Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers, National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-144 (Union) and Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport Naval Base, Newport, Rhode Island (Activity)

 



[ v03 p179 ]
03:0179(24)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 24
 
 FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS
 AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-144
 Union
 
 and
 
 NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER,
 NEWPORT NAVAL BASE,
 NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-140
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL
 
    THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
 AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SEC. 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. 7101-7135).
 
    THE NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER, NEWPORT NAVAL BASE (THE
 ACTIVITY), DECIDED TO CONDUCT A POSITION REVIEW OF ITS GRADE 13 THROUGH
 15 POSITIONS.  FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-144 (THE UNION), REQUESTED
 THE ACTIVITY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSITION REVIEW AND TO
 DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVIEW UNTIL THE UNION HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 REVIEW THE INFORMATION.  THE PARTIES DISCUSSED THE POSITION REVIEW AT
 WHICH TIME THE UNION WAS TOLD THAT THE REVIEW WOULD BE CONDUCTED BY
 EMPLOYEES OF THE ACTIVITY AND AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND THAT THE
 POSITIONS TO BE REVIEWED WOULD BE SELECTED BY A RANDOM PROCESS.
 
    THE UNION FOLLOWED THE MEETING WITH A MEMORANDUM STATING THAT THE
 ACTIVITY HAD NOT RESPONDED TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE REVIEW
 AND REQUESTED TO NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE REVIEW ON EMPLOYEES.
 THE ACTIVITY SUPPLIED THE UNION WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE RANDOM
 SELECTION PROCESS BUT DENIED THE REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE.  THE UNION SENT
 ANOTHER MEMORANDUM RECOMMENDING TWO METHODS FOR RANDOMLY SELECTING
 POSITIONS FOR REVIEW AND STATING THAT NEGOTIATION ABOUT THE RANDOM
 SELECTION METHOD WOULD BE REQUESTED IF NEITHER UNION RECOMMENDATION
 WERE
 ACCEPTABLE.  THE ACTIVITY STATED THAT IT WOULD USE ITS PREVIOUSLY
 DEVELOPED RANDOM SELECTION METHOD AND THAT THE METHOD USED TO DIVIDE
 WORK ASSIGNMENTS BETWEEN OUTSIDE CONTRACT PERSONNEL AND ACTIVITY
 PERSONNEL IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.  THE UNION RESPONDED TWO DAYS LATER WITH A
 REQUEST THAT THE ACTIVITY STATE IN WRITING WHETHER IT WOULD NEGOTIATE
 ABOUT THE METHOD FOR RANDOMLY SELECTING POSITIONS FOR REVIEW, NOT THE
 PERSONNEL BY WHOM THE REVIEW WAS TO BE PERFORMED.  THE ACTIVITY DID NOT
 RESPOND.
 
    THE UNION FILED THE INSTANT NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY,
 EMPHASIZING THAT THE REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE DID NOT CONCERN THE PERSONNEL
 BY WHOM THE ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ITS POSITION REVIEW.  IN ITS STATEMENT OF
 POSITION, FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY THE ACTIVITY STATES, INTER ALIA, THAT
 THE POSITION REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT THE UNION'S APPEAL HAS
 THEREFORE BECOME MOOT.  THE UNION HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE ACTIVITY'S
 STATEMENT.
 
    UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH, IT IS CONCLUDED, AS THE AGENCY
 CONTENDED WITHOUT OBJ