National Labor Relations Board Union (Labor Organization) and National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Activity) 

 



[ v03 p508 ]
03:0508(81)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 81
 
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNION
 (Labor Organization)
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-147
 
                      DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    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.).
 
                            PRELIMINARY MATTER
 
    THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER FILED A PETITION
 FOR REVIEW BY THE AUTHORITY OF TWO PROPOSALS WHICH HAD BEEN ALLEGED BY
 THE ACTIVITY TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER FEDERAL
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), 5 U.S.C.  7101 ET SEQ.
  SUBSEQUENTLY, ON MAY 27, 1980, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION FILED AN
 AMENDMENT TO THE PETITION FOR REVIEW REQUESTING THAT IT BE PERMITTED TO
 WITHDRAW ITS REQUEST THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE A DECISION ON THE
 NEGOTIABILITY OF ITS "BROADEST POSSIBLE GROUP" PROPOSAL.  THE LABOR
 ORGANIZATION STATES THAT IT HAS MODIFIED ITS POSITION WITH RESPECT TO
 THAT PROPOSAL AND THAT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED WITH THE ACTIVITY ON
 THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL.  THE UNION CONTINUES TO REQUEST AN AUTHORITY
 DECISION CONCERNING THE NEGOTIABILITY OF ITS "NO DUAL LODGING EXPENSE"
 PROPOSAL.
 
    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONCERNING THE
 SUB SUBJECT OF THE "BROADEST POSSIBLE GROUP" PROPOSAL, THE REQUEST BY
 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO AMEND ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED.
 
                              UNION PROPOSAL
 
    "NO DUAL LODGING EXPENSE" PROPOSAL
 
    CONSISTENT WITH OPERATING NEEDS, EMPLOYEES DETAILED (TO TEMPORARY
 DUTY STATIONS AWAY FROM
 
    THEIR PERMANENT DUTY STATIONS) PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THIS
 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, WILL NOT
 
    BE OBLIGED TO INCUR OR SUFFER DUAL LODGING EXPENSES WHICH WOULD CAUSE
 THEIR TOTAL TRAVEL
 
    EXPENSES FOR ANY PARTICULAR DAY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM $50 PER DIEM
 RATE.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS A MATTER
 WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE OR, AS ALLEGED BY
 THE AGENCY, IS EXCLUDED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN BY REASON OF
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE.  /1/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT VIOLATE SECTION 7106 OF THE
 STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, 45 FED. REG.  3513(1980), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION
 THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET
 ASIDE.  /2/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY