National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 66 (Union) and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Kansas City Service Center, Kansas City, Missouri (Activity) 



[ v02 p320 ]
02:0320(40)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 40
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 CHAPTER 66
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 KANSAS CITY SERVICE CENTER,
 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-100
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL
 
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 66 (THE UNION) IS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF EMPLOYEES AT THE KANSAS CITY
 SERVICE CENTER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (THE ACTIVITY).  THE
 UNION AND THE ACTIVITY ARE PARTIES TO A MULTI-CENTER COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT UNIT EMPLOYEES WILL
 BE RANKED FOR PROMOTION ON THE BASIS OF SEVERAL "EVALUATION FACTORS"
 PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY MANAGEMENT, TO WHICH FACTORS WILL BE APPLIED
 "WEIGHTS" PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY MANAGEMENT, TO WHICH FACTORS WILL BE
 APPLIED "WEIGHTS" PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED WITH THE UNION.  THE AGREEMENT
 ALSO PROVIDES, IN ARTICLE 6, SECTION 7(G), THAT "(I)F THE EMPLOYER
 ELECTS TO CHANGE THE EVALUATION FACTORS, HE SHALL NOTIFY THE UNION," AND
 THAT "(I)F THE UNION INDICATES A DESIRE TO NEGOTIATE WEIGHTS FOR THE
 REVISED EVALUATION FACTORS, NEGOTIATIONS WILL BEGIN AS SOON AS
 PRACTICABLE."
 
    THE ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION THAT IT INTENDED TO CHANGE THE
 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR THE GS-592-8 TAX EXAMINER WORKING LEADER
 POSITION, WHEREUPON THE UNION REQUESTED TO NEGOTIATE THE WEIGHTS
 ASSIGNED TO THOSE FACTORS.  THE ACTIVITY DECLINED TO NEGOTIATE, ALLEGING
 THAT THE UNION'S REQUEST "CONCERNS MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO DIRECT OR
 ASSIGN WORK TO ITS EMPLOYEES WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO
 BARGAIN" UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE AND
 ADDITIONALLY ALLEGING THAT SUCH EVALUATION FACTORS AND THE WEIGHTS
 ASSIGNED THEM WERE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117.
 
    THE UNION THEN FILED ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE AUTHORITY,
 ASSERTING PRINCIPALLY THAT "THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE IS SPECIFICALLY
 GRANTED BY ARTICLE 6, SECTION 7(G) OF THE (PARTIES') COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT." HOWEVER, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW NEITHER
 IDENTIFIED THE WEIGHTS WHICH IT SOUGHT TO APPLY TO THE EVALUATION
 FACTORS IN THIS CASE NOR DID IT OTHERWISE SET FORTH ANY SPECIFIC
 PROPOSAL FOR NEGOTIATION.
 
    PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW DISCLOSED
 CERTAIN DEFICIENCIES IN MEETING THE AUTHORITY'S APPLICABLE RULES OF
 PROCEDURE.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION WAS ADVISED BY AUTHORITY LETTER OF JULY 13,
 1979, THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ITS PETITION FAILED TO "INCLUDE A
 STATEMENT SETTING FORTH THE MATTERS PROPOSED TO BE NEGOTIATED AS
 SUBMITTED TO THE AGENCY," AND WAS GRANTED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1979, TO FILE
 WITH THE AUTHORITY ANY ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION CURING THIS DEFICIENCY.
 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (THE AGENCY) FILED ITS
 STATEMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY, DENYING THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS OBLIGATED TO
 NEGOTIATE THE WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO EVALUATION FACTORS, AND THE UNION
 FILED A RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT.  AT NO TIME, HOWEVER, DID
 THE UNION RESPOND TO THE AUTHORITY'S JULY 13, 1979, LETTER, NOR DID IT
 OTHERWISE INCLUDE IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT A SPECIFIC
 PROPOSAL FOR NEGOTIATION.  THE AGENCY HAS NOW FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS
 THE UNION'S PETITION, CITING THE UNION'S FAILURE TO SET FORTH A
 STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS PROPOSED TO BE NEGOTIATED.
 
    IN ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF
 ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. O-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39(DECEMBER 28,
 1979), REPORT NO.  , THE AUTHORITY DECIDED, WITH RESPECT TO A QUESTION
 SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT PRESENTED HERE, THAT A PETITION WHICH
 NEVER PRESENTED A PROPOSAL SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM
 AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY
 DECISION DID NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW.  FOR THE REASONS FULLY
 SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INSTANT
 PETITION DOES NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW PRESCRI