National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1451 (Labor Organization) and Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida (Activity) 

 



[ v03 p88 ]
03:0088(14)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 14
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451
 (Labor Organization)
 
 and
 
 NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO,
 FLORIDA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-75
 
                     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.).
 
                              UNION PROPOSAL
 
    EACH PARTY WILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) DESIGNATED
 REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 
    NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR ATTENDANCE OF ALL
 REPRESENTATIVES TO BE
 
    PRESENT AT ANY SPECIFIC NEGOTIATING SESSION.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL PERTAINS TO MATTERS
 WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVITY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS MATTERS WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN OF THE ACTIVITY.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION
 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG.
 3513(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  SECTION 7103(A)(12) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES "COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING" AS "THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO . . . BARGAIN IN A
 GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES . . . " THUS, THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED
 BY SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND
 BEYOND MATTERS DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL CONCERNS MATTERS WHICH ARE BEYOND THOSE
 DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES.  IT WOULD REQUIRE MANAGEMENT TO
 DESIGNATE A PARTICULAR NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES TO NEGOTIATIONS.  THESE
 REPRESENTATIVES WOULD NOT, THEMSELVES, BE UNIT EMPLOYEES.  /1/ MOREOVER,
 THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES MANAGEMENT CHOOSES TO DESIGNATE TO CARRY
 OUT ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE IS NOT A MATTER DIRECTLY
 RELATED TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  /2/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, INSOFAR AS THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE MANAGEMENT
 TO DESIGNATE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR NEGOTIATIONS, THE
 PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.  /3/
 THEREFORE, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION TO THAT EFFECT IS HEREBY SUSTAINED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 28, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAIZER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                     ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR REVIEW
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A REQUEST BY NATIONAL
 FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 (THE UNION) FOR
 RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 AND NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO,
 FLORIDA, 3 FLRA NO. 14.  THE ACTIVITY FILED NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
 MOTION.
 
    ON JUNE 26, 1980, A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
 OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE UNION.  SAID APPEAL IS
 CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUTHORITY IS NOW
 ESTOPPED FROM CONDUCTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER.  GREATER
 BOSTON TELEVISION CORP. V. F.C.C., 149 U.S.APP D.C. 322, 337, 463 F.2D
 268, 283(1971), CERT. DENIED, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S.CT. 2042, 32 L.ED.2D
 338(1972).
 
    ACCORDINGLY, AS A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PENDING BEFORE THE
 COURT, THE UNION'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS HEREBY DENIED.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY
 
    ISSUED, WASH