American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1760 (Union) and Social Security Administration, Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, Northeastern Program Service Center, Flushing, New York (Activity) 



[ v02 p779 ]
02:0779(99)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 99
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1760
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS
 INSURANCE, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
 CENTER, FLUSHING, NEW YORK
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-168
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL
 
    THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
 AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ.).
 
    THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF EMPLOYEES AT
 THE ACTIVITY.  THE UNION AND THE ACTIVITY ARE PARTIES TO A MULTI-CENTER
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  DURING THE TERM OF THAT AGREEMENT, THE
 ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF ITS DECISION TO ASSIGN CERTAIN TEMPORARY
 EMPLOYEES TO THE MAILROOM, TO ASSIGN "TERMINAL DIGITS" WORK TO UNION
 OFFICIALS AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND TO AUDIT A RANDOM
 SAMPLE OF THE WORK OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.  THE UNION THEREAFTER REQUESTED
 AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER WITH REGARD TO THE FOREGOING PROPOSED
 CHANGES.  THE ACTIVITY REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE WITH REGARD TO THE FOREGOING
 DECISIONS, WHICH WERE ASSERTED TO BE WITHIN MANAGEMENT'S RESERVED RIGHTS
 AND THEREFORE NONNEGOTIABLE, BUT DID MEET AND CONFER WITH THE UNION
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING SUCH DECISIONS AND THE
 ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEREBY.  THE UNION THEN
 FILED THE INSTANT NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY.
 
    IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION, THE AGENCY NOTED, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
 THAT THE UNION HAD GENERALLY FAILED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PROPOSALS TO THE
 ACTIVITY DURING THE COURSE OF MID-TERM BARGAINING BETWEEN THE PARTIES
 AND THEREFORE HAD FAILED TO SET FORTH ANY SPECIFIC PROPOSALS IN ITS
 PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY.  IN THIS LATTER REGARD,
 THE AGENCY FURTHER STATED THAT THE AUTHORITY CANNOT RENDER A
 NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION "UNLESS IT KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE UNION'S
 PROPOSAL IS," AND THAT THE UNION'S APPEAL IS THEREFORE DEFECTIVE UNDER
 THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THAT BASIS.  IN
 RESPONSE, THE UNION DID NOT DISPUTE THE LACK OF WRITTEN PROPOSALS BUT
 ASSERTED THAT THE ACTIVITY "WAS FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE UNION'S
 PROPOSALS" AND HAD REFUSED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN PROPOSALS TO THE UNION OR
 TO REDUCE ANY MID-TERM AGREEMENTS TO WRITING.
 
    IN ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF
 ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. O-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39 (DEC. 28, 1979),
 REPORT NO.