Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia



[ v02 p872 ]
02:0872(108)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 108
 
 MR. LOUIS S. NARDOZI
 CHAIRMAN, CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL
 P.O. BOX 1155
 PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23704
 
                                RE:  TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
                                     EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL
                                     AND NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
                                     PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, Case No. 
                                     0-NG-256
 
 DEAR MR. NARDOZI:
 
    THIS REFERS TO THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 CASE.  AS PRESENTED THEREIN, THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL PROPOSED GENERALLY TO NEGOTIATE THE ACTIVITY'S
 DIRECTIVE FROM ITS SHOP SUPERINTENDENTS TO ITS FOREMEN CONCERNING THE
 MONITORING OF EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY.  FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW,
 THE UNION'S APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
    UNDER ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY PRECEDENT, 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. 25, A PETITION FOR
 REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A PROPOSAL
 SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE
 AUTHORITY TO RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION THEREON DOES NOT MEET THE
 CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT.
 1205 ET SEQ. (1978) AND SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.
 
    IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE INSTANT APPEAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY
 IDENTICAL TO THE CASE CITED.  THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS FULLY SET FORTH
 IN THAT DECISION, THE INSTANT APPEAL SIMILARLY DOES NOT MEET THE
 CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND
 SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, AND APART
 FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
 
    ADDITIONALLY, INSOFAR AS IT APPEARS THAT THE ESSENCE OF THE UNION'S
 ALLEGATIONS RELATES TO AN ALLEGED UNILATERAL CHANGE IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS AND A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON ITS IMPACT, THE PROPER FORUM IN
 WHICH TO RAISE THESE ISSUES IS NOT A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL, BUT RATHER
 WOULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF
 THE STATUTE.  IN THIS REGARD, RESOLUTION OF THE INSTANT DISPUTE IS
 DEPENDENT UPON THE RESOLUTION OF FACTUAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE PARTIES'
 CONDUCT.  SUCH FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH
 USE OF THE INVESTIGATORY AND FORMAL HEARING PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN PART
 2423 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH GOVERN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS (45 F.R.  3506 ET SEQ. (1980)).
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY.
 
                                SINCERELY,
 
                           SAMUEL A. CHAITOV