International Association of Fire Fighters, Local F-48, AFL-CIO (Union) and Naval Support Activity, Mare Island Station, California (Activity)



[ v03 p489 ]
03:0489(76)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 76
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-48, AFL-CIO
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY
 MARE ISLAND STATION, CALIFORNIA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-139
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS 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 I
 
    ARTICLE 22.5 SATURDAY AND SUNDAY WORK.  WORK ON SUNDAY WILL BE
 ARRANGED TO INSURE EMPLOYEES
 
    COMMENCE STAND-BY STATUS AT 1100 HOURS.  EMERGENCIES EXPECTED.  WORK
 ON SUNDAY WILL NOT BE
 
    SCHEDULED, GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT SUNDAY IS A RELIGIOUS DAY OF REST
 FOR MANY EMPLOYEES.  THE
 
    ONLY WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON SUNDAY WILL BE MORNING EQUIPMENT
 INSPECTION AND LIGHT STATION
 
    CLEAN-UP, AND THAT OF AN EMERGENCY AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS
 ARTICLE.
 
    ARTICLE 22.6 WORK ON HOLIDAYS.  NO WORK EXCEPT THAT OF AN EMERGENCY,
 AS DESCRIBED IN
 
    SECTION 3 OF THIS ARTICLE.  THE ONLY WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON NATIONAL
 HOLIDAYS ARE THAT OF
 
    MORNING EQUIPMENT INSPECTION AND LIGHT STATION CLEAN-UP.
 
    UNION'S HAND WRITTEN PROPOSAL (IN RELEVANT PART) " . . .  (W)ORK AND
 TRAINING ASSIGNMENTS
 
    SHALL NOT EXCEED 3 HRS. ON NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS."
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL FALLS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 ASSIGN UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, OR
 WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, THE PROPOSAL VIOLATES SECTION 7106(A)
 OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL I CONFLICTS WITH SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF
 THE STATUTE. /1/ ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED. REG. 3482 ET SEQ. (1980)),
 THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    REASON:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A
 PROPOSAL CONCERNING WORK ON HOLIDAYS, SATURDAYS, AND SUNDAYS IN
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-61 AND PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, 3 FLRA NO. 66 (O-NG-6), WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT
 SUCH A PROPOSAL WOULD RESTRICT MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT "TO ASSIGN WORK WITHIN
 THE MEANING OF SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B)." THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS FULLY
 SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INSTANT
 PROPOSAL CONFLICTS WITH MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK.  ACCORDINGLY,
 THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN MUST BE SUSTAINED.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL II
 
    ARTICLE 29.1 IN VIEW OF SEASONAL CHANGES IN WEATHER CONDITIONS,
 MANAGEMENT WILL ENDEAVOR TO
 
    SCHEDULE TRAINING SO WINTERTIME TRAINING WILL CONSIST OF THOSE ITEMS
 THAT REQUIRE CLASS ROOM
 
    SESSIONS, I.E., HYDRAULICS, FIRST AID, ROPE AND FORCIBLE ENTRY
 PRACTICES, FIRE EXTINGUISHER
 
    PRACTICES, SALVAGE, AND PRE-FIRE PLANNING, ETC.  SUMMERTIME TRAINING
 REQUIRING OUTDOOR
 
    PERFORMANCE OF SKILLS SUCH AS HOSE LAYS, LADDER PRACTICES, PUMP
 OPERATION TRAINING, DRIVER
 
    TRAINING, ETC.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL FALLS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE, OR WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, THE
 PROPOSAL WOULD VIOLATE SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL II DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SECTION 7106(A)
 OF THE STATUTE BUT IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 THUS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. (1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATIONS
 THAT THE PROVISION IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /2/
 
    REASON:  ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT PROPOSAL APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR TO A
 PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE TRAINI