORESEEABLE EFFECT OF THIS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT UPON THE
 EXERCISE OF THE STATUTORY MANAGEMENT RIGHTS INVOLVED IS THE POSSIBILITY
 OF DELAY AND, AS INDICATED ABOVE, CONGRESS REJECTED THE STANDARD OF
 "UNREASONABLE DELAY" AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR EXCLUDING PROPOSED PROCEDURES
 FROM NEGOTIATIONS.  THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSAL AT ISSUE
 HEREIN, UNLIKE THAT IN NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTERS 103
 AND 111 AND U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION VII, CASE NO. O-NG-16, DECIDED
 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INSTANT CASE, CONTAINS NO TIME LIMITS GOVERNING
 THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ARBITRATION PROCESS CONSTITUTES NO IMPEDIMENT
 UNDER THE STATUTE TO A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NEGOTIABLE.  FIRST
 OF ALL, THE ABSENCE OF SUCH TIME LIMITS IN THE INSTANT PROPOSAL DOES NOT
 IN AND OF ITSELF JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
 PROPOSAL WOULD PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM EFFECTUATING A SUSPENSION OR
 REMOVAL ACTION.  MOREOVER, THE AGENCY HAS NOT SHOWN THAT UNDER THE
 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT IN THE BARGAINING UNIT INVOLVED IN THIS
 CASE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
 THE AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT SUCH DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.  FOR THESE REASONS,
 THEREFORE, THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT IN QUESTION IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THIS RESULT IS CONSISTENT WITH AND IMPLEMENTS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS
 AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE VII WITH RESPECT TO
 THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT AS A WHOLE.  CONGRESS ENACTED THE CIVIL
 SERVICE REFORM ACT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE INCREASED MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,
 AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO HIRE AND TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES.  /7/ HOWEVER,
 CONGRESS ALSO RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES
 TO BALANCE THIS INCREASED MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE.  THE GRIEVANCE AND
 ARBITRATION PROVISIONS OF TITLE VII, AS WELL AS THE PROVISION PERMITTING
 AGENCIES AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO NEGOTIATE FULLY ON PROCEDURES, ARE
 AMONG THE MEANS CONGRESS UTILIZED TO PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION FOR
 EMPLOYEES.  BY ITS DECISION HEREIN THE AUTHORITY GIVES FULL EFFECT TO
 THIS CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.
 
    ON THE OTHER HAND, OF COURSE, THIS DECISION DOES NOT REPRESENT A
 JUDGMENT AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF THE DISPUTED ASPECT OF THE PROPOSAL
 AS A MATTER OF SOUND LABOR RELATIONS PRACTICE.  /9/ SIMILARLY, IT DOES
 NOT REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO AGREE TO THE PROPOSAL.  IT DOES MEAN, HOWEVER,
 THAT AN AGENCY MUST ACHIEVE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS THE PROCEDURAL
 CERTAINTY AND ASSURANCE IT DETERMINES THAT IT NEEDS.
 
    IN PARTICULAR, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE
 OF STATUTORY MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, THE STATUTE, IN SECTION 7106(B)(2),
 GIVES THE PARTIES LATITUDE TO NEGOTIATE THE PROVISIONS EACH DEEMS
 NECESSARY.  THAT IS THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT PREVIOUSLY ADVERTED TO WHICH STATES THAT
 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2)
 FROM NEGOTIATING FULLY ON PROCEDURES.  /10/ THE RESULT HEREIN GIVES
 EXPRESSION TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS, AS SET FORTH IN THE RELEVANT
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE, THAT THE PARTIES NOT BE PREVENTED
 FROM EXPLORING IN NEGOTIATIONS A WIDE RANGE OF POSSIBLE PROCEDURAL
 ARRANGEMENTS AND FROM REACHING AGREEMENT ON THOSE WHICH ARE MUTUALLY
 SATISFACTORY.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL II
 
    ARTICLE 13, SECTION 2
 
    THE PHRASE "OTHER RELATED DUTIES AS ASSIGNED," AS USED IN JOB
 DESCRIPTIONS, MEANS DUTIES
 
    RELATED TO THE BASIC JOB.  THIS PHRASE WILL NOT BE USED TO REGULARLY
 ASSIGN WORK TO AN
 
    EMPLOYEE WHICH IS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO HIS BASIC JOB
 DESCRIPTION.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WOULD VIOLATE SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  /11/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SECTION
 7106(B)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.8
 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (44 FED. REG. 44740 ET
 SEQ.(1979)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /12/
 
    REASONS:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WOULD PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM USING
 THE TERM "OTHER RELATED DUTIES AS ASSIGNED" IN AN EMPLOYEE'S POSITION
 DESCRIPTION TO ASSIGN THE EMPLOYEE, ON A REGULAR BASIS, DUTIES WHICH ARE
 NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO HIS OR HER POSITION DESCRIPTION.  THE AGENCY
 ALLEGES THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD AFFECT ITS AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK IN
 VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.  HOWEVER, IT WOULD APPEAR, BOTH FROM THE
 LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE UNION'S INTENT AS STATED IN THE RECORD,
 THAT THE AGENCY HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL.  THAT IS,
 THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL CONCERNS AGENCY MANAGEMENT'S
 USE OF EMPLOYEE POSITION DESCRIPTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSIGNMENT
 OF WORK, NOT, AS THE AGENCY ARGUES, THE ASSIGNMENT OF WORK ITSELF.
 
    UNDER FEDERAL PERSONNEL REGULATIONS, A POSITION DESCRIPTION IS A
 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED TO A
 POSITION.  IT IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE WORK
 THAT IS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE INCUMBENT OF THE POSITION, THE LEVEL OF
 SUPERVISION REQUIRED, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED TO PERFORM THE WORK.
  /13/ FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE EMPLOYEE, THE POSITION DESCRIPTION
 DEFINES THE KINDS AND THE RANGE OF DUTIES HE OR SHE MAY EXPECT TO
 PERFORM DURING THE TIME HE OR SHE REMAINS IN THE POSITION.  IN THE
 ACTUAL JOB SITUATION, HOWEVER, AN EMPLOYEE MIGHT NEVER BE ASSIGNED THE
 FULL RANGE OF WORK COMPRISED WITHIN THE POSITION DESCRIPTION.  THAT IS,
 THE POSITION DESCRIPTION MERELY DESCRIBES WORK WHICH IT IS EXPECTED
 WOULD BE ASSIGNED, BUT IS NOT ITSELF AN ASSIGNMENT OF WORK.
 
    IN ADDITION, THE POSITION DESCRIPTION IS THE BASIS OF THE
 CLASSIFICATION AND PAY SYSTEMS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  /14/ THE VALIDITY
 OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S POSITION, AND, DERIVATIVELY, OF
 AN EMPLOYEE'S RATE OF PAY, IS THUS DEPENDENT ON THE ACCURACY OF AN
 EMPLOYEE'S POSITION DESCRIPTION.  /15/ CHANGES IN THE KINDS AND THE
 LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DUTIES ASSIGNED AN EMPLOYEE MAY
 NECESSITATE CHANGES IN THE POSITION DESCRIPTION AND, CORRELATIVELY,
 DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CHANGES IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE
 RATE OF PAY OF THE POSITION.  /16/
 
    IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE INTENT OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL MUST BE
 UNDERSTOOD.  BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE RECORD IN THIS
 CASE SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION, BRIEFLY STATED, THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL
 IS DESIGNED TO INSURE THE ACCURACY OF EMPLOYEE POSITION DESCRIPTIONS.
 THAT IS, THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL IS TO PREVENT THE AGENCY
 FROM EXPANDING THE WORK REGULARLY REQUIRED OF THE INCUMBENT OF A
 POSITION BY ASSIGNING WORK WHICH IS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE DUTIES
 SPELLED OUT IN THE POSITION DESCRIPTION UNDER THE GUISE OF THE GENERAL
 PHRASE "OTHER RELATED DUTIES AS ASSIGNED." THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER,
 THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD FORECLOSE THE AGENCY FROM ADDING SUCH UNRELATED
 DUTIES TO A POSITION.  NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL OR THE
 RECORD INDICATES THAT IT IS INTENDED TO SHIELD THE EMPLOYEE FROM BEING
 ASSIGNED ADDITIONAL "UNRELATED" DUTIES, I.E., DUTIES WHICH ARE NOT
 WITHIN THOSE DESCRIBED IN HIS OR HER EXISTING POSITION DESCRIPTION AND
 WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO THOSE WHICH ARE SO DESCRIBED.  RATHER, AS A
 CONSEQUENCE OF THIS PROPOSAL, IF THE AGENCY DECIDED TO ADD UNRELATED
 DUTIES, TO BE PERFORMED REGULARLY, TO A POSITION, IT WOULD NEED TO
 CHANGE THE POSITION DESCRIPTION IN ORDER TO DO SO.  THE PROPOSAL WOULD
 IN NO WAY PRECLUDE THE AGENCY FROM INCLUDING ADDITIONAL, THOUGH
 UNRELATED, DUTIES IN THE POSITION DESCRIPTION.  THUS, IN THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK
 REMAINS UNAFFECTED, WHILE THE EMPLOYEE IS ASSURED THAT HIS OR HER
 POSITION DESCRIPTION ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE WORK ASSIGNED TO THE
 POSITION.
 
    AS INDICATED AT THE OUTSET, THEREFORE, THE AGENCY HAS MISUNDERSTOOD
 THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL.  THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT
 PROPOSAL IS NOT THE ASSIGNMENT OF WORK, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, BUT
 THE APPLICATION OF THE PHRASE "OTHER RELATED DUTIES AS ASSIGNED" WHEN
 USED IN A POSITION DESCRIPTION.  THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT ITS
 ALLEGATION THAT SUCH A PROPOSAL IS NONNEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 7106.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 29, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                  FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY /17/
 
    ATTACHMENT:
 
    APPENDIX
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                            GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
 
    SECTION 1.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PROVIDE FOR A MUTUALLY
 ACCEPTABLE METHOD FOR THE PROMPT AND EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES.
 
    SECTION 2.  A GRIEVANCE IS DEFINED AS ANY DISPUTE OR COMPLAINT
 BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION, OR THE EMPLOYER AND AN EMPLOYEE OR
 EMPLOYEES OF THE BARGAINING UNIT PERTAINING TO THE FOLLOWING:
 
    A.  ANY MATTER INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION OR VIOLATION
 OF THIS AGREEMENT,
 
    AND
 
    B.  ANY MATTER INVOLVING WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT,
 PROVIDED THAT THE
 
    GRIEVANCE IS NOT OVER MATTERS EXCLUDED FROM NEGOTIATIONS BY SECTIONS
 11(B) AND 12(B) OF
 
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, OR EXCLUDED FROM GRIEVABILITY BY
 THE TERMS OF AAFES
 
    REGULATIONS.
 
    SECTION 3.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2, ABOVE,
 MATTERS FOR WHICH A STATUTORY APPEAL PROCEDURE EXISTS ARE NOT GRIEVABLE
 UNDER THIS ARTICLE.
 
    SECTION 4.  THIS NEGOTIATED PROCEDURE WILL BE THE EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE
 AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING GRIEVANCES PERTAINING TO MATTERS COVERED IN
 SECTION 2 OF THIS ARTICLE.  ANY EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES MAY
 PRESENT GRIEVANCES TO THE EMPLOYER UNDER THIS PROCEDURE WITHOUT UNION
 INTERVENTION, PROVIDED THE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS
 OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THE UNION HAS BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 PRESENT AT THE ADJUSTMENT.
 
    SECTION 5.  IF THE EMPLOYER ALLEGES THAT A MATTER IS NOT GRIEVABLE OR
 ARBITRABLE, THIS ALLEGATION WILL BE MADE KNOWN TO THE UNION WITHIN THE
 TIME LIMITS PROVIDED FOR THE GENERAL MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE FINAL
 WRITTEN ANSWER IN STEP 3, SECTION 10 OF THIS ARTICLE.
 
    SECTION 6.  ALL DISPUTES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A MATTER IS GRIEVABLE
 OR ARBITRABLE BECAUSE A STATUTORY APPEALS PROCEDURE MAY EXIST WILL BE
 REFERRED TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS FOR RESOLUTION.  ANY OTHER DISPUTE ON GRIEVABILITY OR
 ARBITRABILITY WILL BE REFERRED TO ARBITRATION AS A THRESHOLD ISSUE IN
 THE RELATED GRIEVANCE.
 
    SECTION 7.  MOST GRIEVANCES ARISE FROM MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR DISPUTES
 WHICH CAN BE SETTLED PROMPTLY AND SATISFACTORILY ON AN INFORMAL BASIS AT
 THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORY LEVEL.  THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION AGREE THAT
 EVERY EFFORT WILL BE MADE BY MANAGEMENT AND THE AGGRIEVED PARTY TO
 SETTLE GRIEVANCES AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL.  INASMUCH AS
 DISSATISFACTIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS ARISE OCCASIONALLY AMONG PEOPLE IN
 ANY WORK SITUATION, THE FILING OF A GRIEVANCE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
 REFLECTING UNFAVORABLY ON AN EMPLOYEE'S GOOD STANDING, HIS PERFORMANCE,
 OR HIS LOYALTY OR DESIRABILITY TO THE ORGANIZATION.  NECESSARY TIME
 DURING WORKING HOURS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE TO INVESTIGATE, DISCUSS, AND PRESENT GRIEVANCES.
 
    SECTION 8, STEP 1.  THE GRIEVANCE SHALL FIRST BE TAKEN UP ORALLY BY
 THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEE AND THE STEWARD, IF DESIRED, WITH THE APPROPRIATE
 SUPERVISOR IN AN ATTEMPT TO SETTLE THE MATTER. GRIEVANCES MUST BE
 PRESENTED WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE THE EMPLOYEE OR UNION
 BECAME AWARE OF THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    SECTION 9, STEP 2.  IF THE MATTER IS NOT SATISFACTORILY SETTLED
 FOLLOWING THE INITIAL DISCUSSION, THE EMPLOYEE MAY, WITHIN 5 WORKING
 DAYS, SUBMIT THE MATTER IN WRITING TO THE ACTIVITY MANAGER.  THE
 ACTIVITY MANAGER WILL MEET WITH THE STEWARD AND THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE
 WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE GRIEVANCE.  THE ACTIVITY
 MANAGER SHALL GIVE THE EMPLOYEE AND THE UNION HIS WRITTEN ANSWER WITHIN
 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE MEETING.
 
    SECTION 10, STEP 3.  IF THE GRIEVANCE IS NOT SETTLED AT THE ACTIVITY
 LEVEL, THE EMPLOYEE MAY, WITHIN 7 WORKING DAYS, FORWARD THE GRIEVANCE TO
 THE GENERAL MANAGER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  THE GENERAL MANAGER WILL
 REVIEW THE GRIEVANCE, CONSULT WITH THE ACTIVITY MANAGER, EMPLOYEE AND
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE, AND GIVE THE EMPLOYEE AND THE UNION HIS WRITTEN
 ANSWER WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE GRIEVANCE.  THIS WILL
 BE SPECIFIED AS THE FINAL WRITTEN ANSWER.
 
    SECTION 11, STEP 4.  IF THE GRIEVANCE IS NOT SATISFACTORILY SETTLED,
 THE UNION OR THE EMPLOYER MAY REFER THE MATTER TO ARBITRATION.  ALL TIME
 LIMITS IN THIS ARTICLE MAY BE EXTENDED BY MUTUAL CONSENT.  FAILURE OF
 THE EMPLOYER TO OBSERVE THE TIME LIMITS SHALL ENTITLE THE UNION TO
 ADVANCE THE GRIEVANCE TO THE NEXT STEP.
 
    SECTION 12.  GRIEVANCES ON MATTERS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2, WHICH
 IMPACT ON MORE THAN THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING BY THE
 UNION DIRECTLY TO THE GENERAL MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.
 THE GENERAL MANAGER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AND THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE
 WILL MEET WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE GRIEVANCE TO
 DISCUSS THE GRIEVANCE.  THE GENERAL MANAGER SHALL GIVE THE UNION HIS
 WRITTEN ANSWER WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE MEETING.  IF THE
 GRIEVANCE IS NOT SETTLED BY THIS METHOD, THE UNION MAY REFER THE MATTER
 TO ARBITRATION.  NOTHING HEREIN WILL PRECLUDE EITHER PARTY FROM
 ATTEMPTING TO SETTLE SUCH GRIEVANCES INFORMALLY AT THE APPROPRIATE
 LEVEL.
 
    /1/ THE REVIEW PROVISIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS PROPOSAL ARE SET FORTH
 IN AN APPENDIX TO THIS DECISION.
 
    /2/ THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, SEC.
 7106 (92 STAT. 1198) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    (A) TO HIRE, ASSIGN, DIRECT, LAYOFF, AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
 AGENCY, OR TO SUSPEND,
 
    REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES . . .
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE
 IN EXERCISING ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION . . .
 
    /3/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
 PROPOSAL.
 
    /4/ SECTION 7218 OF THE SENATE BILL PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7218.  BASIC PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENTS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE THE
 PARTIES FROM NEGOTIATING--
 
    (1) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ITS
 AUTHORITY TO DECIDE OR ACT
 
    IN MATTERS RESERVED UNDER SUCH SUBSECTION;  OR
 
    (2) APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT'S
 
    EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE OR ACT IN MATTERS RESERVED UNDER
 SUCH SUBSECTION, EXCEPT
 
    THAT SUCH NEGOTIATIONS SHALL NOT UNREASONABLY DELAY THE EXERCISE BY
 MANAGEMENT OF ITS
 
    AUTHORITY TO DECIDE OR ACT, AND SUCH PROCEDURES AND ARRANGEMENTS
 SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
 
    PROVISIONS OF ANY LAW OR REGULATION DESCRIBED IN 7215(C) OF THIS
 TITLE, AND SHALL NOT HAVE THE
 
    EFFECT OF NEGATING THE AUTHORITY RESERVED UNDER SUBSECTION (A).
 
    /5/ THE JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE
 STATED, IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED
 AND SIGNED INTO LAW, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    3.  SENATE SECTION 7218(B) PROVIDES THAT NEGOTIATIONS ON PROCEDURES
 GOVERNING THE EXERCISE
 
    OF AUTHORITY RESERVED TO MANAGEMENT SHALL NOT UNREASONABLY DELAY THE
 EXERCISE BY MANAGEMENT OF
 
    ITS AUTHORITY TO ACT ON SUCH MATTERS.  ANY NEGOTIATIONS ON PROCEDURES
 GOVERNING MATTERS
 
    OTHERWISE RESERVED TO AGENCY DISCRETION BY SUBSECTION (A) MAY NOT
 HAVE THE EFFECT OF ACTUALLY
 
    NEGATING THE AUTHORITY AS RESERVED TO THE AGENCY BY SUBSECTION (A).
 THERE ARE NO COMPARABLE
 
    HOUSE PROVISIONS.
 
    THE CONFERENCE REPORT DELETES THESE PROVISIONS.  HOWEVER, THE
 CONFEREES WISH TO EMPHASIZE
 
    THAT NEGOTIATIONS ON SUCH PROCEDURES SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED IN A WAY
 THAT PREVENTS THE AGENCY
 
    FROM ACTING AT ALL, OR IN A WAY THAT PREVENTS THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEGOTIATING
 
    FULLY ON PROCEDURES.  . . .
 
    S. REP. NO. 95-1272, 95TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 158(19789 SEE ALSO THE
 STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FORD OF MICHIGAN ON THE HOUSE FLOOR DURING
 DEBATE ON THE "UDALL SUBSTITUTE.  124 CONG. REC. H9650 (DAILY ED. SEPT.
 13, 1978).
 
    /6/ CF. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FORD OF MICHIGAN WITH
 RESPECT TO SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE:
 
    A PRINCIPAL GOAL IN REVISING THE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS CLAUSE IS TO
 CHANGE THE CURRENT
 
    SITUATION AND, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, ENCOURAGE BOTH PARTIES TO WORK OUT
 THEIR DIFFERENCES IN
 
    NEGOTIATION.
 
    124 CONG. REC. H9649 (DAILY ED. SEPT. 13, 1978).
 
    /7/ THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING S. 2640 STATED THE
 FOLLOWING:
 
    ONE OF THE CENTRAL TASKS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM BILL IS SIMPLE
 TO EXPRESS BUT
 
    DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE:  ALLOW CIVIL SERVANTS TO BE ABLE TO BE HIRED
 AND FIRED MORE EASILY, BUT
 
    FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.  THIS BALANCED BILL SHOULD HELP TO ACCOMPLISH
 THAT OBJECTIVE.  IT IS AN
 
    IMPORTANT STEP TOWARD MAKING THE GOVERNMENT MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE
 ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
 
    AMERICAN PEOPLE.
 
    S. REP. NO. 95-989, 95TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4(1978).  SEE ALSO H.R.
 REP. NO. 95-1403, 95TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2-4(1978).
 
    /8/ IN INTRODUCING THE AMENDMENT (THE "UDALL SUBSTITUTE") WHICH
 BECAME THE FINAL HOUSE VERSION OF TITLE VII AND WHICH, AS RELEVANT
 HEREIN, WAS ENACTED AND SIGNED INTO LAW, CONGRESSMAN UDALL STATED AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS . . . GAIN IN MY SUBSTITUTE SOME
 GUARANTEES ABOUT PROCEDURES
 
    THAT MANAGEMENT MUST FOLLOW.  THEY GET TO ARBITRATE SOME THINGS THAT
 NOW GO THROUGH A
 
    TORTUROUS APPEAL PROCESS-- THINGS INVOLVING VARIOUS LABOR GRIEVANCES.
 
    IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO VIEW THIS TITLE VII OR MY SUBSTITUTE AS SOME
 KIND OF A LABOR BILL
 
    THAT IS ATTACHED TO AN UNRELATED BILL DEALING WITH MANAGEMENT
 PREROGATIVES IN THE FEDERAL
 
    SERVICE.  THIS IS HOW I VIEW WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE:  IT MOVES
 TO MEET SOME OF THE
 
    LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE UNIONS AS AN INTEGRAL
 PART OF WHAT IS BASICALLY A
 
    BILL TO GIVE MANAGEMENT THE POWER TO MANAGE AND THE FLEXIBILITY THAT
 IT NEEDS.
 
    BUT I SAY THIS IN TWO RESPECTS.  ONE, IT GIVES SOME BALANCE.  WE ARE
 SAYING TO THE FEDERAL
 
    EMPLOYEES THAT WE ARE GOING TO GIVE MANAGEMENT SOME BROAD NEW RIGHTS
 HERE IN THIS LEGISLATION,
 
    WE ARE GOING TO ENABLE THEM TO MOVE.  AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS ARE
 SAYING, IN TURN, THAT
 
    THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE A MORE INDEPENDENT, SECURE POSITION FROM
 WHICH TO DEAL WITH
 
    MANAGEMENT AS IT OPERATES UNDER THIS NEW FREEDOM IN THE BILL.
 
    SECOND, THE ARBITRATION PROVISION I VIEW AS MUCH OF A GAIN FOR
 MANAGEMENT AS FOR
 
    LABOR.  THE FEDERAL MANAGERS NOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH
 DIFFICULT, COMPLEX APPEAL
 
    PROCEDURES, WILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THEM TO ARBITRATION, AND THIS IS A
 GAIN FOR MANAGEMENT.
 
    124 CONG.REC. H9633 (DAILY ED. SEPT. 13, 1978).  CONGRESSMAN FORD OF
 MICHIGAN, A PROPONENT OF THE "UDALL SUBSTITUTE," ALSO STATED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    I SHOULD SAY THAT I HAVE TRIED TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE EFFORTS OF THE
 ADMINISTRATION
 
    BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE PURPOSES STATED BY THE PRESIDENT, WHEN HE
 SENT THE LEGISLATION TO US,
 
    ARE PURPOSES WE CAN ALL AGREE WITH.  BUT, AS I STATED BEFORE, IN
 ATTEMPTING TO GIVE THE
 
    EXECUTIVE BRANCH GREATER FLEXIBILITY AND GREATER POWER IN TERMS OF
 THEIR ABILITY TO MANAGE THE
 
    FEDERAL WORK FORCE WE HAVE IN FACT, IF WE DID NOTHING MORE THAN THAT,
 CHANGED THE BALANCE THAT
 
    HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES'
 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
 
    THEIR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, VIS-A-VIS THE POWERS AND PREROGATIVE OF
 MANAGEMENT.
 
    FOR THIS REASON, WHILE CONSIDERING THE INCREASED POWERS FOR
 MANAGEMENT, WE ALWAYS HAD IN
 
    MIND THAT WE WOULD PUT TOGETHER A TOTALITY HERE, A TOTAL PACKAGE THAT
 WE HOPED-- AND OBVIOUSLY
 
    WE HAD GREAT DISAGREEMENT DURING THE MONTHS THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED
 THIS, ON JUST WHAT THE
 
    FINAL PRODUCT SHOULD LOOK LIKE-- THAT WE HOPED WOULD REPRESENT A FAIR
 PACKAGE OF BALANCED
 
    AUTHORITY FOR MANAGEMENT, BALANCED WITH A FAIR PROTECTION FOR AT
 LEAST THE EXISTING RIGHTS THE
 
    EMPLOYEES HAVE.
 
    124 CONG.REC. H9646 (DAILY ED. SEPT. 13, 1978).
 
    /9/ WITH REGARD