Association of Civilian Technicians, Inc., Pennsylvania State Council (Union) and Adjutant General, Department of Military Affairs, Pennsylvania (Agency)
[ v04 p77 ]
04:0077(10)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
4 FLRA No. 10
ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, INC.,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL
Union
and
ADJUTANT GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
MILITARY AFFAIRS, PENNSYLVANIA
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-10
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.).
UNION PROPOSAL
SECTION 6.4 ANNOUNCEMENTS AND AREA OF CONSIDERATION
(A) POSITION VACANCY AND MERIT PROMOTION ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL HAVE A
MINIMUM OPEN PERIOD OF
FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS. TECHNICIANS ON LEAVE, IN SCHOOL OR
TRAINING STATUS, OR ABSENT
FROM THEIR NORMAL WORK LOCATION FOR ANY OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSE
DURING THE OPEN PERIOD, AND
WHO POSSESS THE BASIC QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNOUNCED POSITION, WILL
BE NOTIFIED BY HIS
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OF THE POSITION VACANCY AND BE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR THE
POSITION. /1/
(B) EXCEPTED POSITIONS
(1) THE INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO QUALIFIED CURRENTLY
EMPLOYED TECHNICIANS
WORKING FOR THE SENIOR TECHNICIAN IN WHOSE AREA THE VACANCY EXISTS.
(2) IF THERE ARE NO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FROM (1), THEN QUALIFIED
CURRENTLY EMPLOYED TECHNICIANS WILL BE CONSIDERED.
(3) IF THERE ARE NO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FROM (2), THE QUALIFIED
MEMBERS OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA ARMY/AIR NATIONAL GUARD WILL BE CONSIDERED.
(4) IF THERE ARE NO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FROM (3), THEN QUALIFIED
CURRENTLY EMPLOYED TECHNICIANS FROM OTHER STATES WILL BE CONSIDERED.
(5) IF THERE ARE NO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FROM (4), THEN QUALIFIED
APPLICANTS, WILLING AND
ELIGIBLE TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ARMY/AIR NATIONAL
GUARD, WILL BE CONSIDERED.
QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL CONCERNING ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR VACANT EXCEPTED SERVICE POSITIONS IN
THE BARGAINING UNIT IS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW (5 U.S.C.
7106(A)(2)(C) AND 5 U.S.C. 2301(B)(1) OR GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR
REGULATION (FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL LETTER 335-12 (DEC. 29, 1978)), AS
ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
OPINION
CONCLUSION: THE PROPOSAL IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW AND
THE FPM PROVISION RELIED UPON BY THE AGENCY IS INAPPLICABLE.
ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10) THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL IS
NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE. /2/
REASONS: THE AGENCY CONSTRUES THE PROPOSAL AS IMPOSING A MANDATORY
RANK ORDER PREFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES TO
FILL UNIT VACANCIES TO WHICH THE PROPOSAL WOULD APPLY. CONSEQUENTLY, IT
TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE PROPOSAL VIOLATES SECTION 7106 (A)(2)(C) OF
THE STATUTE /3/ WHICH RESERVES TO MANAGEMENT THE RIGHT TO MAKE
SELECTIONS, AS FOLLOWS:
SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.
(A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
. . . .
(2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
. . . .
(C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENTS FROM--
(I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION; OR
(II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE . . .
IN ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS DELAWARE CHAPTER AND NATIONAL
GUARD BUREAU, DELAWARE NATIONAL GUARD, 3 FLRA NO. 9 (1980), THE
AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE FOLLOWING UNION PROPOSAL DID NOT CONFLICT WITH
SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE:
SECTION 3. POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT-- WHEN POSITIONS ARE ANNOUNCED,
DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL BE THROUGHOUT THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION AND WILL
CONTAIN, AS A MINIMUM, THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
. . . .
E. AREA OF CONSIDERATION AS FOLLOWS: (1) 1ST AREA-- ALL CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS (2) 2ND AREA--
ALL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD (3) 3RD AREA-- ALL OTHERS
IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROPOSAL WAS WITHIN
THE DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE IT DID NOT VIOLATE MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO
MAKE SELECTIONS FROM AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES OR
FROM ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE, THE AUTHORITY RELIED ON ITS DECISION
IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 331 AND VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, PERRY POINT, MARYLAND, 2 FLRA NO. 59 (1980),
STATING THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT DECISION AS FOLLOWS:
(THE) PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ONLY THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN
TO EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
BARGAINING UNIT IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS BUT WOULD NOT PREVENT
MANAGEMENT FROM CONSIDERING
OTHER APPLICANTS, OR EXPANDING THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION ONCE
BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WERE
CONSIDERED, OR USING ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE IN FILLING SUCH
VACANCIES, DID NOT PREVENT
MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RESERVED RIGHT TO SELECT.
IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE UNION STATES AS FOLLOWS: /4/
(THE) AGENCY INCORRECTLY VIEWS THE UNION'S PROPOSAL AS AN ATTEMPT TO
LIMIT MANAGEMENT'S
RIGHT OF SELECTION . . . . WE AGREE THAT SELECTION IS A MANAGEMENT
RIGHT AND THE PROPOSAL DOES
NOT PRECLUDE THE SELECTING OFFICIAL FROM REFUSING TO SELECT AND THEN
PROCEEDING TO THE
SUCCEEDING STEP. THE PROCEDURE, ATTEMPTED TO BE BARGAINED, DOES NOT
ESTABLISH A PREFERENCE--
IT MERELY PROVIDES FOR FULL CONSIDERATION OF QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES.
THUS, IN ALL RELEVANT RESPECTS, THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IN THE PRESENT
CASE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE HELD NEGOTIABLE IN DELAWARE
NATIONAL GUARD. CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN GREATER
DETAIL IN THAT DECISION, IT MERELY PROVIDES A PROCEDURE FOR DEFINING THE
INITIAL AREA OF CONSIDERATION AND EXPANSION OF THAT AREA OF
CONSIDERATION WHEN FILLING THE VACANCIES INVOLVED, A MATTER WHICH DOES
NOT CONFLICT WITH SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE. THE PROCEDURE
WOULD NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL TO EXERCISE ITS
STATUTORY Y AUTHORITY /5/ AND IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER
SECTION 7106(B)(2). /6/
THE AGENCY FURTHER CONTENDS THE PROPOSAL WOULD VIOLATE SECTION
2301(B)(1) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT, /7/ WHICH PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS:
SEC. 2301. MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES.
. . . .
(B) FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED CONSISTENT
WITH THE FOLLOWING MERIT
SYSTEM PRINCIPLES:
(1) RECRUITMENT SHOULD BE FROM QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS FROM APPROPRIATE
SOURCES IN AN
ENDEAVOR TO ACHIEVE WORK FORCE FROM ALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY, AND
SELECTION AND ADVANCEMENT
SHOULD BE DETERMINED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF RELATIVE ABILITY,
KNOWLEDGE, AND SKILLS, AFTER
FAIR AND OPEN COMPETITION WHICH ASSURES THAT ALL RECEIVE EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY.
IN RESPECT TO SECTION 2301, IT IS NOTED THAT THE JOINT EXPLANATORY
STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE CONTAINED IN THE CONFERENCE
REPORT THAT ACCOMPANIED THE VERSION OF THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED AND
SIGNED INTO LAW STATED AS FOLLOWS (AT 128 OF THE REPORT):
UNLESS A LAW, RULE OR REGULATION IMPLEMENTING OR DIRECTLY CONCERNING
THE PRINCIPLES IS
VIOLATED (AS UNDER SECTION 2302(B)(11)), THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES
MAY NOT BE MADE THE BASIS
OF A LEGAL ACTION BY AN EMPLOYEE OR AN AGENCY.
S. REP. NO. 95-1272, 95TH CONG., 2D. SESS. 158 (1978).
IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, NOTHING EITHER IN THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE
OF THE PROPOSAL OR IN THE RECORD OF THE CASE AS TO THE INTENDED MEANING
OF THE LANGUAGE WOULD REQUIRE THE PROPOSAL, IF ADOPTED, TO BE
IMPLEMENTED AND APPLIED IN A DISCRIMINATORY OR ANY OTHER MANNER
INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2301(B)(1). ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS
UPON WHICH TO SUSTAIN THE AGENCY CONTENTION TO THE CONTRARY AND IT MUST
BE SET ASIDE.
FINALLY, AS TO THE AGENCY CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD VIOLATE
THE "REVISED MERIT PROMOTION POLICY" CONTAINED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL
MANUAL (FPM) LETTER 335-12 (DEC. 29, 1978, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH WERE
PUBLISHED IN FPM CHAPTER 335, (MAY 16, 1979), THE FPM PROVISIONS RELIED
UPON BY THE AGENCY, APPLY ONLY TO THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE. /8/ THE
PROPOSAL IN DISPUTE, HOWEVER, EXPRESSLY APPLIES ONLY TO POSITIONS IN THE
EXCEPTED SERVICE. HENCE, THE FPM PROVISIONS RELIED UPON ARE
INAPPLICABLE AND MAY NOT STAND AS A BAR TO NEGOTIATIONS ON THE DISPUTED
PROPOSAL IN THE PRESENT CASE.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 25, 1980
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION THE AGENCY, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C.
7117(C)(3)(A)(I) OF THE STATUTE, WITHDREW ITS ALLEGATION OF
NONNEGOTIABILITY AS TO SECTION (A) OF THE PROPOSAL. SECTION (B) REMAINS
IN DISPUTE, HOWEVER, AND IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS DECISION.
/2/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
PROPOSAL.
/3/ 5 U.S.C. 7106(A)(2)(C)
/4/ UNION RESPONSE TO AGENCY STATEMENT OF POSITION, AT 3.
/5/ CF. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, 2 FLRA NO. 33 (1980).
/6/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:
SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.
. . . .
(B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION FROM
NEGOTIATING--
. . . .
(2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE
IN EXERCISING ANY
AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION . . . .
/7/ 5 U.S.C. 2301(B)(1).
/8/ 5 C.F.R. 210.101(B)(1979).